Thread: Why is "flip-flopping" a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Well personally I think people consider flip-flopping a bad thing because it means that they cannot pigeon-hole the person in question. We like to compartmentalise, and someone changing their mind on an issue throws out the bean count.

James.

Especially if the have been seen to endorse all three halves of an issue in a short period of time depending upon their audience.

Since he is running for the office and hasn't yet been elected, I want to know what HIS core beliefs are! Not what his polling data says he ought to tell THIS particular crowd.

Originally Posted by Navaja

What's bad is "Both ways Barack"

Try to keep the thread neutral. To balance things out: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops

McCains flip flops are at 70, and some of them are fairly major, like not being able to vote for his own immigration bill, and his big reversal on the Bush tax cuts. He also caved big time on torture.

Obama's biggest flip flops have probably been of public finance and NAFTA, but even so, he seems a ton more stable than McCain (who I think might actually be having trouble remembering what his stances are).

Interestingly, the Obama folks rarely talk about the McCain moving stances, because they're not going tremendously negative. McCain is starting to go so negative that he's coming across as a whiner.

Originally Posted by ScottS

Try to keep the thread neutral. To balance things out: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops

McCains flip flops are at 70, and some of them are fairly major, like not being able to vote for his own immigration bill, and his big reversal on the Bush tax cuts. He also caved big time on torture.

Obama's biggest flip flops have probably been of public finance and NAFTA, but even so, he seems a ton more stable than McCain (who I think might actually be having trouble remembering what his stances are).

Interestingly, the Obama folks rarely talk about the McCain moving stances, because they're not going tremendously negative. McCain is starting to go so negative that he's coming across as a whiner.

+1. I don't like Obama, but I really don't like the big negative campaign push by McCain. I understand the need to pull a few skeletons out of the closet from time to time, but for it to be a constant negative push should just be embarrassing to McCain. At least it's a clear picture of who he is as a person- nothing special with nothing personally getting him anywhere, so he may as well make Obama look bad so people will vote lesser of two evils.

"...so people will vote lesser of two evils."

Quick Orange


There is a lot to what you say! Sadly, we've had to do that too many times in the last twenty years.
The fact is that "The lesser of two evils," is STILL evil!

There's much already said here I agree with.
The crux of the thing to me, is that there is a large difference between flip-flopping and changing one's views after careful consideration.
flip-floppers generally follow polls or the media closely, and change their opinion to match what they believe is the more popular opinion.
Those who change their opinions are a little different IMHO.
Personally I want to know what a candidate is made of/how he feels on issues I find important; he may have to make serious decisions concerning me and my countrymen wrt those issues, after all.
We aren't a democracy but a representative republic. If the candidates only did what their current audience at the time wanted, we could replace all of congress with an automated voting system and let all the citizens vote on every issue. Since we aren't one, we vote for the person we think best capable of making those decisions on our behalf. With a flip-flopping candidate, he may seem to support ideas one agrees with, but ultimately no true decision can be made wrt if the candidate will or will not properly represent the people who voted for him.

John P.

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

"...so people will vote lesser of two evils."

Quick Orange


There is a lot to what you say! Sadly, we've had to do that too many times in the last twenty years.
The fact is that "The lesser of two evils," is STILL evil!

And that is why I will vote 3rd party, some people say "well, you cant win!" but what kind of prize(booby) do I get voting for the mainstream candidates? At least I will know that I've done the best that could be done.

IMHO the party system is past its usefulness. It has become almost coercion on a massive scale, I think. Rather than vote for the candidate we like, the big parties tell us "but you are only throwing your vote away" and strong arm many into voting for the same canned hams they keep giving us time and again.
I have to look carefully at the different candidates out there, because at the moment I dislike both of the front runners, albeit for differing reasons. Except for that globalist thing. Both of them have that going against them, as does our current President for that matter. I still agree with him on some issues, but that takes away from them hugely IMHO.


John P.

According to Drudge, McCain just flip flopped on his previous pledge not to raise taxes:

" WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain drew a sharp rebuke Monday from conservatives after he signaled an openness to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, contrary to previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind.
Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security, saying: "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table."
He went a step farther Sunday with his reponse on a nationally televised talk show to a question about payroll tax increases.
"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."
That comment drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."
Indeed, McCain frequently has promised not to raise taxes.
At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.
"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."

Well, everybody knows how to vote for the ideal candidate, unfortunately that really doesn't exist. So at the end it's a representative democracy at work - the candidate with most support wins and then gets some time to do things that may be unpopular.

The question that is interesting to me is - does this system improve in the long term? But what is 'long term'? After all there's only roughly 200 years that this thing has been running - do you think overall it's getting better, or it's getting worse? Of course there is much idealization of the past, but if you try to look objectively at the political system, does it seem to be evolving in a positive direction or in a negative?

As far as flip-flopping goes, to me this seems to be the result of where the political system is right now. Like it or not negative campaigning is more powerful - just look at all these political threads and 'two evils' posts. It's much easier for us to be negative, but I don't think any of us has a magic recipe that would solve all the problems. I can look at a problem and all proposed solutions and say 'I don't like this' and 'I don't like this either', but at the end of the day I have to pick something.

So with this in mind the politicians are often in the position of choosing to either put a negative spin on whatever their opponent is doing, or their chances of winning are getting rather low. McCain of all people knows how this works and he would rather be the victmizer than the victim.

I would really like if people would be thinking critically except of just blindly buying whatever soundbites their favorite media serves them. Unfortunately from all I've seen that is not going to happen and the politicians who can raise most money will get elected. All I'm saying is that the politicians don't actually spin things in one way or another because they want to - they do it because it is necessary to get elected.