however, i actually don’t see flip flopping in there on obama’s part.
johndsays
centralmassdadsays
When it is the other, it is a flip flop.
<
p>FWIW, I don’t think the flip flop charge is going to be especially effective for either of these candidates.
<
p>It was so very devastating against Kerry because Kerry hit the primaries with a reputation of being super-careful, and straddling, in order to preserve his executive aspirations. He then poured a huge amount of gasoline on the fire with “vote for before he voted against” gaffe, among others.
<
p>Neither McCain nor Obama have this particular image problem. One or the other of them has some other image problem, not yet present in the consciousness of the popular culture, and the other will beginning hammering it in August or September.
<
p>But, based on where we stand now I think the attention to flip flopping is fighting the last war.
What do you think their respective image problems, aka politics by soundbite, might be.
centralmassdadsays
I suspect that Obama may be vulnerable to being perceived as just-too-liberal, if only because he seemed to be to Clinton’s left during the primaries (if only by an inch) and because his success derived from exciting the left wing of the party. I also think that he may come off as a little too-cool-for-school, when we like our Presdients to be a little more staid. I hope he avoids the sunglasses and sax routine that Bill played up for that reason.
<
p>McCain is tougher, because he has had a very positive media presence for a very long time. If he falls off a stage, as Dole did, or does anything else that seems like a senior moment, he is done.
<
p>In other words, both candidates have a lot of media love and not much in the way of negative baggage image-wise. It could just be that the first big gaffe sets up the soundbite of 2008. In that respect, Obama seems to have the advantage, tempermment wise.
centralmassdadsays
Had Romney been the nominee, he would have been vulnerable as Kerry was.
garysays
But, based on where we stand now I think the attention to flip flopping is fighting the last war.
<
p>So true. Flip flopping is so 2004. This unified front against Obama seems to be shaping up that Obama, as evidenced by prior statements, is a closet liberal and is now attempting to conceal it. Whether that’s flip-flopping, YMMV.
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama said in a statement, “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view.”
<
p>
laurelsays
with the time.com statement. but he will have to reconcile a). perhaps it was an artifact of having to answer yes/no.
jayboothsays
Is from 96 when he was running for state senate to represent a crime-ravaged district.
<
p>I’d say 12 years later and running for president of the whole country, he’s allowed to have changed his mind a little without being a “flip flopper”.
When it is Obama it is pragmatic evolution in response to changing circumstances, and a desire to be inclusive and constructive. đŸ˜‰
kbuschsays
“I know you guys love to call JM a big flip-flopper”
<
p>Not actually true of all of “us”. Otherwise, you’d see it more. Proof? Search comments for “flop” and “flopper”. You’ll find lots of comments about Kerry and O’Reilly. You would be hard pressed to find one about McCain.
<
p>But then, this evidence doesn’t really matter. It’s your “opinion” after all.
Pretty neat, aren’t they? Perhaps you’d like to read the exchange John D and I had in the comments if you haven’t seen it already, we had quite a conversation over a few days.
centralmassdadsays
And thought you came out the better
johnt001says
johnt001says
You’re saying that when Obama answered “yes” to a question about whether he supports states enacting handgun bans in 1996, that it’s inconsistent with his statement yesterday saying in part that he has always supported an individuals right to bear arms? If that’s the case, I’d have to agree, it does look like a pander, but the “right to bear arms” is a pretty broad statement that could be open to interpretation. Pandering on this issue or not, he’s still my candidate and I can still support him – I expect him to do some of these things to attract moderate voters.
<
p>And no, I won’t be putting this on a t-shirt anytime soon, but you can see my graphics and create something similar, correct?
johndsays
Both these candidates, and many others will pander to their voters. Some will call it flip-flopping, and sometimes it really will be. But rather than debate whether BO or JM have flipped, just admit it and move on ( I hate arguments that go…”That’s not true… Okay, it is true but let me tell you why it is true…”. BO is definitely pandering on this gun issue and he will do so on other issues to be viewed as more centric, as will JM as he moves from the right to the center.
<
p>I guess to keep this interesting and not dissect a flea, we could agree to acknowledge the obvious pandering or flip-flops and ignore the minor ones. If JM were to suddenly change his position on Abortion then you should trumpet this to the heavens. If BO were to change his position on something from 1991 vs. 2008, maybe that is irrelevant. In the end, what would be very constructive is to clearly define the candidates by their positions, especially the positions which they differ on.
Dude was a law professor, I’m sure he could expound at length on how he thinks it applies in this or that situation.
<
p>That being said, has he ever devoted even one line of a major speech to the subject?
Hooray for mis-paraphrased sound bites!
That’s the point: my statement is equally as accurate as yours.
Read their attack ad here.
and i guess i’ll never learn from your link-free post.
<
p>you’re right about mccain, tho. he is a flip-flopper of the highest caliber.
JohnD has not mastered links, bold-face, italics, or blockquotes. Links and blockquotes are essential if one is going to substantiate arguments.
<
p>They shouldn’t be difficult to learn. Certainly Java and C++ are more difficult.
flip-flop okay?
however, i actually don’t see flip flopping in there on obama’s part.
When it is the other, it is a flip flop.
<
p>FWIW, I don’t think the flip flop charge is going to be especially effective for either of these candidates.
<
p>It was so very devastating against Kerry because Kerry hit the primaries with a reputation of being super-careful, and straddling, in order to preserve his executive aspirations. He then poured a huge amount of gasoline on the fire with “vote for before he voted against” gaffe, among others.
<
p>Neither McCain nor Obama have this particular image problem. One or the other of them has some other image problem, not yet present in the consciousness of the popular culture, and the other will beginning hammering it in August or September.
<
p>But, based on where we stand now I think the attention to flip flopping is fighting the last war.
What do you think their respective image problems, aka politics by soundbite, might be.
I suspect that Obama may be vulnerable to being perceived as just-too-liberal, if only because he seemed to be to Clinton’s left during the primaries (if only by an inch) and because his success derived from exciting the left wing of the party. I also think that he may come off as a little too-cool-for-school, when we like our Presdients to be a little more staid. I hope he avoids the sunglasses and sax routine that Bill played up for that reason.
<
p>McCain is tougher, because he has had a very positive media presence for a very long time. If he falls off a stage, as Dole did, or does anything else that seems like a senior moment, he is done.
<
p>In other words, both candidates have a lot of media love and not much in the way of negative baggage image-wise. It could just be that the first big gaffe sets up the soundbite of 2008. In that respect, Obama seems to have the advantage, tempermment wise.
Had Romney been the nominee, he would have been vulnerable as Kerry was.
<
p>So true. Flip flopping is so 2004. This unified front against Obama seems to be shaping up that Obama, as evidenced by prior statements, is a closet liberal and is now attempting to conceal it. Whether that’s flip-flopping, YMMV.
on the issues.org
<
p>
<
p>Time.com
<
p>
<
p>
with the time.com statement. but he will have to reconcile a). perhaps it was an artifact of having to answer yes/no.
Is from 96 when he was running for state senate to represent a crime-ravaged district.
<
p>I’d say 12 years later and running for president of the whole country, he’s allowed to have changed his mind a little without being a “flip flopper”.
When it is Obama it is pragmatic evolution in response to changing circumstances, and a desire to be inclusive and constructive. đŸ˜‰
“I know you guys love to call JM a big flip-flopper”
<
p>Not actually true of all of “us”. Otherwise, you’d see it more. Proof? Search comments for “flop” and “flopper”. You’ll find lots of comments about Kerry and O’Reilly. You would be hard pressed to find one about McCain.
<
p>But then, this evidence doesn’t really matter. It’s your “opinion” after all.
McCain is a flip flopper! with cartoons to match
Pretty neat, aren’t they? Perhaps you’d like to read the exchange John D and I had in the comments if you haven’t seen it already, we had quite a conversation over a few days.
And thought you came out the better
You’re saying that when Obama answered “yes” to a question about whether he supports states enacting handgun bans in 1996, that it’s inconsistent with his statement yesterday saying in part that he has always supported an individuals right to bear arms? If that’s the case, I’d have to agree, it does look like a pander, but the “right to bear arms” is a pretty broad statement that could be open to interpretation. Pandering on this issue or not, he’s still my candidate and I can still support him – I expect him to do some of these things to attract moderate voters.
<
p>And no, I won’t be putting this on a t-shirt anytime soon, but you can see my graphics and create something similar, correct?
Both these candidates, and many others will pander to their voters. Some will call it flip-flopping, and sometimes it really will be. But rather than debate whether BO or JM have flipped, just admit it and move on ( I hate arguments that go…”That’s not true… Okay, it is true but let me tell you why it is true…”. BO is definitely pandering on this gun issue and he will do so on other issues to be viewed as more centric, as will JM as he moves from the right to the center.
<
p>I guess to keep this interesting and not dissect a flea, we could agree to acknowledge the obvious pandering or flip-flops and ignore the minor ones. If JM were to suddenly change his position on Abortion then you should trumpet this to the heavens. If BO were to change his position on something from 1991 vs. 2008, maybe that is irrelevant. In the end, what would be very constructive is to clearly define the candidates by their positions, especially the positions which they differ on.