[quote=“Tigerman”][quote]If the situation is changed so drastically, such as by an event as significant as the 911 attacks, then a change in policy is not a flip flop.
Let’s see, prior to the 911 attacks, Bush didn’t want to deal much with foreign affairs. The 911 attacks were an instance of foreign affairs being rammed down our throats. It is the circumstance that dictated the necessary policy change. Different circumstances call for different policies.[/quote]
The dictionary definition is as follows:
n. Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position…[/quote]
No, I am not clearly contradicting myself. Put on your thinking cap, Rascal.
This really isn’t difficult to understand. Policies do not exist in a vacuum. No policy is intended to cover all variant situations and circumstances. Rather, policies are necessarily tied to and aimed at dealing with particular situations or sets of circumstances.
A policy is a plan adotped by a government to deal with a certain situation. If the certain situation remains constant, but the policy changes, then we can rightly say that there has been a policy “flip flop”.
Contrastingly, if the situation has changed, and as a result a new and different policy is adopted, there has been no flip flop… rather, a new policy has been adopted to deal with a new situation.
The dictionary definition does not address a change in situation because it is understood that a policy is something applied to a particular situation or problem or circumstances.[/quote]
Sane people including politicians change their stands based on politics. If someone had been working for what they thought was good government for 30 years and had never changed position even when the beliefs of their constituents had shifted, would they truly be representing the people. Republicans have been phrasing their propaganda in a way which allows the greatest latitude for interpretation. I do not believe that no Republicans have ever flip-flopped, however. Do you?
Bush said he would continue the assault weapons ban when he campaigned in 2000. Then when questioned on this policy issue, said that the reason he didn’t push for a continuance of the assault weapons ban was because there were Democrats and Republicans in both the Senate and in the House who were in favor of lifting the ban.
He did not try to do what he said he would. He said he would do something. It was a campaign promise. During the debates, he said that he did nothing because of politics. I say, even by your definition, that means Bush is a flip flopper. I’ve flip flopped on occasion. You can say again and again that Bush did not flip flop, or flip flop about 9/11, but the real question is whether Bush is fit to lead the country. It will take more than explaining why Bush did something I want to complain about to convince me that Bush did a good job.