Should Obama have a speech to address the very concept of "flip-flopping"

[4themind]

and trust the ability of Americans to recognize nuance, especially if it's delivered in a clear and eloquent way, such as his speach on race? In fact I don't think he should run from the term, but explain that it's not flip flopping that people should care about, but the benefits/detriments that the position has. He could show what happens if you don
t "flip-flop" and go through the litany of bush failures, that occurred as a result. That changing your mind on an issue is less important than the comparative merits of the two candidates positions come election day, and their ability to demonstrate why a change in position is warranted.

He could even extend the "flip flopping" term into the general notion of natural selection; as a fundamental part of nature's usage of trial and error, and how survival of those who change favorably to conditions are similarly favored in survival and reproduction.I think he could benefit from "desensitizing" the american public to the term. Some may say he should just ignore it, but is there a way to take this negative term and attack it at it's very roots, and greatly reducing it's sting just from now. Question what is it that differentiates a lie, from a liar, a "flip-flop" from a "flip-flopper" and to challenge those who draw such labels to justify THEIR criteria of the term and reframe the attack BACK to a central plank of his candidacy; fighting against the application of labels and dividers that hinder many thoughtful solutions, or even PROGRESS TOWARDS these types of solutions from getting done.

P,S, I don't want to go into a debate about whether or to what extent obama has change some of his positions, but rather a discussion on whether the fundamental premise of labeling someone a "flip-flopper" should be addressed.

[BklynChick]

1. the problem is that he really hasn't flip flopped, so it would look like he's being defensive

[4themind]

5. It might but I think that few among us believed that kerry was one either

but it didn't stop the RW from throwing the charge at him, and perhaps sticking onto him (if some of the polls are to be believed which is arguable I conceed)
Right now obama is essentially saying that he's not a flip-flopper, which could be defined as defensive already, I'm suggesting he try a different tack, to not only try to diffuse the very concept of "flip-flopping" but turn it back onto his attackers by accusing them of the same washington label-making that represent the "old politics" which obama seems to have risen to success by attacking.

[TwilightGardener]

2. No.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. No.

[jody]

4. Obama hasn't flip-flopped has he? Certainly not on such things as the individual right to keep and

bear arms for self-defense which he opposed before he supported.

That's not flip-flopping -- is it? :yoiks:

[nc4bo]

7. But those who wish to call out Obama on his "flip-flopping"....

should also be required to acknowledge the mega list of bush III's flip-flopping and not just his recent ones but his looooooong history of the behavior.

In fact, it should be a prerequisite.

[jody]

8. Makes sense to me or at least cite one of the many internet links that keep track of those things.

google -- obama mccain "flip flop" -- and one can choose among several sites.

Have a great day, :hi:

[MarjorieG]

11. You're being cute but wrong. Staddle maybe, saying there is difference bet. Cheyenne and Chicago.

Found something to affirm. Democratic position long been to say different for hunters and fisherman, but still lost on the issue. Kerry was a real marksman, but that didn't stop the GOP from mocking. Maybe the straddle will help with the $40 million being spent by the NRA.

[jody]

13. What point are you trying to make? Do you know Obama's history re RKBA?

Obama has an anti-gun history and voted AGAINST Senate bill 397 that said “The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals . . . to keep and bear arms.”

The Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . .”

Obama immediately announced “I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms . . .”

Hopefully the SCOTUS decision in Heller will take RKBA off the table as a divisive, polarizing issue.

[ellacott]

6. I wouldn't want him to do this

I think he's been on the defensive too much with these types of speeches. I wish he had more assertive surrogates would go on TV and challenge the media to be fair.

[jobycom]

9. Not like that, no. He should drop a line or two in other speeches, maybe.

Flip-flopper is a term always hurled at every politician, and there's nothing he can do about it except plod on, state his views, and let people decide whether he's flip-flopped. If he made a major speech about it, he'd look defensive, and probably amature, as though he expected to solve every minor accusation with a major speech. The less credence he gives to the charge, the less the charge will work against him. He can drop lines in his speeches about his consistent views, or maybe about how positions evolve as facts and circumstances change.

But the bottom line is that the charge will always be there, he won't change the nature of the media with a speech, and if he focuses on it he will look defensive. The best strategy is to look solid and honorable, and people will ignore the flip-flop charge.

Just my opinion. Could be wrong. Usually am.

[suston96]

10. A legislator changing positions after debates on a bill have been concluded....

...is to be admired for his/her flexibility and not ridiculed. That's what is expected to happen during a legislative process.

In an election process, candidates who "flip-flop" after careful investigation and study on an issue should be equally admired. Ridiculing someone because of a change in position without studying the reasons for that change is pretty shallow, if not stupid.

[unapatriciated]

12. maybe on Fisa

I still don't understand his reasoning on that. I don't see how being against such a flawed unnecessary bill would make him weak on security. He has not changed his position on anything else.