Perhaps Kerry's not lone flip-flopper
Has Bush ever changed his mind?
What does it mean to flip-flop? Clearly it is a political pejorative, but what does it really denote? Is flip-flop to politicians what rabies is to a dog? Is it simply a case of an elected official changing his or her position?
Recently, several Bush supporters took issue with my suggesting that the president's stance on winning the war on terror was indeed a flip-flop.
In addition to calling me "terminally stupid" and reminding me of Sen. John Kerry's numerous flip-flops over the years, one individual posed a direct question: "How can anyone support a candidate who flip-flops?"
His question gave me cause for self-reflection.
My terminal stupidity notwithstanding, I ultimately came to the conclusion that the gentleman was correct. How could anyone support a candidate who flip-flops? Americans want a guy who says what he means and does not deviate. We want Howard Roarke incarnate!
I thought how fortunate we were to have a president who was immune from flip-flops. Could you imagine if President Bush were guilty of flip-flopping? That might change the whole rationale for supporting his candidacy.
I realize that there is no chance of this occurring, but suppose, hypothetically speaking of course, the president did flip-flop. We might experience the following:
The president would have been opposed to campaign finance reform and then supported it.
The president would have been against a Homeland Security Department and then supported it.
The president would have been against a 9/11 Commission and then supported it.
The president would have been against nation-building during the presidential campaign, and then not only supported it, but made it a key component in his reelection pitch.
The president would have taken the position that it was up to the states to decide on gay marriage, and then changed his position by advocating a federal constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex matrimony.
The president could have claimed that he was the "education president," and then failed to fully fund key education programs.
The president could have been an advocate for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S., then met with Mexican President Fox and decided against it.
The president would have been opposed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 Commission citing "separation of powers," then later decided he was for her testifying.
Suppose the president supported free trade, then, because of Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes, supported tariffs on steel, then opposed the tariffs, and was now back to supporting free trade?
What if the president was against Iraq's Ba'ath party members holding office or government jobs in Iraq, then changed his mind?
Imagine if the president said we must not appease terrorists, then lifted trade sanctions on Pakistan, which pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea?
If Bush administration officials had said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants," and now claimed they do, would that be considered a flip-flop?
What if the president had made the following two quotes?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him." -- George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001.
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002.
Should those who dwell in glass houses or run political office refrain from throwing stones? Since my list is "hypothetical," supporters of the president can rest in the comfort of criticizing Kerry as the sole flip-flopper in the campaign.
P.S. Please note that I did not include WMD, imminent threat, link between Saddam and al-Qaida or "Mission Accomplished" in any of my hypothetical examples.
