The Flip Flop Imbroglio

[Anna Perenna]

I've noticed over the years that a lot of people on this (and other) forums have problems with politicians 'flip-flopping'.

 

Case in point:

 

Barack is supportive of some drilling in order to support a comprehensive energy policy? Is this a Flip? Or a Flop?

 

I'm not endorsing Obama directly (nor am I attacking your post in any way, Old Salt!), but I actually think that flip-flopping can be a good thing - even a necessary thing.

 

As I see it, when someone is 'flip flopping' they are basically submitting to the fact that an issue is delicate, that it needs consideration, and that a former idea about the issue was probably / possibly wrong.

 

In this case, the western world does need to move away from using oil as a primary energy source but they also need to allow for the time it is going to take for industries to adjust to such a change. Ergo, some drilling needs to continue in the meantime. Obama's comprehensive energy policy, as it stands now, seems practical.

 

The world doesn't operate in only black and white, so why do politicians have to have black and white policies - and also stick to them steadfastly?

[Old Salt]

I agree with the majority of what you've said, Anna. I hope you noted the big grin after the flip/flop questions. Politicians recognizing new evidence and changing their outlooks is fine - so long as when they change, they provide the reasoning (as long as it's something important to their constituency). What irritates the he77 out of me is politicians who change stances and talk like that's the way they've thought all along.

 

I don't really care for Obama, but he gave a valid explanation for the reason he would accept drilling.

[snafu]

I agree with the majority of what you've said, Anna. I hope you noted the big grin after the flip/flop questions. Politicians recognizing new evidence and changing their outlooks is fine - so long as when they change, they provide the reasoning (as long as it's something important to their constituency). What irritates the he77 out of me is politicians who change stances and talk like that's the way they've thought all along.

 

I don't really care for Obama, but he gave a valid explanation for the reason he would accept drilling.

 

Yeah the problem is some politicians will be called flip flopper's when in fact they get new insight on something and change their minds. I don't see this as flip flopping but most people think they have to be perfect and figure out right the first time. When you are campaigning you should have all your ducks in a row. But don't pander to to both sides of a topic like Obama dose.

[ImWithStupid]

I've noticed over the years that a lot of people on this (and other) forums have problems with politicians 'flip-flopping'.

 

Case in point:

 

I'm not endorsing Obama directly (nor am I attacking your post in any way, Old Salt!), but I actually think that flip-flopping can be a good thing - even a necessary thing.

 

As I see it, when someone is 'flip flopping' they are basically submitting to the fact that an issue is delicate, that it needs consideration, and that a former idea about the issue was probably / possibly wrong.

 

In this case, the western world does need to move away from using oil as a primary energy source but they also need to allow for the time it is going to take for industries to adjust to such a change. Ergo, some drilling needs to continue in the meantime. Obama's comprehensive energy policy, as it stands now, seems practical.

 

The world doesn't operate in only black and white, so why do politicians have to have black and white policies - and also stick to them steadfastly?

 

I agree completely. I hope to God any leader would be open to other views as opposed to just seeing things one sided. What can be called a flip-flop can be an actual change of direction for the best. That is great and awesome.

 

I hope Obama really means it when he says he is now open to an increase in domestic drilling along with promoting and advancing alternative energy sources.

 

I hope that I'm wrong when I feel that Obama only changed his position as a political ploy because he knows that with Nancy and Harry in charge of Congress, the issue will be unlikely to come to vote before the election anyway.

[Old Salt]

I listened to his statement on TV. I think he said "limited" drilling. I wonder what his definition of "limited" is as it pertains to drilling.

[hugo]

I agree that politicians in office should be attune to the voters and there are times to lead and times to follow. Following the will of the voters ain't always a bad thing. I am suspicious of candidates running for office who do the same. It could be a genuine change of heart or it could be more pandering for votes. I find it unlikely that a Democratic congress and a Democratic president will make expanding oil drilling a top priority. On some issues that D and R besides the politicians name means something. The D usually means no nuclear energy, no new refineries and no expanding the geographical area where drilling for oil is allowed.

 

I ain't hopeful that in the next ten years energy prices are going anywhere but up regardless of what politicians do. Worldwide demand is increasing rapidly; supply is semi-fixed. Fixing to buy a new, or slightly used, vehicle. Narrowed my choices down to a Honda Fit or Civic, a Toyota Corolla or a Nissan Versa. Al would be proud of me.

[hugo]

Posted on wrong forum.

[eddo]

I agree with the majority of what you've said, Anna. I hope you noted the big grin after the flip/flop questions. Politicians recognizing new evidence and changing their outlooks is fine - so long as when they change, they provide the reasoning (as long as it's something important to their constituency). What irritates the he77 out of me is politicians who change stances and talk like that's the way they've thought all along.

 

I don't really care for Obama, but he gave a valid explanation for the reason he would accept drilling.

 

I completely agree with this.

[ImWithStupid]

I don't really care for Obama, but he gave a valid explanation for the reason he would accept drilling.

 

Like I said, I'd like to believe him, but I believe it's a political ploy since 70% of Americans want drilling and he can say this knowing that Nancy P. and Harry R. will never let this go.

 

If you have any doubts about this, see this...

 

Pelosi: At-risk Dems back drilling

By MARTIN KADY II & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 8/5/08 4:49 AM EST

 

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet — but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.

 

But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.

 

Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months — even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.

 

Translation, just like Obama, Nancy P. to Dems, if you are worried about losing the election, lie to the public and say you are for drilling if you want, and we won't hold it against you in the party.

[phreakwars]

Ahh but maybe you don't realize how many DEMS wanna kick Pelosi's ass, and why. She is considered to be just like Lieberman, a back stabbing trader. And doing nothing more then trying to move her own career. I'm betting come election time when she's on the ticket again, it's gonna be a landslide victory to her contender.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

Ahh but maybe you don't realize how many DEMS wanna kick Pelosi's ass, and why. She is considered to be just like Lieberman, a back stabbing trader. And doing nothing more then trying to move her own career. I'm betting come election time when she's on the ticket again, it's gonna be a landslide victory to her contender.

.

.

 

Do you mean, Dems in the public, or Dems in Congress. If you mean Dems in Congress, I'll have to throw a BS flag as she never would have been hoisted up, above all others, as Speaker of the House if the House Dems and the DNC didn't back her.

[phreakwars]

DEMS in public of course.

.

.

[ImWithStupid]

DEMS in public of course.

.

.

 

You mean, real Democrats, not the radicals, kind of like how real, conservative Republicans, haven't been happy with much of what the Repubs in Congress and the Presidencial administration have been doing for some time.

[hugo]

You mean, real Democrats, not the radicals, kind of like how real, conservative Republicans, haven't been happy with much of what the Repubs in Congress and the Presidencial administration have been doing for some time.

 

I'm a Goldwater Republican. Probably the last one.