Flip flopping - why isn't this the big issue this election?

[Juddog]

When Kerry ran against Bush in '04, everybody clung to the "he's a flip-flopper!" party line, now that the republicans have a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was, all of a sudden that's considered a "maverick?" I find it amusing that people I knew back in 2004 that voted for Dubya said they went against Kerry chiefly because he's a "flip-flopper", yet now in 2008 I bring up their point about McSame being a flip-flopper and they grow silent and try to change the subject.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Juddog
When Kerry ran against Bush in '04, everybody clung to the "he's a flip-flopper!" party line, now that the republicans have a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was, all of a sudden that's considered a "maverick?" I find it amusing that people I knew back in 2004 that voted for Dubya said they went against Kerry chiefly because he's a "flip-flopper", yet now in 2008 I bring up their point about McSame being a flip-flopper and they grow silent and try to change the subject.

Who is "McSame"?

Both major candidates have "changed their minds" about issues over their careers - sometimes more quickly than others.

 

[JD50]

OP, did you have a problem with Kerry doing it or were you defending him back then? Do you have a problem with McCain doing it?

 

[OrByte]

actually what I find most interesting in this election so far is the absence (sp?) of the gay issue and illegal immigration.

 

[badnewcastle]

Simply put... it's not a bigger issue because both sides are guilty. McCain less frequently as a percentage then Obama but both are guilty so why would either want to bring it up?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: JD50
OP, did you have a problem with Kerry doing it or were you defending him back then? Do you have a problem with McCain doing it?

I personally didn't have a problem with Kerry changing his stance on certain things, and I personally don't have an issue with McCain doing it either. I just find it amusing that when I mention this to the republicans that I know personally they grow silent or change the subject, as if somehow simply because someone is one party and not the other it makes them immune to criticism which was perfectly valid in their minds against the opposing party.

I'm an independent though, and have voted both repub and democrat in the past, so I guess I don't have the rose colored glasses that some partisan diehards have.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Simply put... it's not a bigger issue because both sides are guilty. McCain less frequently as a percentage then Obama but both are guilty so why would either want to bring it up?

This

Plus, I tend to change my stance on things too when new information presents itself. The same can be said about everyone here in P&N along with the rest of the world. There is no reason to expect anything different from those running for Pres whether it be Obama, McCain, or whoever from now till the end of time. I realize that it doesn't exactly look good during a campaign, but this is the reality. Some people are simply better at hiding it than others but everyone does it.

 

[StageLeft]

Why? There are MUCH bigger issues, like lipstick pigs and pregnant girls, my God man!

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Why? There are MUCH bigger issues, like lipstick pigs and pregnant girls, my God man!

LOL :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Juddog
When Kerry ran against Bush in '04, everybody clung to the "he's a flip-flopper!" party line, now that the republicans have a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry ever was, all of a sudden that's considered a "maverick?" I find it amusing that people I knew back in 2004 that voted for Dubya said they went against Kerry chiefly because he's a "flip-flopper", yet now in 2008 I bring up their point about McSame being a flip-flopper and they grow silent and try to change the subject.

Because the Republlicans are better at getting their smears, however dishonest, out there in the corporatized media than democrats.

Bush was a much bigger flip flopper in w 2004, too, but even you either didn't know or didn't mention that, showing how well they got that attack spread.

Even on the most famous attack, as I've documented in detail, the $87 'for it gbefore against it' funding,Bush was the bigger flip flopper.

 

[cwjerome]

I think the absurdity level was high because Kerry actually said something like "I was for it before I was against it" in some weird effort to convey a point. Everyone changes their mind on things... things change. But because Kerry actually said something so dumb regarding it he got so much attention.

I don't think flip flopping is so much of an issue unless it's so gratuitously political. Just don't say really stupid statements like Kerry, that's all, and it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

I'm not real familiar with Palin's Alaska bridge flip-flop but it seems to me a governor would initially seek federal dollars and assistance with infrastructure readily. Once it becomes obvious that a particular project is a complete waste of time and money anyone should feel free to change their minds.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Simply put... it's not a bigger issue because both sides are guilty. McCain less frequently as a percentage then Obama but both are guilty so why would either want to bring it up?

where's your evidence for this statement? you have a tally on the number of issues they've swung on? If anything the guy with a voting record of over 2 decades will have far more variance.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: OrByte
actually what I find most interesting in this election so far is the absence (sp?) of the gay issue and illegal immigration.

The gay issue doesn't bother me, Government doesn't have the right to legislate your personal life. But I agree on the immigration. That and the crickets when it comes to the economy and the amount money spent on frivolous endeavors/special interest.

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Simply put... it's not a bigger issue because both sides are guilty. McCain less frequently as a percentage then Obama but both are guilty so why would either want to bring it up?

where's your evidence for this statement? you have a tally on the number of issues they've swung on? If anything the guy with a voting record of over 2 decades will have far more variance.

I'll link it when I find it again, but Obama has been around for less time, it's only a matter of time before they get more even unless this election cycle is any proof then McCain will change his mind less.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I think the absurdity level was high because Kerry actually said something like "I was for it before I was against it" in some weird effort to convey a point. Everyone changes their mind on things... things change. But because Kerry actually said something so dumb regarding it he got so much attention.

I don't think flip flopping is so much of an issue unless it's so gratuitously political. Just don't say really stupid statements like Kerry, that's all, and it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

I'm not real familiar with Palin's Alaska bridge flip-flop but it seems to me a governor would initially seek federal dollars and assistance with infrastructure readily. Once it becomes obvious that a particular project is a complete waste of time and money anyone should feel free to change their minds.

Right, the definition or a real leader with Presidential qualities.

 

[Lemon law]

Because when a democrat flips to a more wise and prudent position, its a greater sin than a republican staying with a cow flop turd of a position.

But now that McCain MUST show he needs to fix the problems the GOP created, he too must do some flipping while apologizing to GWB&co. and the GOP base who are still stuck on flop.

Its a very uncomfortable image to somehow manage. How can one be for change while embracing the past policies as correct?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
actually what I find most interesting in this election so far is the absence (sp?) of the gay issue and illegal immigration.

The absense of the gay issue is due the Democrats being in control of Congress. It wasn't the Democrats that were screaming about the rapture if gays were allowed to get married.

The illegal immigration issue is also not on the table cause both parties are vying for the Hispanic vote and business likes cheap labor.

 

[PokerGuy]

Both sides have flip-flopped on issues, it simply isn't an issue one side can accuse the other of. They both do it, so it's not a campaign issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Both sides have flip-flopped on issues, it simply isn't an issue one side can accuse the other of. They both do it, so it's not a campaign issue.

You're discussing the rational side of it - that it should not be a campaign issue because it's not an important policy issue for the nation.

Another side is whether it's a campaign issue in terms of affecting voters' decision, and in that definition, Republicans were clearly effective in (ab)using it in 2004 with Kerry.

They may have rejected it this time because of McCain's vulnerability.

The larger issue though is how the Republicans get to pick what the issue is so much.

Why would it be that the democrats weren't keeping it from being an issue in 2004, or better able to show how Republicans were dishonest with it, and then use it now?

There are other unimportant issues dominating the campaign this time that work better for Republicans, just as there always are for decades.

The 'Gore is a liar' (or even 'Gore sighed too much' issues), the 'Dudakis likes black rapists and lets them out of jail' messsage, the 'Nixon is the anti-war candidate' message, etc.