Flip-Flop
 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646142.shtml
Can we please stop using this word now? Both canidates have changed their mind. In fact i'd go as far as to say that to be a good polition you should be open to changing your mind. I'd hate to have people in charge who would stick to their guns no matter how wrong they were.

www.kerryoniraq.com

Direct link.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC091604.wmv

Enjoy.

I agree with you Rekna. This argument is just plain stupid, as both sides have done the whole flip flop thing. Either side calling out the other on flip flopping is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Face it, they both suck.

I believe the rules of the board state that you need to include your own thoughts when you post links.

My thoughts are I think you should look at it.

i watched it for about 5 minutes. It didn't really say anything but a whole lot of nothing. As expected it was a bunch of partisian bs.

The real issue here, I think, is not whether Bush or Kerry can be called flip-floppers, but that Bush has effectively used this moniker to label Kerry, who has been ineffective in shaking it.

All intelligent people change their minds, and their positions, on some issues, at some time. The problem is when this is made out to be a deficit of personality.

Bush's campaign would make the Mad Hatter envious.

We've only got five more weeks to go before we don't have to hear the term "flip-flop" for at least 3 years! Is everyone else as excited as I am?

It is only being repetitive to state that any sane leader will amend their thinking to reflect the changing world, and George Bush has been no different, "flip-flopping" *shudders* on many different issues. Good god, can't we put this behind us?

It has been quite effective in this campaign - so it must have some resonance with the electorate.

As in all things political, sometimes the truth is superfluous. Over 40% of that same electorate still believes that there were Iraqis amongst the 9-11 hijackers.

Who needs truth when lies work so much better?

(Go directly to 2:49 mark, do not pass go, do not collect $200.)

He sounds as hawkish as Rumsfeld. Fascinating link.

Hmmm, A political campaign that could be won because team#1 had a catchy phrase. Thats all I have to say.

It has had resonance with the media - so it must have been effective in the campaign.

The electorate doesn't have awareness enough to have resonance.

that is the essence of politics. Every single one of these professional bullshitters go with whatever fabrication they deem most suited for the occasion. But in trying to make some sense out of all the vebal diarrhea, i have come to the conclusion that sometimes you really do have to change your original opinion. When it´s obvious that you are on the wrong road the intelligent choice is to admit your mistakes and change direction. The most foolish thing you can do is stubbornly carry on against all common sense and refuse to take advice from the many, many people that actually understand the depth of the situation.
Flip Flop? Common sense demands admitting your errors. I also see GW as far more guilty in the yes no yes no, say whatever you think they wanna hear department. He really will say anything to sleaze his way past the american people.
It´s very sad that it continues to work effectively. Can´t dazzle em with brilliance? Baffle em with bullshit.

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2...070013feee.txt

Damn these Dean people! How dare they question the judgement of a man like Kerry with something as childish as the line 'flip flop'.

Oh wait...

Do we really need to post another side-by-side comparison of Kerry vs. Bush "flip-flopping?" As anyone not completely enamored with party rhetoric has noticed, the charge can easily be made both ways. Still, if an individual is willing to knowingly shop around false statements and ridiculous, out of context quotes, then obviously truth is no barrier.

Why bother? He'll just ignore it, like he has many times before, and post Flipper and flip-flop in the next thread that appears to be ready for the attack.

The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up.

Kerry's failure to have clearly laid out and cohesive positions soon after it was obvious that he was going to be "the" Democratic candidate is political stupidity. Most people can't answer the question "Where does Kerry stand on _____" because he has not effectively defined and communicated his positions. It takes a long time for stuff to sink into the public's heads and he did not make the most of the time he had available.

It's this lack of focus and clarity that makes the flip-flop charge effective. Additionally, like the first Bush Presidency when faced with the attack on the economy from Clinton, his campaign has been very slow in challenging the perception being pushed by his opponents.

"The difference, to me, is that it is only in recent days that Kerry has finally decided on his positions. This race has been going on for how long? The examples of Bush's flip-flops noted in this article mostly occurred before this race even started to heat up."

Most of the 'flip flops' found in Bush lists occurred during his candidacy or early Presidency. That's where Kerry is now -- in his candidacy. Doesn't that make the two exactly the same in this regard?

I don't think so because the undecided voters have been picking their candidate over the last month or two and will continue to do it up until election day. Without a base of understanding for Kerry's positions and a real familiarity with him, people will naturally tend toward the "known" person. Whether they fully agree or disagree with Bush they have a pretty good read on where he stands on a lot of things. Kerry hasn't created that kind of perception. Many of us on the board here have a pretty good idea of his beliefs but we follow politics much more closely than the average person.

I'm not saying the difference is in what they do just when they do it and the importance of the timing. You can't have a large mass of people unclear on what you stand for this close to election. The 9+ field of candidates for the nomination already had people confused and gave the air of disorganization. Whichever candidate was to win that ugly race for the nomination they had to come out with clear stands. Dean was probably best prepared for that since he was relatively consistent in his beliefs. Those beliefs had to be reinforced throughout the race not just towards the end of it.

A general comment regarding posting habits here.

It's time to cut out the underhanded jibes and personal attacks that are directed at particular posters. Veiling your explicit statements within extended phrases does not mask the facts regarding what you are doing. Your meanings and intended targets are clear. Everyone is aware of the tactic and it is what it is - personal atttack. The tone of the posters in question must improve. Now.

I wouldn't say, at least what I am doing, is a personal attack. So if you weren't pinpointing me, forget I posted this. I am making very valid points about the state of this community over the past month. Having a discussion about changing positions by candidates is all well and good. We can have that. But there comes a point where it is just spam.

The discussion started, and 'we' trotted out clear information about Bush doing the exact same thing. I just spent the past hour reading over every thread in the politics board with the word flip in it. Only onetime has addressed this point whatsoever that I can see. The way things ARE is, The flip-flop charge is brought out, Kerry is mocked. We then provide the context for the perceived flip. Context for issues Such as the "for the $87 Billion before I was against it", are so obvious that you need only a minute to understand where he is coming from. Kerry's statement is ambiguous, as a soundbite, but once you understand the background it becomes clear.
Or, we bring massive lists of how Bush has done the so called 'flip-flop'. Such as the campaign promise of no nation building, then we build a nation. He promised to leave the SS surplus alone, now it is distributed in his tax cuts.
We can bring this up time and again and it is ignored. Some choose to remain on a soapbox with their fingers in their ears and continue to shout it. At this point the flip-flop issue has ceased to become a discussion and remains only two sides yelling at each other. That's not what this board is for. "It's nyah-nyah your daddy's a poopyhead, I can't hear you!"

How will this community respond if myself and several other posters who have been trying to fight back and explain away this bull start a new line? We could make 60% of the next thousand posts in this particular board about how Bush accepts large donations from special interests. Because of that he is no longer a man for the people and only a puppet for his funders. Ooh some could point out that Kerry has received large donations from special interests too, many times both Bush and Kerry both received the same amount from the same interest. We then ignore that, let the thread die and pick up in the next thread. Ad nauseum. How will the face of TFP_Politics look to the conservatives and Bush supporters then?

In conclusion, they are not personal attacks as much as they are our attempts to start a true dialogue and us expressing our displeasure at the constant dodge. Then again, I was for this post before I was against it.
/Choke

I think these thoughts are probably how many on the "right" here in politics already see the board. There are probably twice as many anti Bush threads as anti Kerry threads (at least that's my perception I'd love to know a break down but am kind of lazy today and don't want to attempt to figure it out).

The number of lies and flat out misrepresentations about Bush in this campaign are staggering. The number done to Kerry is miniscule in comparison. Perhaps that's a factor of how many potential Democratic candidates there were in the field with all of them trying to make their mark by criticizing their opponents (both Bush and the other Dems). Part of it is certainly the deep seated anger that many on the "left" feel towards Bush. I am in no way defending the misrepresentations about Kerry but have a tough time feeling sympathy or being motivated to shout them down when the campaign to oust Bush has been using these tactics since Bush was elected.

FWIW, I think it would be great if all sides in TFP would acknowledge that "their" side does some stupid and untruthful things. Rather than only pointing to the "other" side as an example, how about criticizing both for the actions they take that we disagree with?

I think the Vietnam issue is a perfect example. You have the Republicans claiming that Kerry didn't earn his medals despite having gone through the proper military channels. And you have the Democrats claiming that Bush didn't complete his Guard duties despite having gone through the proper military channels. Their defense of their candidates is exactly the same "They went through the proper military channels, so you should accept it." Instead of recognizing the faulty logic being applied by both sides everyone argues endlessly about the details of each.

My post above is a warning. There will be consequences if the tactics I addressed continue.

I'd say it is true that there are more negative points being floated out there about Bush. (I won't even touch on which ones I personally believe to be true or not). But I am seeing a quality over quantity. Beyond the TANG, The things against Bush are if not half hearted, not followed up on. All of them, TANG, Flip-Flop and Swiftvets thing. All disgusting and has no place. They need to stop. All of them. Those are the ones I see as widespread (Add others to the list if you think I forgot some). Hell, even Al Michaels and John Madden had to make a flip-flop crack on the last preseason Monday Night Football game.

You are right. I want vietnam criticisms to just go away. I don't care if Bush was Awol or if Kerry didn't earn his medals. That was over thirty years ago and has no bearing on where they take this nation today. This election is about two things. It is a referrendum on the Bush administration, simply by the fact that he is the incumbent. So what should be analyzed is both mens past four years of record. And I want to know where both want to take this nation. That's it. Everything else is an attempt to distract from what really matters.

I may be blinded to it. So, please list for me what you think are the uncalled for issues and criticisms that my side is leveling at Bush. I want to know.
Let us all make lists, then maybe we can start a new thread and discuss which ones really need to be tossed out because they are wrong, or irrelevant to the Presidential Election, and which ones need further discussing.

For Kerry
Swift Vets
Flip Flop
Anyone else is free to add to my short list here of criticisms that peeve them.

for myself, i look at this "flipflop" idiocy as indicative of how rove-adverts operate: like shampoo--lather rinse repeat.
they stick because they are short and they are repeated.
they stick because they provide the illusion of movement--here is an "issue"--repeat claims about the "issue" for a while, move on to the next element.


what i cant figure out about it is:

let us assume that a politician has to deal with a complex shifting environment, one that more often than not slips outside of a previous frame of reference and which therefore requires some effort to interpret.

you would think that being able to shift along with that would be indicative of thinking, wouldnt you?

so how does it work, this claim that adjustments, reversals, reconsiderations are indicative of weakness?

what seems to be happening is that the adverts, the slogan, package the refusal to interact with complexity as a good thing.

which is insane.



underneath this is a more troubling question of what exact attributes people would prefer to see in a president?
are people looking for a kind of father-figure, someone to whom they can attribute omniscience?
how would this not be adopting an infant's view of a parental figure?

this relation is more authoritarian than democratic.

j.g. ballard's argued in his book "the atrocity exhibition" that america has become a kind of super-monarchy mediated by television in which the image of the president (not the actually existing president) is central.

does this attribution of omniscience to the image of the president function best when the signifier is emptiest? are folk more drawn to this fantasy when they know it is a fantasy?

it sometimes seems that the bush people have not only worked this out, but are more than fine with it.
they use it to their advantage.
they embrace it.
you want to be dominated?
well here you go...

lather rinse repeat

I will be happy to drop all the Vietnam issue stuff, and focus on Kerrys record.

On the other hand the 'flip-flop' is a vaild point. The man has no center, no consistant policy, other then being for all forms of abortion.

the reason why the attacks on Bush don't stick is because they're usually expressed in the simple slogans those people tend to think in. the attacks aren't being made from mainstream democrats (though i'm less and less sure what that means these days) and/or other figures with political authority. most of america recognizes that the source of these attacks as someone they do not identifiy with... the attacks slide off Bush like bacon off a non-stick pan.

poorly conceived Bush attacks no one cares about
Bush lied. - people are too in-tune with the war in iraq's developments to fall for this.
AWOL - reflecting what people want to believe, not the documented truth.
Bush is a flip-flopper too! - even if it were true, it's coming way to late in the game not to sound like a weak and juvenile response. (especially after spending the last 3 years lamenting cowboy bush and his arrogance of never changing his mind and not listening to others.)

seriously, if you were undecided or leaning slightly to either side would this sway your vote? doubt it. many attacks on bush are fueled by the hate these people harbor. they convince no one but people like themselves who wouldn't vote for bush anyway. it's not an effective political statement, it's masturbation.

and here is another move that i do not understand: how disagreement with the bush administration can be attributed to "hate"--i do not see the linkage--it seems a right discourse tick designed to trivialize opposition....
where did this term come from, anyway, the "bush haters"?
and why is it either interesting or compelling?

The essence of all politicians is to modify their public statements to suit the wants and needs of their picky constituencies.

With Kerry, he just chose the wrong place and time to do this.

Trade Vietnam Medal Flap for AWOL Flip-Flop for Bush flip-flop (Surprise! the only reason we bring it up is because Kerry Flip-Flops are brought up. That's why it came so late in the game. And as weak and juvenile Bush Flip-flops sound that is magnified on our side from the conservatives.)
Bush lied. I'll trade that one for the Kerry Botox retardedness.

"the reason why the attacks on Bush don't stick is because they're usually expressed in the simple slogans those people tend to think in."

If that were true, no attack on a politician would ever stick. Attacks on political figures are rarely five page essays enumerating the numerous mistakes a man or woman has made. It's always "John Kerry -- Soft on defense." "George Bush -- Wrong for the middle class." etc.

"Bush lied. I'll trade that one for the Kerry Botox retardedness."

Don't forget the tanning bed stuff.

I made a thread about a month ago which pretty much proved that both sides flip flop equally, and that those who focus on "Kerry flipflopping" pretty much have no real concept of what's actually going on.

sorry stompy, but that list you posted in that thread was full of inconsistencies. it really didn't prove anything but the author's partisanship.

i'm not sure i would draw such parallel lines from one sides attacks to the others. they seem to have varying amounts of relevance and cogency. i agree that kerry tanning or botox attacks are really very silly. but, i think their equivalents on the left side of the aisle are the "bush is a cowboy" kind of comments and not the ones listed above. both (botox and cowboy) may be true, but i really don't care about either.

this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves.

"this is kind of pigeon-holing your arguments (so i admit i'm playing dirty pool), but perhaps the fact that one side's attacks stick and the others don't tells you something about the candidates themselves."

Or perhaps it tells you about the person deciding if the attacks stick or not. In all seriousness, I propose that it might be a case of "the more shit you throw, the more sticks."

Of course, the assertion that only attacks against Kerry "stick" is unproven and is certainly a subjective observation. Perhaps your own prejudices are coloring your judgement as to how effective each sides attacks are.

oh come on now. you're proposing that the mud throwing is weighted heavily to one side? surely you don't believe that. venom towards GWB has never been in short supply, i'd be surpised if someone could argue otherwise. i think the main difference is that the republicans are throwing their "shit" at kerry while the democrats are crapping more out... but just prefer to bath in it.

cthulu,

superbelt and i rarely agree but we seem to share similar perceptions on this point. this gives me hope that i will be redeemed from my oppresive prejudices. :p but, if superbelt and i can't convince you... there are some polls that might sway your opinion.

We all have prejudices...don't mistake the use of the word as an insult.

All the polls that I've seen (aside from Gallup, which is oversampling Republicans) show a very close race. This assumes you are talking about polls dealing with the presidential horse race and not some other aspect of the campaigns.

lol, my feelings aren't hurt. :)

yeah, i would agree with you that such a tight race wouldn't necessarily say anything meaningful about the effect of the ads in the general electoral polls.

however, i have seen a couple polls on cnn that said that since the swiftvote ads have been present kerry's rating as a war hero and an effective commander in chief has dropped significantly. forgive me, i cannot find the source at the moment... but it was a double point drop in public perception. now i don't pretend to be able to quantify the effect the drop of perception has directly into the general electoral statistics. still, you would be hard pressed to say that it hasn't had at least some effect.

to be fair and for completeness

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646435.shtml
I still stand by the position of this should all be dropped.

Wow, someone posted both sides of the coin! I'm impressed!

Kerry's big 'flip flop' is the war on Iraq, period.

Its center to his hope for the White House.

He went from a Dove, to a Hawk, to a Dove, and a few more flips in there.

Its all nicely laid out in that early link.

He even advocated ground troops in Iraq in 97.

According to ,factcheck.org the assertion that Kerry has reversed his positions on Iraq is a false one:

I believe that you've quoted this site before so I assume that you'll trust it's objectivity.

Edit: on the matter of the $87 billion, it's worth noting that Bush himself threatened to veto an earlier draft of the bill because it didn't meet his criteria, exactly what John Kerry was attempting to do with his no vote. In either case, the funding of the troops was never in question.

duplicate post

hm, are we talking about the same post? Probably not because there was a list mentioned a few times that was pretty factual. Those decisions Bush made DID happen. You can check em yourself. In fact, people ignored the multiple postings that showed Bush's flip flops! That's pretty funny. I guess the truth is hard to accept sometimes, eh?

That pretty much sums up politics though: you give a list of arguments against something and the other side TOTALLY ignores them and goes on like nothing ever happened. I really don't get how this country continues to operate...

If you feel they are inconsistent, then say so. You can't just sit idle and let it go unchallenged while you think in your head, "hm, these aren't right."

Sorry, but you can't have an intelligent political discussion ANYWHERE if you call Kerry a flip-flopper without acknowledging the fact that Bush does the exact same thing. It just can't happen, and if one thinks it CAN, then the discussion gets nowhere because it's like talking to a brick wall.

You can deny that the sky is blue, but in the end, it really is blue..

[edit]
The whole point of me making that thread was to try and stop all the sheep-like behavior. People just aimlessly regurgitate what they hear others say without checking the facts for themselves... or if they do, they grossly misinterpret the facts to suit their party. Both sides do it.

In this case, republicans got some weird idea to bash Kerry as a flip-flopper, which is REALLY pointless. That would be like makinga campaign against him saying, "He lies". Well, guess what? You lie. I lie. Everyone lies or has lied.

People need to realize that you can't sit here and ramble off something like this and expect to gain in advantage in a discussion, because in actuality it creates the opposite effect. Someone losing their ground and resorting to "Kerry is a flip flopper" and other hypocrisy in an attempt to slam or belittle the other person is on par with getting fed up and saying, "Yeah? Well he sucks just because." It's not very intelligent at all and makes the poster look dumb, IMO. If Bush never flip-flopped and was true to his vision, that's one thing.. but that's not the way it is.

It's not about Bush, it's not about Kerry.. it's about having intelligent discussion that goes beyond "he said/she said, so it must be true" crap.

Some weird idea eh? Pointless? lol
True or not. Like it or not, it has been a very effective campaign. You can argue that they are lieing if you'd like. And you can argue it's negative campaigning, but it's not pointless. The point is to make Kerry look bad and gain favor in the Bush camp. Guess what, that has been working. Perhaps Kerry can reverse what has been lost. But it HAS been working ;)

It's been working so well that the race is too close to call at this point.

Hey, I frankly call that as working DAMN well.

Look at the facts. We have a president who's an economic idiot, who's turned us into a nation that wages wars of aggression against non-enemies, who fails utterly to protect us against terrorism (think maybe it's a good idea to catch the guy that attacked us rather than Saddam who did not?), who changes his story routinely to fit the facts that he just can't hide (Iraq has WMD's, well not really but Saddam is a terrorist, well not really but he's a really bad guy, yeah that's it). In short we have a president who has done more harm to this nation than any enemy country ever has, yet instead of running away with the voters, Kerry is in a close, tooth and nail fight for the presidency.

Any campaign that can take a blundering, ignorant buffoon like W and still make roughly half of the country want to give him another 4 years in office is a DAMN effective campaign.

Hehe, you may have a point Shakran. Too bad more of the electorate doesn't see it that way.

Edit: of course, the similarity to the 50-50 split of the 2000 election points to a stasis in the electorate.

Thus back to my first point: that you are biased (as, admittedly, am I) toward one candidate, and so you are no one to judge(nor am I) who is doing better or worse. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit this to me, but more importantly to yourself.

George W. Bush's Resume:
1976-77: Bush Oil
1978-80: Independent oil operator
1981: President, Arbusto Energy (oil company)
1982-84: President, Bush Exploration Co. (oil cimpany)
1985-88: Chairman of the Board, Spectrum Seven Energy Corp. (oil company)

A quote from yesterday:
"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world."


Psst... flip flopper much?

Will, you dug up this thread for this?

Please explain how this is a 'flip flop'. Oil is something needed by the US, Bush worked in that field, but it would be nice if it were not needed. Because you worked for an oil company, despite the parinoia crowd who thinks the oil companies are hiding all alternative energy sources, does not mean you can't see the need for other energy sources.

Let's put it this way.

I am a drug dealer. My family makes a lot of money off drug dealing. I deal with bad some people to get these drugs. Turns out these bad people hurt others. I get famous and (obviously in order to distance myself and my past from the drugs and thus the bad people) tell people that drugs are bad. Am I a hypocrite?

Edit: is there really a statute of limitations on calling bullshit?

You know whats funny I thought of the drug dealer analogy myself but it was so ridiculous I didn't bother to post it. This may strike you as odd but oil isn't illegal, its not bad, its very important in fact, and there is no 'taint' for 'dealing' it.

If we had no oil tomorrow, the US would be in chaos. We NEED oil, we need oil company CEO's, exploration, drilling, and gas station attendants. If we had no illegal drugs tomorrow, tomorrow would be a better day (unless you sell snack foods or get withdrawal).

My brain still recoils from your analogy, I think I'll just back away smiling, not showing my teeth.

So we are comparing an illegal substance that 1) people make the specific choice to take and 2) is inexhaustable anyway to a major energy source that is the basis of the entire world's economy and is running out?

I don't think we have to wait on the statute of limitations here...

Let's use another analogy then.

I sell cell phones (something that can be very benificial to our modern society). My family makes a lot of money off cell phones. I deal with engineers and designers who fudge numbers and cut corners to make it seem like using your cell phone too much doesn't increase the risk of cancer (there is no definitive answer to the question of whether cell phones cause cancer or not, but this is for the sake of the analogy). Over the years, it is proven that cell phones can be dangerous, but more imporantly, some peope knew they were dangerous and hid it. I get famous and (obviously in order to distance myself and my past from the cell phones and thus the bad people) tell people that cell phones are bad. Am I a flip flopper?

Of course.

I am an oil dealer. My family makes a lot of money off oil. I deal with bad some people to get this oil. Turns out these bad people hurt others. I get famous and (obviously in order to distance myself and my past from the oil and thus the bad people) tell people that oil are bad. Am I a hypocrite?

How about this one?

I am an oncologist. Or a cancer surgeon. I am a vocal opponent of tobacco.

Does that make me a flip-flopper? A hypocrite?

You would if you asked your patients to smoke.

I'll turn off that part of my brain.....ok that one too....one more piece....ok I think I've got it!

If you have anything to do with the oil industry, by default you can not talk about alternative energy or you are a hypocrite!

HOLY CHRIST!!!

I sold candy for fundraisers as a child and now I'm a dentist! My god I am as bad as a drug dealer or Bush!

Will, if you reach any futher with this one you are going to pull something.