And I'm not just talking about this election, either.
Over and over and over, I've heard politician harp (that's definition #2, if you're actually looking) on their opponents for being wishy-washy, for "flip-flopping" on the issues, on and on and on.
But I've always felt that I WANT the guy that's willing to look at the facts, especially when he's presented with new ones, and change his mind. To acknowledge that he was on the wrong side of the issue, or that recent facts have caused him to change his position, or whatever. It shows signs—at least to ME—that there's an actual thought-process going on here. That I'm seeing a reasoning individual, capable of informed judgment, giving consideration of the topic at hand.
Maybe I'm naive. But I'll stick with the guy that's willing to change his mind, rather than the one that says "I'm right, I've always been right, and I know I can't have ever been anything but right!" I've never been big on dogma, I don't care where it comes from.
Over and over and over, I've heard politician harp (that's definition #2, if you're actually looking) on their opponents for being wishy-washy, for "flip-flopping" on the issues, on and on and on.
But I've always felt that I WANT the guy that's willing to look at the facts, especially when he's presented with new ones, and change his mind. To acknowledge that he was on the wrong side of the issue, or that recent facts have caused him to change his position, or whatever. It shows signs—at least to ME—that there's an actual thought-process going on here. That I'm seeing a reasoning individual, capable of informed judgment, giving consideration of the topic at hand.
Maybe I'm naive. But I'll stick with the guy that's willing to change his mind, rather than the one that says "I'm right, I've always been right, and I know I can't have ever been anything but right!" I've never been big on dogma, I don't care where it comes from.
Comments
Unfortunately, in this election we have Mr. "I'm not wrong, I have faith" vs. Mr. "Who me? I'm not flip-flopping, I've always had this opinion."
Neither of those is a person willing to admit a mistake and learn from it. You can't flip and flop back and forth and try to weasel your way out of ever having the previous stance. You show me the candidate that's "willing to look at the facts, especially when he's presented with new ones, and change his mind. To acknowledge that he was on the wrong side of the issue, or that recent facts have caused him to change his position, or whatever," and I'll vote for him. He's not running in THIS election...
As for these two… maybe it's the nature of the beast these days. No one takes responsibility for anything and it's better to be seen as non-commital than to actually admit to being wrong.
Additional irritating rhetoric (for me) is whether the Pres. visits Florida as "a political ploy". Of course he does!...and so what? If he didn't visit, he would be called insensitive or worse. It's a no-win for Bush; and a non-issue for us all. I'd say let's stick to the issues, but I don't think we elect our leaders based primarily on issues.