Personally, I think the notion of a "flip-flop" is a pretty flimsy attack, but if the president is against them so much how does he explain this (hardly all-inclusive) list.
Posted by armand at September 7, 2004 11:00 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsWhile it is important to call attention to the 'flip-flops' in Bush's history, I think once again we risk being diverted away from more important debates. First, there is the tendency of both sides to descend into the "yes he did/no he didn't flip-flop" debate. Second, it gets the phrase "flip-flop" repeated, and I would suspect that even though people would like it to stick to Bush too, that the first thing people think of when they hear it is "John Kerry." (Yes, effective work by the Bush camp geting it to stick) Third, it could lead us into the position: "all politicians lie." Hardly good for democracy. Fourth, we might come to believe, "shoot, people are inconsistent and I'm glad no one is writing down what I say." Oh, wait, people are. Shit.
Anyway, while I understand your post and support the effort to show that the flip-flop label is unfairly applied and silly in its very creation, I also wonder if the average voter is really going to disassociate "flip-flop" with Kerry, and make the connection to Bush.
Finally, Krugman talks about a book in his column today: War is a Force that Gives us Meaning. Has anyone heard of or read this? The summary Krugman gives of the book's interpretation of Argentine case is on target, which makes me curious about the rest. On the topic of this post however, there is also this:
But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."