Flip-flopping Politicians: Pondering the Subject

Bigslug

The "Romney Flip-Flops Again" thread got me thinking - we throw a lot of heat at politicians who change their positions on various topics, usually citing that these people will say or do anything to gain or retain office.

It occurs to me that this may not necessarily be a bad thing. We should never lose sight of the fact that these people are supposed to be working for us, and it is their JOB to follow the wishes of their constituents. Another thing to consider is that it is possible for a candidate to actually LEARN stuff that may actually change their thinking on a particular subject. Any creature that doesn't at least contemplate action based on changing conditions is probably going to be starving come wintertime.

Consider also the difference between the foreign policy notions of a candidate who's running for president versus those of a guy who's just won the election and gotten his first security brief on just how big and bad the wolves in the world really are.

Yes, we like a certain amount of consistency in the character of our elected officials, but we should be careful not to insist on fanatical Wile E. Coyotes who doggedly repeat the same action expecting a different result. It is the job of a political candidate to be a little more on top of the issues than the average Joe, so if one of them changes his or her position, we shouldn't naturally assume the change was made solely in order just get the job.

And really, if it IS just to get the job, is that such a bad thing? Isn't this in the same category of a slacker getting a haircut and a suit, and taking out his nose and eyebrow rings before a job interview? If he stays neat, does the job we expect him to, and doesn't rip off the cash register, how much do we really care where he came from?

Just my pre-morning coffee two cents.

Make_My_Day

It seems as though that is Romney's thing. When he was Governor of Mass., he went along with some of the policies of his liberal constituents. Now that he is trying to win over a somewhat conservative population of voters, he is emphasizing his more conservative views, and hopefully, if he wins the primary and the general he will follow through on those views. I am trying to remain optimistic on the issue, and I think Romney would be a vast improvement on what we have now. All polls and opinions of the political experts appear to favor Romney to win against Obama, so we all better get behind him in November if we want to get rid of the sewage filling the WH now.

Airedale

Our potential elected officials should show a strength of character. (remember that?) I respect Santorum for that, even though I don't agree with him.
Romney seems to sway in the direction of whatever wind's blowing. I call that pandering.
We not talking about "just a job" here. We're talkin' about the leader of our country who will answer to all Americans, not just the big Wall St. barons.
Romney is a big business guy, he can't help it, that's where his financing is coming from.
I still like Newt, if only he would stop shooting himself in the foot.
Jim

tennmike

It's not so much the changing of positions, but the constant ping pong bouncing back and forth on the same thing that is annoying. It would be better to pick one lie and stick with it rather than changing their position to fit the audience in front of them at the time. With 24 hour live coverage, that won't fly like it did 50 years ago.

Teach

It's our fault for tolerating these weasels. Why is plain old lying acceptable just because that's what we've been programmed to expect? If we're supposed to tolerate the stink the dog brings into the house after rolling over a piece of roadkill because "At least it wasn't a skunk?" what does that say about our willingness to bend over and take what some politician is giving us? "Thank you, sir, may I please have another?"

The flip-flopping most politicians need to be doing is what happens when a tall tree and a short rope get put to good use!
Jerry

CaliFFL

Bigslug wrote: »

Another thing to consider is that it is possible for a candidate to actually LEARN stuff that may actually change their thinking on a particular subject. Any creature that doesn't at least contemplate action based on changing conditions is probably going to be starving come wintertime.

If a candidate actually came out and said, "My previous position was wrong. I have learned from experiance that issue (fill in blanck here) needs to be addressed this way...."

But that is not the case. These DB's just lie and hope the base forgets the vote(s) they cast in the city/county/state office previously held.

robert38-55

Teach wrote: »

It's our fault for tolerating these weasels. Why is plain old lying acceptable just because that's what we've been programmed to expect? If we're supposed to tolerate the stink the dog brings into the house after rolling over a piece of roadkill because "At least it wasn't a skunk?" what does that say about our willingness to bend over and take what some politician is giving us? "Thank you, sir, may I please have another?"

The flip-flopping most politicians need to be doing is what happens when a tall tree and a short rope get put to good use!
Jerry

Preach it Teach, Preach it Preach it Teach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:that: