It reminds me of how unforgiving Republicans had become when they invented the 'flip flop' in political discourse. If you ever changed your mind on anything it was a 'flip flop', during the 2004 campaign, when John Kerry was said to have done so on various campaign issues, when in fact it was more of an evolution of thought. As opposed t…
It reminds me of how unforgiving Republicans had become when they invented the 'flip flop' in political discourse. If you ever changed your mind on anything it was a 'flip flop', during the 2004 campaign, when John Kerry was said to have done so on various campaign issues, when in fact it was more of an evolution of thought. As opposed to Bush I, who flip-flopped on his support of abortion rights for Reagan so he could become his running mate.
On a Coleman Hughes podcast I was just listening to as I hiked today, the guest quoted something like "when the facts change, I change my opinions; what do you do?"
(The editor in me wants to substitute "the balance of evidence" for supposedly less volatile "facts", but it was their phrasing not mine).
Of course, as Dave Murray says, changes are not always due to such positive factors, and sometimes really are flip-flopping.
With politicians one never knows if it is evolution of thought, political expediency or the criticism is just, "you're not on my side with that." Probably the last choice in many cases.
It reminds me of how unforgiving Republicans had become when they invented the 'flip flop' in political discourse. If you ever changed your mind on anything it was a 'flip flop', during the 2004 campaign, when John Kerry was said to have done so on various campaign issues, when in fact it was more of an evolution of thought. As opposed to Bush I, who flip-flopped on his support of abortion rights for Reagan so he could become his running mate.
On a Coleman Hughes podcast I was just listening to as I hiked today, the guest quoted something like "when the facts change, I change my opinions; what do you do?"
(The editor in me wants to substitute "the balance of evidence" for supposedly less volatile "facts", but it was their phrasing not mine).
Of course, as Dave Murray says, changes are not always due to such positive factors, and sometimes really are flip-flopping.
With politicians one never knows if it is evolution of thought, political expediency or the criticism is just, "you're not on my side with that." Probably the last choice in many cases.