Decisions and Flip Flopping

[Texsox]

Since when is standing by a bad decision something we covet in a leader? There is a difference in changing your mind on a daily basis and changing your mind when new information becomes available, or if your original idea isn't panning out.

 

Are we treading on dangerous ground when we do not allow elected leaders to adjust the sails? Isn't it a bit of insanity to think we always make the right decision the first time?

[NorthSideSox72]

Since when is standing by a bad decision something we covet in a leader? There is a difference in changing your mind on a daily basis and changing your mind when new information becomes available, or if your original idea isn't panning out.

 

Are we treading on dangerous ground when we do not allow elected leaders to adjust the sails? Isn't it a bit of insanity to think we always make the right decision the first time?

Numerous reasons for this problem. For one, the two people we had in the 2004 election for President were both studies in going to an extreme for no good reason. Bush's adamant denial of reality, and Kerry's spineless noodleing on every issue. Another problem is of course that the parties themselves have gotten so far from center, that the debate has become mired in flith with no substance at all. Yet another reason, since 9/11, we are faced as a nation with a new reality, one which has no easy answer (despite the intellectually lazy efforts by some to find one).

[southsider2k5]

It bothers me when the change in thinking is done simply because they other side changed their minds.

[Texsox]

It bothers me when the change in thinking is done simply because they other side changed their minds.

 

I agree and would add, or for political gain.

 

But we are getting to the point that as soon as someone can tag a flip flop label on someone, deserved or not, it is labeled as a negative, especially if you don't agree with the second decision. That's what concerns me.

[Damen]

Numerous reasons for this problem. For one, the two people we had in the 2004 election for President were both studies in going to an extreme for no good reason. Bush's adamant denial of reality, and Kerry's spineless noodleing on every issue. Another problem is of course that the parties themselves have gotten so far from center, that the debate has become mired in flith with no substance at all. Yet another reason, since 9/11, we are faced as a nation with a new reality, one which has no easy answer (despite the intellectually lazy efforts by some to find one).

 

I'd like to agree, except for the part about the center. I think "the center" is more mythical construct, repeated endlessly by braindead pundits, than reality. Due to that, when people talk of "the center", I don't believe that idea has any substance to it either. Moreover, its often when politicians strain themselves to satisfy the pundit cries of "Move to the center!" that you start to get hypocracy that seems more rooted in political posturing than any change in beliefs.

[southsider2k5]

"The Center" doesn't exsist in American politics anymore. To get anywhere today you have to be in line with one party or another, or risk alienating them both, and being left out in the cold.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree and would add, or for political gain.

 

But we are getting to the point that as soon as someone can tag a flip flop label on someone, deserved or not, it is labeled as a negative, especially if you don't agree with the second decision. That's what concerns me.

 

I think there is a difference between changing your mind based on the results of your past actions versus changing your mind to fit a political purpose, as you say.

 

Kerry flip flopped because he was gung-ho for the war and then later said he never was for it and had always been against it. Had he pulled a Hillary and said, look I was for it but this douche messed it up and I think we need a new strategy. If he had done this we'd prolly have a moron leading our 'international pariah' of a country.

 

I agree though, blindness to reality, or staying resolute, or whatever Bush keeps saying wasn't the best either. HOWEVER, the only positive I can say on that is we live in such a results oriented, give it to me now society that we have zero patience anymore to see how things pan out. I didn't mind him being so 'dead-set' in his strategy, until it become year 3 and year 4 and nothing had changed.

[Balta1701]

"The Center" doesn't exsist in American politics anymore. To get anywhere today you have to be in line with one party or another, or risk alienating them both, and being left out in the cold.

I disagree. I think that there actually is something of a center in American politics; in almost every issue, you can find one side, or another, or a balance of the two, where a huge majority of Americans will agree with you. The problem is...the very vocal people have a habit of not liking those positions. For example; on Iraq, there is strong support on the part of a huge majority of the American people for beginning to draw down American troops very soon and having some sort of deadline within a year or two where the majority are out. On abortion, the "Safe, legal, and rare" setup seems to poll very strongly; most people don't want it banned, but want it to be as rare as possible. On taxes, in general, most Americans think that the government wastes too much money and is too corrupt. And so on.

 

So in other words, if you were to find the exact median voter on an issue, he or she would fall somehwere on the spectrum, but the issue winds up being that the media and politicians often refuse to acknowledge those majorities.

[southsider2k5]

I disagree. I think that there actually is something of a center in American politics; in almost every issue, you can find one side, or another, or a balance of the two, where a huge majority of Americans will agree with you. The problem is...the very vocal people have a habit of not liking those positions. For example; on Iraq, there is strong support on the part of a huge majority of the American people for beginning to draw down American troops very soon and having some sort of deadline within a year or two where the majority are out. On abortion, the "Safe, legal, and rare" setup seems to poll very strongly; most people don't want it banned, but want it to be as rare as possible. On taxes, in general, most Americans think that the government wastes too much money and is too corrupt. And so on.

 

So in other words, if you were to find the exact median voter on an issue, he or she would fall somehwere on the spectrum, but the issue winds up being that the media and politicians often refuse to acknowledge those majorities.

 

There is a distinction you are missing there. When I said politics, I meant our politicians. There is no doubt there by its very nature, the general public is going to be centrist. But when it comes to politicians, there is no middle ground, you have to be in one camp or the other, or you are out.

[Balta1701]

Kerry flip flopped because he was gung-ho for the war and then later said he never was for it and had always been against it. Had he pulled a Hillary and said, look I was for it but this douche messed it up and I think we need a new strategy. If he had done this we'd prolly have a moron leading our 'international pariah' of a country.

Actually, I think you're pretty much wrong in that assessment. When Mr. Kerry voted for the war resolution, his speech on his vote was hardly "Gung-ho". If you can get through it without falling asleep, Here's the original speech Kerry gave on his vote. Here's the key part, if you don't want to read the whole thing:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

 

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

 

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

 

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

 

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

 

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

 

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

That said, yeah, Kerry still would have been much, much better off if he had just come out and said he was wrong. He probably doesn't even believe he was wrong in the war vote, because he feels like he explained everything in that speech, and honestly he did. But that doesn't fix the fact, to my eyes and to a lot of peopel's eyes, that his vote on the war was the wrong vote at the time, and he should have known better.

[Jenksismyhero]

"The Center" doesn't exsist in American politics anymore. To get anywhere today you have to be in line with one party or another, or risk alienating them both, and being left out in the cold.

 

 

I don't really agree with this. There is a 'center,' it's just that the voice isn't loud enough. You can be like me, an economic conservative who's more socially liberal. There's just a disconnect because both sides have labeled the opposing party as extreme as they can. You're either a hippy or a crazy christian. No politician is like that though. Look at some top names in the upcoming election. People like Guiliani (very much in line with me) and Obama (more liberal but supposedly a fan of Reganomics...supposedly is the key word, we don't really know because he hasn't done anything to prove it, but that's what he says) are much more centered than the crazies we've had to choose from the last couple elections.

[Texsox]

We probably should define center. Generally, candidates can view an election as having three groups. The first are their strongest supporters who will vote for them regardless. There are a bunch of them here, even though they won't admit it, but they will vote for the candidate from their party regardless. So those two groups are spoken for, they are either voting for or against you and there is very little you can do to win/lose those votes.

 

The fight becomes for the "undecided" or "middle" group. Who can sway the most out of that group. Substitute policies, sports teams in the two team city, or Coke vs. Pepsi. The concept is accurate.

 

Getting back to the topic title, of al;l the issues facing America and the World today, isn't the Iraq War the most obvious place we need new decisions? Remember Iraq was going to kill us all with their WMD, the Government was torturing civilians. Mission Accomplished in solving those two issues. We didn't find any WMD and we have forced a regime change. Right or wrong, we achieved those goals.

[Balta1701]

We probably should define center. Generally, candidates can view an election as having three groups. The first are their strongest supporters who will vote for them regardless. There are a bunch of them here, even though they won't admit it, but they will vote for the candidate from their party regardless. So those two groups are spoken for, they are either voting for or against you and there is very little you can do to win/lose those votes.

 

The fight becomes for the "undecided" or "middle" group. Who can sway the most out of that group. Substitute policies, sports teams in the two team city, or Coke vs. Pepsi. The concept is accurate.

Interestingly enough, that has not been the strategy of Karl Rove in the last 2 Presidential elections at all, in fact, Mr. Rove's strategy has been to specifically state that the strategy you outline is wrong. Rove's strategy was to turn out the base and try to get 50%+1 voters out of the base, and it succeeded in electing GWB 1 time, and came very very close a 2nd. Rove did not care at all that Kerry beat Mr. Bush significantly in so-called "Independent" or swing voters, because he turned out enough of his base to get a win. Edited February 1, 2007 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

Interestingly enough, that has not been the strategy of Karl Rove in the last 2 Presidential elections at all, in fact, Mr. Rove's strategy has been to specifically state that the strategy you outline is wrong. Rove's strategy was to turn out the base and try to get 50%+1 voters out of the base, and it succeeded in electing GWB 1 time, and came very very close a 2nd. Rove did not care at all that Kerry beat Mr. Bush significantly in so-called "Independent" or swing voters, because he turned out enough of his base to get a win.

.

 

Strategist have pointed out that while the GOP didn't fight for the undecided, the Dems did not succeed in getting them to the polls in enough numbers. It's semantics and spin. The other factor is you have to energize your base enough to actually go vote.

[mr_genius]

it succeeded in electing GWB 1 time, and came very very close a 2nd.

 

 

then who's president right now! no wonder Iraq is messed up, no one is running things. you should email the New York times or someone else in the media with this groundbreaking information you have.

[Balta1701]

then who's president right now! no wonder Iraq is messed up, no one is running things. you should email the New York times or someone else in the media with this groundbreaking information you have.

Dude, by all accounts, Al Gore received more votes in 2000 than George W. Bush. In other words, the Rove plan in 2000 failed to achieve the narrow electoral majority that it was able to get in 2004. Bush was placed in office if for no other reason than the existence of the Electoral college, which as far as I can tell was not part of the Rove plan.

[Jenksismyhero]

Dude, by all accounts, Al Gore received more votes in 2000 than George W. Bush. In other words, the Rove plan in 2000 failed to achieve the narrow electoral majority that it was able to get in 2004. Bush was placed in office if for no other reason than the existence of the Electoral college, which as far as I can tell was not part of the Rove plan.

 

It's been a staple of the Republican party since Reagan to focus on the south, midwest and mountain regions specifically because of the electoral college. The Dems almost always get the bigger states (New York, California, Illinois, etc) but none of the 'rural' states. Grant it, every election there are swing states, Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, but for the most part the strategy has always been to campaign hard in the smaller states (something the liberals haven't done well since Carter) to pick up the collective 'small state' electoral votes that would equal the big states. It'd be nice to have a chart of how many times Bush visited each state, I'm betting it would line up fairly well with his first election, Doles election, Bush 1's two elections, and Reagan (give or take a few states that were heavily unionized in the 80's-early 90's).

Edited February 1, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

The center is not a "mythical construct". Its where most of the country lies. And the thing is, if you have been studying poli sci for a while as I and others here have, you'll find that the two parties used to be much closer to that center and each other than they are now. Heck, it used to be a joke among Europeans, that we have a 2-party 1-party system. Not any more.

 

And as I've said before, I suspect that whichever party fields a candidate NOT in the depths of their party line, and closer to center, will win the 2008 Prez election. I think the tide is turning against the extremism amongst many of the "swing" voters, and they want someone not at the far ends of the spectrum.

[Damen]

The center is not a "mythical construct". Its where most of the country lies. And the thing is, if you have been studying poli sci for a while as I and others here have, you'll find that the two parties used to be much closer to that center and each other than they are now. Heck, it used to be a joke among Europeans, that we have a 2-party 1-party system. Not any more.

 

And as I've said before, I suspect that whichever party fields a candidate NOT in the depths of their party line, and closer to center, will win the 2008 Prez election. I think the tide is turning against the extremism amongst many of the "swing" voters, and they want someone not at the far ends of the spectrum.

 

I'm not saying there is not a center, period. Merely, what is often thought of or referred to as the center in most discourse in mainstream media is often at odds with what polling data shows the legitimate center is as defined by the public.

 

And when you say "both parties have gotten so far from the center", then I've got to wonder what you consider the center to be? Everything the democrats have passed so far has received broad public support. How is that governing far from the center?

 

On edit: This is kind of an example of what I'm talking about

 

MSNBC Analyst and Hardball Guesthost Mike Barnicle on Imus:

 

You know what Webb is, Don? Webb is the antidote to 25 years of liberals in the Democratic Party taking the party of my parents and my party, when I was growing up, before I became an independent newspaper columnist, taking the Democratic Party so far left that the people who need it don’t recognize it and have come to despise it. Most Democrats, over the last 10-15 years on the national stage, you stand up and you put a gun to their heads and you say, “What are the top two or three issues that concern you as an activist, as a partisan, as an official in the Democratic Party and they say, “Oh, gay marriage—uh uh uh uh—choice, uh—stuff like that. But it’s not! But that’s not the Democratic Party! The Democratic Party is war and peace. The Democratic Party is how to provide people with health care, how to provide people with college education, how to help people and not how to piss people off!

 

This statement is absolute sh*t. He couldn't name one "official in the Democratic Party" who would list gay marriage as a top issue. After Iraq, most Dems would list health care, education, and economics as the top issues of the day. What's more, Jim Webb is significantly more populist, and thus, to the left, of many in the Democratic party on economic issues. Yet, somehow, he has been thought of as a centrist, or even conservative, Dem pulling the party back to the center by advocating policies that are farther to the left.

It makes absolutely no sense, for a reason.

 

"The center" cited most often in discourse isn't about subtance. It's about style.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Damen