Political Flip-Flopping...

Flip-flopping is not admitting that there's a better course.  It's more akin to changing your message to match the crowd.  Generally, it implies making promises that one has no intention of keeping, in order to gain popularity.  As with just about every term in the political realm, it's meaning has been twisted and misconstrued to the point where it is no used liberally without any attachment to original meaning.  Hence the reason everyone can be said to flip-flop on issues.

I think a large part of it, though, is the way people state things.  It's one thing to say that, in light of additional information now available, I think that the initial decision wasn't the best and that another option will be better from this point forward; and saying that well, I MEANT to really do this, but I wasn't comfortable doing so at that time.  The person needs to admit to a level of fallibility which  is not likely to occur.  We tend to have a zero-tolerance policy on these matters.

Changing your mind or changing your view on policy issues isn't a problem.  I agree with you.(Of course the current administration doesn't get this deference)  The problem that I had with Kerry is that I couldn' t figure out where he stood on the major issues.  He never seemed to actually voice a coherent statement about what he stood for.  It wasn't that he changed his stance, it was that he had no stance, or maybe he had multiple stances, to this day I'm not really sure which. He seemed to want to be all things to all people.  Taking a stance on an issue, by it's very nature means that there will be those with opposing view points.  Kerry seemed unwilling to do this.  If you're for something, by it's very nature you are going to be against something else.  Kerry seemed to want to portray that he was for everything, thereby not alienating anybody.  At least that was my perception of the candidate.

I know of several of my co-workers that have said they voted for Bush because "at least I knew what he stood for."

Flip flopping - to me - isn't bad in hindsight, if you get the right decision.  I think, though, that the reason flip-flopping has been demonized is because it creates uncertainty in people's minds IN THE FUTURE. 

People like to know what they're getting...and if a person has changed positions on many issues before - based on new information - what's to prevent the same person from changing their mind again?  Better the devil you know than....

[hi-jack on]

Thanks to political flip-flopping I have a dilemma on my hands. Opus, remember that on outspoken MP from Ontario who got himself kicked out of Harper's Caucus? Garth Turner, outspoken little fellow, is the MP in the riding where I reside. He recently joined up with the party I had intended on voting for (for my first ever election). Now I don't like this man, I'd rather not vote for him. I hope Stephan Dion gives him the boot too before the next federal election rolls around.

[Hijack off]

Thanks for tuning in, next week we shed some light on "MPP's of the Yukon: Unsung, and unspoken for". You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

They wear flip-flops, you know?

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.