Both Candidates Often Shift Positions

[The1calledTKE]

WASHINGTON - While working relentlessly to portray Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) as a "flip-flopper," President Bush (news - web sites) has his own history of changing his position, from reversals on steel tariffs and "nation-building" to reasons for invading Iraq (news - web sites).

Most recently, Bush did an about-face on whether the proposed new director of national intelligence should have full budget-making powers as the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission recommended. Bush at first indicated no, then last week said yes.

Just as GOP efforts to question Kerry's military record in Vietnam helped revive nagging questions about Bush's service in the Air National Guard, the "flip flop" attacks on Kerry could boomerang against an incumbent running on his record and reputation as a straight talker.

"The guy who is the ultimate flip and flop is this sitting president," said Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware.

Yet so far Democratic efforts to paint Bush as "Flip-Flopper-in-Chief," as one Democratic news release put it, have not seemed to have had much impact on the race.

Republicans have been driving home their depiction of Kerry as a flip-flopper for months, in campaign ads, speeches and interviews. And polls suggest this line of attack is working.

Far more voters give Bush high marks for being decisive than they do Kerry. Three-fourths, 75 percent, in the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll said the president is decisive, up 7 percentage points from August, while 37 percent said Kerry is decisive, down 7 percentage points from.

for full article
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...g_and_flopping

[Kevin]

The big difference is that Bush changes his positions because something happens ala 9/11. Kerry changes them because an opinion poll tells him to.

There's a difference there that I can appreciate.

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by ktsnake
The big difference is that Bush changes his positions because something happens ala 9/11. Kerry changes them because an opinion poll tells him to.

There's a difference there that I can appreciate.

"steel tariffs and "nation-building" to reasons for invading Iraq". That was because of 9/11? It was because the heat was coming down on him and to save his butt he had to change postions. If he didn't those opinion polls would not favor him.

The commision was after 9/11. He didn't want to follow it, but there was an outcry so he reversed himself.

How is that any different than Kerry shifting his view on the war? Obviously the people that vote for him are against it. If they were for it he would be too. Bush would not have shifted his postion if the people that voted for him didn't complain about it.

[RACooper]

Ralph Waldo Emerson
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do."

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
I am a Canadian but want to interfere in the American election.

Yup.

Anyway, there's a difference Brandon. Kerry shifts positions and often doesn't even declare a position so he doesn't have to face the consequences. Circumstances change and Bush may change his opinion. But Bush doesn't wake up and say I won't stsart a war, I will start a war, I will support the war if you start it, I won't fund any war, I am anti-war, no matter what I would go to war. That's the difference. Kerry is the greatest straddler and flip-flopper ever.

-Rudey

[AGDee]

My ex-husband and I used to argue about a basic philosophy of elected officials and how they should vote. He feels that we elect someone who thinks like we do and trust them to always vote for what they believe, regardless of what their constituents want. I always felt that the elected official should take into consideration what their constituents want and vote accordingly. For example, there was a big controversy in my area about a development company coming in and building on swamp lands. The community was completely against it. It seems to me, in a situation like that, that the elected official should fight it, even if they don't place a priority on environmental issues most of the time. So, if a politician received thousands of letters about a certain stance and then votes in accordance with that policy, even if it isn't how he personally feels, is that waffling or is it representing his constituents? What does a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" really mean?

Dee

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I watched Meet the Press this morning, and former Sec. of State Albright explained Kerry's position on Iraq. Here is a link to the transcript of Meet the Press.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AGDee
My ex-husband and I used to argue about a basic philosophy of elected officials and how they should vote. He feels that we elect someone who thinks like we do and trust them to always vote for what they believe, regardless of what their constituents want. I always felt that the elected official should take into consideration what their constituents want and vote accordingly. For example, there was a big controversy in my area about a development company coming in and building on swamp lands. The community was completely against it. It seems to me, in a situation like that, that the elected official should fight it, even if they don't place a priority on environmental issues most of the time. So, if a politician received thousands of letters about a certain stance and then votes in accordance with that policy, even if it isn't how he personally feels, is that waffling or is it representing his constituents? What does a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" really mean?

Dee

It's not like how you describe it. Kerry isn't coming up with a viewpoint at all sometimes.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

I believe that any politican will "change his/her mind" whenever it is politically expedient.

That goes for both parties.