So is political flip flop a bad thing? Maybe, and Maybe not.

[Quicksilver]

Political flip-flops: If the shoe fits ...

RUTH MARCUS
GUEST COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- In footwear, flip-flops are what you slip on when you want something comfortable and easy. In politics, flip-flops are the sloppy intellectual equivalent: what you talk about when you're looking for a comfortable and easy way to attack the opposition.

It's summer, it's hot. No one wants to wear pointy toes and high heels; no one wants to talk about calculating budget baselines or auctioning cap-and-trade permits. How much easier for rival candidates -- and, truth be told, for us in the media -- to fling accusations about flip-flops: Who's got more? Whose are bigger?

True, playing endless rounds of "his surrogate said WHAT?" makes talking about flip-flops look like the Lincoln-Douglas debates -- serious fare compared with fixating on whether the vice presidential vetter got a good rate on his mortgage. But flip-flops remain the reliable beach read of American political discourse, not terribly taxing but not necessarily enlightening either.

It was fitting, then, that the start of summer also marked the opening of the 2008 flip-flop season. Seizing on Barack Obama's abandonment of his pledge on public financing, Republicans, with John McCain leading the charge, attacked Obama as just another do-anything-to-get-elected politician.

Obama's side, in turn, condemned McCain for reversing himself on the Bush tax cuts, embracing evangelicals he once condemned as "agents of intolerance," and switching positions on offshore drilling.

Flip-flops certainly can be relevant. Continually shifting positions can indicate a willingness to elevate political expediency over principle, a lack of core convictions. Mitt Romney's extreme makeover raised legitimate questions about what he truly believed, other than that Mitt Romney should be president.

But the trouble with flip-flop frenzy is that it tends to treat every shift -- every, pardon the phrase, nuance -- as a one-size-fits-all transgression. We in the media risk becoming the enablers of inanity by acting as if all flip-flops are created equal, and equally bad.

Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong. Still, it's a lot simpler to yell "flip-flop" in a crowded blogosphere than to hunker down with a set of distribution tables.

By contrast, Obama's biggest flip-flop, on accepting public financing, is disappointing not so much for the substance as for the execution. Had Obama been straightforward -- "I made a rash pledge. Circumstances look different now. I'm changing my mind." -- his about-face would have been easier to take than his pretense that he is doing us all a big favor.

When it comes to flip-flops, one candidate's outrageous reversal can be another's welcome pragmatism. Liberal bloggers are flaying Obama for a "craven" flip-flop because he once vowed to filibuster any wiretapping bill providing immunity for telecommunications providers. Now he plans to vote for one.

Smart politics, yes, but also sensible as a matter of substance.

Whatever your position on immunity, crafting a workable wiretapping regime going forward, not punishing companies for past transgressions, should be the central issue in the FISA debate. If Obama is edging toward the center on this, or on free trade, we should praise the flip, not hate the flopper.

Indeed, some flip-flops might even be evidence of open-mindedness -- not a bad attribute in a president, as the past eight years have taught.

The downside to flip-flop politics is making politicians reluctant to change course lest they be exposed to accusations of spinelessness.

Take one example that supposedly shows McCain in a bad light. I'm a lot more interested in whether it makes sense to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in light of higher energy prices, changed geopolitical circumstances and improved technology than I am in whether McCain has flipped on this issue.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is pre-emptively predicting an impending Obama shift on Iraq and the troop surge, cleverly boxing him in whichever direction he takes. In fact, circumstances have changed since Obama's anti-surge pronouncements. A failure to acknowledge that reality would reflect stubbornness more troubling than any policy shift.

So let's not flip out too much about flip-flops. Abraham Lincoln, if he were running for re-election today, would doubtless be lambasted as the flip-flopper in chief. After all, Lincoln was against forcing the states to abolish slavery before he was for it.

[Wagner]

IMO.


Flippping on an issue is 'justifiable' when enough details are given that warrant a change. I'm sure plenty of scientists had said "you can't split an atom" then it was done, are they going to not change their position on that

The problem with politicos is they will say anything to get elected. This is noticeable when they in no way can defend their previous position. If you can't say "oh I said that because of these facts at the time, I however have changed my position in light of these knew facts" then you are a flipper

[Quicksilver]

Correct;
And since everyone knows this then there is NO reason to keep crying "FLIP FLOP" or beating a drum about every little thing they say.

Originally Posted by Wagner

IMO.The problem with politicos is they will say anything to get elected.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Correct;
And since everyone knows this then there is NO reason to keep crying "FLIP FLOP" or beating a drum about every little thing they say.

See, you pulled one sentence out of a statement, ie out of context. You should work for CNN. J/K.

There is PLENTY OF REASON to bring up irrational flipping. When someone says something they believe will be popular with zero knowledge of fact to back their position, that needs to be called out IMO

[Krimson X]

THERE IS no "straight talk." There isn't "a different kind of politics." There are just two men who really want to be president.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...lop_flip_flop/

[Quicksilver]

That's because that one sentence say's it all........

You know they're gonna flip
You know they're gonna flop
you know they're gonna do it
and their never gonna stop.

Originally Posted by Wagner

See, you pulled one sentence out of a statement, ie out of context. You should work for CNN. J/K.

There is PLENTY OF REASON to bring up irrational flipping. When someone says something they believe will be popular with zero knowledge of fact to back their position, that needs to be called out IMO

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

That's because that one sentence say's it all........

You know they're gonna flip
You know they're gonna flop
you know they're gonna do it
and their never gonna stop.

You're a poet and you didn't know it.

[motordavid]

Both of these knuckleheads will say nearly anything to cop some votes...
neither are being elected King, so much/most of their pitch(es) are simply
cheap talk, as the likelyhood of them pulling off many of their "promises"
are slim via the "geniuses" in Congress.

We are really getting what we deserve...

[chonko]

Political flip-flop good or bad- it depends.

Good when the flip-flopper is a Republican.
Bad when the flip-flopper is a Democrat.

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by motordavid

Both of these knuckleheads will say nearly anything to cop some votes...
neither are being elected King, so much/most of their pitch(es) are simply
cheap talk, as the likelyhood of them pulling off many of their "promises"
are slim via the "geniuses" in Congress.

We are really getting what we deserve...

Sad to say but we almost need a King to get things done. Instead we have a "Representative" government. Now the trick is figuring out WHO they represent.

Then again the world if full of boneheads and the United States has its share. So it is possible the boneheads in Congress and the Oval Office are indeed representative of our society.

King for a day...Who's in?