We love to complain when our politicians flip-flop on an issue. Sometimes, especially when the opinion changes dramatically over a short time frame, it is justified to get upset about a candidate changing views. Sometimes, however, it seems that flip-flopping may be a good thing. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would flip-flop once in a while, instead of obstinately maintaining a failed course of action.
Regardless though, despite the awful cover* from the New Yorker in this particular issue, the article inside is actually an interesting take on flip-flopping, what really qualifies, and when it is better than not.
Of course, if after reading this, you still have something against flip-flopping, especially in cases where it has nothing to do with reevaluating a situation based on new information, but is instead either flip-flopping on an issue within a span of about 11 minutes or about basic facts, such as whether someone has any financial expertise, please see the McCain vs. McCain video for examples of some really egregious flip-flopping.
Personally, I am upset about Obama’s changes regarding campaign financing and faith based initiatives. However, in the grand scheme of this election between McBush and Obama, I can’t imagine it being enough to turn my vote to another term of Bush. By the time that was over, the U.S. would be bankrupt, if it is not already, and there would not be anyone left alive in the Middle East. (OK, the latter may be a slight overstatement, but not nearly enough of one for comfort.
* I refuse to post an image of the cover on my blog. I do not want to further the viewing of the cover. If you have already seen it and are rightfully outraged by it, please feel free to let the New Yorker know how you feel from this site. Remember, this is not a feminist issue. It is about a whole host of prejudice all lumped into one despicable image.