Brilliant - so by saying things that don’t mean anything, he can’t be pinned down. That’s so refreshingly different…
100meters wrote:
I guess you’re right. The only way he could truly bring change to washington is if at the beginning of his political career every position he ever had or would ever have was promptly written in stone. damn it.
That would be such an incisive comment if you were talking about pointing out changes over a long period of time. However, you’ll note that all of the listed Obama flip flops above occurred during the second run of the Bush administration. It would be nice if his opinions, written in clay, had the chance to dry before he flipped over. Of course, it would be even nicer if he would quit embarrassing himself w/r/t foreign policy.[/quote]
I guess I just disagree. Changing things in washington, doesn’t mean one can’t change their mind, IMO.
As for foreign policy, it doesn’t appear that he is embarrassed.
Can someone explain to me the big deal with all these “flip-flops?”
Aren’t people allowed to change their minds about issues anymore? Isn’t it OK to support X for various reason but to not support it a few years later when the situation has changed? Or if new facts come to light? Or if some study shows that an opinion you had about how X works has been shown to be wrong?
Personally, a politician who never changes his mind about anything strikes me as much stupider than one who does.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Can someone explain to me the big deal with all these “flip-flops?”
Aren’t people allowed to change their minds about issues anymore? Isn’t it OK to support X for various reason but to not support it a few years later when the situation has changed? Or if new facts come to light? Or if some study shows that an opinion you had about how X works has been shown to be wrong?
Personally, a politician who never changes his mind about anything strikes me as much stupider than one who does.
[/quote]
I think the issue is the reason for the change of position. Absent an obvious unstated reason or a believable stated reason, it looks like political pandering, and calls into question which of the two positions is the real view of the candidate.
For example, with Kerry, the flip/flop attack was an attack on whether he had really changed his anti-military positions - the flip/flops were used as evidence he hadn’t.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pookie wrote:
Can someone explain to me the big deal with all these “flip-flops?”
Aren’t people allowed to change their minds about issues anymore? Isn’t it OK to support X for various reason but to not support it a few years later when the situation has changed? Or if new facts come to light? Or if some study shows that an opinion you had about how X works has been shown to be wrong?
Personally, a politician who never changes his mind about anything strikes me as much stupider than one who does.
I think the issue is the reason for the change of position. Absent an obvious unstated reason or a believable stated reason, it looks like political pandering, and calls into question which of the two positions is the real view of the candidate.
For example, with Kerry, the flip/flop attack was an attack on whether he had really changed his anti-military positions - the flip/flops were used as evidence he hadn’t.[/quote]
But these are so silly and not even idealogical in nature, compared to say St. McCain flips…(he calls it evolving…which is fair I suppose):
McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain if he were a �??�??read my lips�?? candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?�?? referring to George H.W. Bush�??s 1988 pledge. �??No new taxes,�?? McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, �??I�??m not making a �??read my lips�?? statement, in that I will not raise taxes.�??
McCain�??s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign�??s policy.
In February 2008, McCain abandoned his opposition to waterboarding.
In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the �??nature of the society in Iraq�?? and the �??religious aspects�?? of the country make it inevitable that the United States �??eventually withdraws.�?? Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he�??s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.
McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty�??s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants�?? kids who graduate from high school. Now he�??s against it.
On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving �??feedback�?? on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
McCain said before the war in Iraq, �??We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.�?? Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was �??probably going to be long and hard and tough.�??
McCain said he was the �??greatest critic�?? of Rumsfeld�??s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as �??a mission accomplished.�?? In March 2004, he said, �??I�??m confident we�??re on the right course.�?? In December 2005, he said, �??Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.�??
McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn�??t be allowed.
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as �??an agent of intolerance�?? in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans �??deserved�?? the 9/11 attacks.
McCain used to oppose Bush�??s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were �??too tilted to the wealthy.�?? By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending �??dirty money�?? to help finance Bush�??s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he�??s pro-ethanol.
McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
McCain decided in 2000 that he didn�??t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he �??would taint the image of the �??Straight Talk Express.�??�?? Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
we could do this with every single candidate that’s been in the race or ever been in a race or ever won a race.
[/quote]
I almost cringe even bringing this up but the only candidate that would shine in this area is Ron Paul. Like him or not he has a stellar record of doing what he says and not flip flopping.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
pookie wrote:
Can someone explain to me the big deal with all these “flip-flops?”
Aren’t people allowed to change their minds about issues anymore? Isn’t it OK to support X for various reason but to not support it a few years later when the situation has changed? Or if new facts come to light? Or if some study shows that an opinion you had about how X works has been shown to be wrong?
Personally, a politician who never changes his mind about anything strikes me as much stupider than one who does.
I think the issue is the reason for the change of position. Absent an obvious unstated reason or a believable stated reason, it looks like political pandering, and calls into question which of the two positions is the real view of the candidate.
For example, with Kerry, the flip/flop attack was an attack on whether he had really changed his anti-military positions - the flip/flops were used as evidence he hadn’t.
But these are so silly and not even idealogical in nature, compared to say St. McCain flips…(he calls it evolving…which is fair I suppose):
McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain if he were a �??�??read my lips�?? candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?�?? referring to George H.W. Bush�??s 1988 pledge. �??No new taxes,�?? McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, �??I�??m not making a �??read my lips�?? statement, in that I will not raise taxes.�??
McCain�??s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign�??s policy.
In February 2008, McCain abandoned his opposition to waterboarding.
In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the �??nature of the society in Iraq�?? and the �??religious aspects�?? of the country make it inevitable that the United States �??eventually withdraws.�?? Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he�??s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.
McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty�??s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants�?? kids who graduate from high school. Now he�??s against it.
On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving �??feedback�?? on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
McCain said before the war in Iraq, �??We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.�?? Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was �??probably going to be long and hard and tough.�??
McCain said he was the �??greatest critic�?? of Rumsfeld�??s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as �??a mission accomplished.�?? In March 2004, he said, �??I�??m confident we�??re on the right course.�?? In December 2005, he said, �??Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.�??
McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn�??t be allowed.
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as �??an agent of intolerance�?? in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans �??deserved�?? the 9/11 attacks.
McCain used to oppose Bush�??s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were �??too tilted to the wealthy.�?? By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending �??dirty money�?? to help finance Bush�??s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he�??s pro-ethanol.
McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
McCain decided in 2000 that he didn�??t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he �??would taint the image of the �??Straight Talk Express.�??�?? Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
For instance, the waterboarding issue, which seems to have gained popularity amongst the nutroots. McCain did not recant his opposition against waterboarding. He voted against a bill that would have gone further than to simply ban waterboarding.
Quite frankly, some of the other issues aren’t issues McCain cares that much about - I’m sure his positions on economics are generally set by his advisors, as would his positions in office - and won’t be able to do anything about at any rate, unless the highly unlikely possibility of the Dems getting swept out of Congress occurs. Catching him in misstatements of policy on these issues isn’t quite the same thing as having Obama promising the rubes he would trash Nafta while having his head economic advisor call the Canadian government to assure them he was just playing politics.
we could do this with every single candidate that’s been in the race or ever been in a race or ever won a race.
I almost cringe even bringing this up but the only candidate that would shine in this area is Ron Paul. Like him or not he has a stellar record of doing what he says and not flip flopping.[/quote]
Seriously? The man flip flopped on his most important votes ever, the vote to go to war in Afghanistan.
He has also flip flopped on border security (previously he wanted to do away with the border patrol), he flip flopped on gay marriage (now he claims it is not a government issue but in the past he has claimed support for the Defense of Marriage Act)…
He is a phony like the rest of them. The sooner you Paulnuts realize this the sooner you will shake off this insanity.
we could do this with every single candidate that’s been in the race or ever been in a race or ever won a race.
I almost cringe even bringing this up but the only candidate that would shine in this area is Ron Paul. Like him or not he has a stellar record of doing what he says and not flip flopping.
Seriously? The man flip flopped on his most important votes ever, the vote to go to war in Afghanistan.
He has also flip flopped on border security (previously he wanted to do away with the border patrol), he flip flopped on gay marriage (now he claims it is not a government issue but in the past he has claimed support for the Defense of Marriage Act)…
He is a phony like the rest of them. The sooner you Paulnuts realize this the sooner you will shake off this insanity.
[/quote]
Really? I thought he said he agreed with going to war in Afghanistan at the time but then it turned into a war in Iraq somehow and that’s what he was against.
With this or the other ones you claim do you have any references or actual documentation?
we could do this with every single candidate that’s been in the race or ever been in a race or ever won a race.
I almost cringe even bringing this up but the only candidate that would shine in this area is Ron Paul. Like him or not he has a stellar record of doing what he says and not flip flopping.
Seriously? The man flip flopped on his most important votes ever, the vote to go to war in Afghanistan.
He has also flip flopped on border security (previously he wanted to do away with the border patrol), he flip flopped on gay marriage (now he claims it is not a government issue but in the past he has claimed support for the Defense of Marriage Act)…
He is a phony like the rest of them. The sooner you Paulnuts realize this the sooner you will shake off this insanity.
Really? I thought he said he agreed with going to war in Afghanistan at the time but then it turned into a war in Iraq somehow and that’s what he was against.
With this or the other ones you claim do you have any references or actual documentation?[/quote]
He even wrote a letter explaining his position. He was always against the war in Afghanistan but his staffers urged him to vote for it otherwise he would not have been reelected in 2002. He says his vote was a mistake.