That’s what I was starting to think and then I saw this:
Flip floppery is everywhere in American politics these days.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) used to support abortion rights, but now, seeking the votes of conservatives in New Hampshire and South Carolina, he doesn’t. Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) voted to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but now that the state is hosting an early caucus, he opposes such a plan. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in 2000 that he saw no benefit from ethanol, but now, hoping for a win in corn-crazy Iowa, he sees the alternative fuel as practical, though he’s still opposed to subsidizing it.
While flip-flopping — or, more delicately put, a change in position — has always been a part of political campaigns, President Bush turned it into a deadly political weapon in 2004. Who can forget the footage of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) insisting that he voted for the $87 billion in Iraq funding before he voted against it? The Bush team used the comment to paint Kerry as the ultimate flip-flopping politician.
Charges of flip-flopping are clearly effective, but is it reasonable to expect politicians who have spent years or even decades in political life to never change their minds on a single issue? And are there certain issues on which flip-flopping is okay and others on which it is political poison?
Such a big deal was made out of John Kerry’s flip floppery on ’04 that it’s now common place.
Even almighty Fred Thompson seems to have “adjusted” his view on abortion. I think that Republicans spent 2004 convincing people they don’t want a flip flopper. Now it appears they will be convincing people that a flip flopper is the way to go.