« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What's wrong with "flip-flopping"?
I have read, with some frustration, the accusations of switching positions which have been leveled at Obama. My responses:
1. Constant reminders of examples of McCain's flip-flops (why is this not being done?)
2. Re-configuring the term "flip-flop" to demonstrate the opposite, that a fixed, intransigent point of view is what we have suffered through for 8 years with the bush-league team, and, wouldn't it be more effective to have a leader who actually absorbs information ans adjusts his position accordingly.
Are the American people/spineless Democrats actually attracted to a dogmatic approach to complex, ever-changing situations?Whay do they allow this ridiculous charge to stand without an intelligent response? I am losing confidence in these caricatures of politicians.
Comments (5)
Nothing is wrong with "flip-flopping" electorally if it is done for a reason that makes sense to the majority public, that's called being a flexible and intelligent leader.
I believe it only hurt Kerry because the flip-flopping issue was about the war, and we were in the middle of a war, and that's where most people expect and want some consistency in vision. Even there, the accusation really only resounded with a few late date undecideds, who, when they went into the voting booth, decided to give George Bush one more chance to do the war right, and "not change horses in mid stream." Those were enough in number to hurt.
It remains to be seen whether the "flip-flop" on the FISA bill filibuster promise will hurt Obama. There's a lot of months to go, a lot of national security issues could become news during that time.
There's one possible political judgment I can see that might have been involved with the FISA "flip flop." That if Obama is planning on debating McCain's use-the-military and unilateral wars approach to solving terrorism by saying that it's more appropriate to treat terrorism as a international criminal issue, then it would be especially hard to do that if the other side can frame you as someone who does not want to allow the intelligence community all the tools they require. Taking a front line stance in a filibuster could have made it easy for the GOP to frame him that way, especially since it was already a bill that involved compromise work between both parties.
July 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. To many conservatives, McCain is a "flip-flopper," they started labeling him that long ago. Many moderates use a different term for that: "maverick." "Flip-flopping" hurts you with rigid ideologues who think everything is black and white. Neither of our presidential candidates this time are ideologues, mho. (Look at the GOP side to take it away from the topic that inflames here: the Ron Paul maniac movement and the Bob Barr canidacy as an alternative to flip-flopper McCain.) Reagan, mho, was an example of someone who somehow managed to sell an image of himself as a rigid ideologue, but "flip-flopped" like crazy behind that facade.
July 12, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is acused of flipfloping even on issues where he did not. McCain is not accused of flipfloping on issues where he did. That is the liberal media for ya.
July 12, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right!
July 12, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is not accused of flip-flopping because he's mangled the facts and changed his mind so often that it's no longer news. We are not allowed to say address the possibility that he is suffering from early stages of senile dementia. Rather than lay themselves open to being crass and uncivilized about his age, the media are hoping that in following the news, most people will understand the untoward truth. Some might. Most probably won't. He's not flip-flopping, he's simply lost it.
July 12, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment