On flip flopping

[leatherneck]

A candidate flip flopping is a favorite attack theme of opponents (and generally is pretty effective). Romney is being accused of flip flopping on the health care reform issue. Question: how would you feel if a candidate said in response to a flip flop charge: "Look I know that as the Governor I advocated health care reform for Massachusetts similar to President Obama's health care reform and now I'm saying I'm against President Obama's reform. Here's the reason why: I still think that health care reform is needed and needed badly. My beliefs are generally in line with Obama's health care reform. But, if I'm elected President, I'm elected as the President of the entire United States. And since a majority of Americans are opposed to President Obama's health care reform plan I believe I have a duty to do what a majority of Americans want on the issue; not do what my personal beliefs dictate. Thus for that reason, I am opposed to President Obama's health care reform and if elected President, will support legislation to repeal it or at least eliminate those parts that a large majority of Americans oppose. On health care reform, like every other issue, while I have my beliefs and I'm more than willing to discuss each and every believe, as the President of the US I will be willing to set aside, perhaps reluctantly at times, my beliefs and follow the will of the people. "

[Randy Parker]

^ My response would be that anybody can do that. Anybody can take the pulse of America and make a decision based on what we think. I want someone leading who has some sense of conviction. I don't see that out of Romney. I see a guy who will switch positions on key issues when a switch is perceived beneficial.

[UKMustangFan]

I think a candidate who answered in that way would score major points with voters. Or something along the lines of: "I proposed health care reform as Governor of Massachusetts because I believed it to be the best solution to the health care problem. I was wrong. It didn't do what I had thought it would accomplish, and I can no longer support something I've seen first hand fail the people it was meant to help."

[Voice of Reason]

I think a better response for Romney is to find the differences between his Massachusetts reform and Obama's reform and emphasize those differences as being the reason why he is against Obamacare. I still believe the majority of people in the US wanted, and still want, health care reform. They just don't like the way it turned out in Obama's program.

[Clyde]

On a sidenote your proposed response shows that sometimes we base our decision off of actions/inactions a Governor made for ONE state and assume those results will work for the country. It's the ONLY reason anyone ever thought to have Gov Perry enter the race. He attracted a lot of jobs. How? Stealing from other states by offering incentives.

[Habib]

I would be happy with that answer as it appears honest. I also have no trouble with politicians who change their views over time due to increased experience or knowledge of an issue that has caused them to re-evaluate their original position. If I believe they are being genuine then I'm very happy with either.

 

I think when most talk about "flip-flopping" in politicians it's generally directed toward the "wind sock" type of politician. The person who rarely takes a concrete stand on issues that aren't popular or carefully tied to their electoral fortunes and will change their positions as popularity dictates. I think these types of politicians are very inauthentic, lack the "spine" to advocate what they believe in, and generally sound like everything they say has been tested in focus groups. So, I think there is generally a pattern with this type of politician rather than an isolated change or reversal. I have little regard for this type.

[Randy Parker]

I think a candidate who answered in that way would score major points with voters. Or something along the lines of: "I proposed health care reform as Governor of Massachusetts because I believed it to be the best solution to the health care problem. I was wrong. It didn't do what I had thought it would accomplish, and I can no longer support something I've seen first hand fail the people it was meant to help."

 

I like your explanation.

[Randy Parker]

I would be happy with that answer as it appears honest. I also have no trouble with politicians who change their views over time due to increased experience or knowledge of an issue that has caused them to re-evaluate their original position. If I believe they are being genuine then I'm very happy with either.

 

I think when most talk about "flip-flopping" in politicians it's generally directed toward the "wind sock" type of politician. The person who rarely takes a concrete stand on issues that aren't popular or carefully tied to their electoral fortunes and will change their positions as popularity dictates. I think these types of politicians are very inauthentic, lack the "spine" to advocate what they believe in, and generally sound like everything they say has been tested in focus groups. So, I think there is generally a pattern with this type of politician rather than an isolated change or reversal. I have little regard for this type.

 

The bolded is the key IMO.

[75center]

I would be happy with that answer as it appears honest. I also have no trouble with politicians who change their views over time due to increased experience or knowledge of an issue that has caused them to re-evaluate their original position. If I believe they are being genuine then I'm very happy with either.

 

I think when most talk about "flip-flopping" in politicians it's generally directed toward the "wind sock" type of politician. The person who rarely takes a concrete stand on issues that aren't popular or carefully tied to their electoral fortunes and will change their positions as popularity dictates. I think these types of politicians are very inauthentic, lack the "spine" to advocate what they believe in, and generally sound like everything they say has been tested in focus groups. So, I think there is generally a pattern with this type of politician rather than an isolated change or reversal. I have little regard for this type.

 

Politicians????

[Habib]

Politicians????

 

:lol: Good point.

[rockmom]

I actually don't mind "flip flopping", as long as it's not a blatant attempt at pandering. People change, their minds change....a person who stops learning, stops living.

[leatherneck]

I actually don't mind "flip flopping", as long as it's not a blatant attempt at pandering. People change, their minds change....a person who stops learning, stops living.

 

Very true.

[leatherneck]

I would be happy with that answer as it appears honest. I also have no trouble with politicians who change their views over time due to increased experience or knowledge of an issue that has caused them to re-evaluate their original position. If I believe they are being genuine then I'm very happy with either.

 

I think when most talk about "flip-flopping" in politicians it's generally directed toward the "wind sock" type of politician. The person who rarely takes a concrete stand on issues that aren't popular or carefully tied to their electoral fortunes and will change their positions as popularity dictates. I think these types of politicians are very inauthentic, lack the "spine" to advocate what they believe in, and generally sound like everything they say has been tested in focus groups. So, I think there is generally a pattern with this type of politician rather than an isolated change or reversal. I have little regard for this type.

 

Would you include former President Clinton in the wind sock category? At least to me, he came into the Oval Office with a strong set of beliefs, but adjusted is actions and policies so that they were in line with public opinion. Wasn't he criticized for basing his positions on the latest polls? If so, is that wrong? The American public can change their opinions rather strongly during the course of 4 years. What was important to them when they voted (causing a President with similar beliefs to be elected) might change dramatically in a year or two. If the President is aware of such, should he stick with his beliefs (that may not have changed) and push legislation that a majority of Americans aren't in favor of, or should he modify his actions to meet the will of the public?

 

To Randy: I get the whole conviction thing; I really do. However when those convictions no longer match what a majority of Americans want, should he say the heck with the public? Should he try and force policies and legislation that is not looked on favorably by the public just because he believes in them? Does he play hardball with a Congress, whose opinions may match up more favorably with the public opinion, in order to push his convictions and agenda, and then risk creating a relationship with Congress that is acidic and destructive? Again I understand the attraction of people with conviction. Conviction in beliefs is a very admirable quality. I'm just not convinced having a strong and unwavering conviction to one's beliefs is an effective way to lead. If a leader cannot convince his/her subordinates/troops/employees/followers/voters that his convictions are correct, then he/she needs to either resign or place his convictions on the back burner and follow the convictions of his subordinates, etc. Frankly I think Bill Clinton did an admirable job as the President because he was willing to do the latter. Had he not engaged in the lieing, I think he would be regarded as one of our best Presidents in recent history.

[Habib]

Would you include former President Clinton in the wind sock category? At least to me, he came into the Oval Office with a strong set of beliefs, but adjusted is actions and policies so that they were in line with public opinion. Wasn't he criticized for basing his positions on the latest polls? If so, is that wrong? The American public can change their opinions rather strongly during the course of 4 years. What was important to them when they voted (causing a President with similar beliefs to be elected) might change dramatically in a year or two. If the President is aware of such, should he stick with his beliefs (that may not have changed) and push legislation that a majority of Americans aren't in favor of, or should he modify his actions to meet the will of the public?

 

That's a good question. I think it would be pragmatic to temper some positions and govern the way the constituency desires. Being an ideological warrior would probably be more destructive. But, I also think governing is always going to produce different policies than core convictions are going to allow. I think it's a lot more complicated than writing a book or making campaign promises, so there are necessarily going to be divergences between wishes and reality. There is generally a compromise made somewhere. So, I don't think someone has to change their beliefs to govern from the middle, so to speak. They just have to make the pragmatic calculation of what the closest they can get to their beliefs or to forwarding their goals that can actually get done. It might even make sense to sign/vote a bill you disagree with in exchange for one you very much agree with. I'm generally fine with that. But, it's a question I'll have to give some more thought.

[Randy Parker]

I actually don't mind "flip flopping", as long as it's not a blatant attempt at pandering. People change, their minds change....a person who stops learning, stops living.

 

Agree that people change, along with their thinking. I have no problem with that. I struggle, though, with Mitt Romney's change. I will refrain from saying it isn't authentic, because I am unable to see the man's heart. But I don't trust him, because the timing of his changes does come across as pandering. I can't know for sure, but that is my suspicion. To be fair to Mitt, we see that all the time when a candidate is running for something statewide & then later runs for something nationwide. It's an unfortunate situation IMO.