The Individualist: The F Word - Flip Flop

Posted by Joe Rivett on 05.10.2007

The point of standing outside an abortion clinic is to get people to flip-flop and change their minds, so why is it when politicians do this, the pro-life crowd calls them flip-floppers?


After thinking about the Republican debate over the last week, a couple thoughts entered my mind. The first thought that came to my mind had to do with the F word. Flip-Flopping.

This word was invented by Karl Rove et al to describe John Kerry. It was effective because Kerry voted for the war and then against funding the war. A change of heart is one thing, but it was obvious Kerry voted against funding to appeal to the Left when he wasn't catching fire in the primaries. The same applied to John Edwards. Bush and company were right to use this label on Kerry and it worked.

But now Republicans are using this label on their own. The bottom tier candidates like to charge Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani as flip-floppers. To make things worse, the media has joined the circus. I have one question? Who gives a damn whether or not someone has flipped or flopped?

I said it in a column a couple weeks ago but it seems like more and more Republicans are obsessed with flip-flops. Ronald Reagan, who many Republicans look up to more than Jesus used to be pro-choice and then changed his mind. Even after he changed his mind, he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court who upheld Roe vs. Wade along with Justice Kennedy.

I think the GOP is still stung by George HW Bush's decision to raise taxes when he previously stated "read my lips, no new taxes." Therefore, they are afraid when Rudy Giuliani states that he will want strict constructionists in the Supreme Court. They are afraid he will turn his back on them the way HW Bush did.

But George HW Bush was never a flip-flopper. He called Reagan's idea of supply side economics, voodoo economics. While he didn't like taxes, he cared about the deficit and a more fair distribution of wealth.

It seems Republicans are upset that their candidates will say anything to get elected. Well, isn't that what you want them to do? If the pro-life movement is going to reject newly pro-life Republicans because they used to be pro-choice then the pro-life movement will fail. If I decide to be pro-life and I'm chastised, then why bother being pro-life? The point of protesting and getting out your agenda is so that politicians and people will flip flop. I am dying to see President Bush flip flop on Iraq. Flip flopping is okay sometimes, especially when the politician is flip flopping to a belief you hold.

The Democrats don't seem to do this. Nobody on the Democratic side has called John Edwards a flip flopper for saying he made a mistake by voting for the war. The Democrats in fact, are more supportive of Edwards because he finally flip flopped to their side. Dennis Kucinich used to be pro-life, that doesn't stop the far left from loving him.

This is why I believe the Democrats are the more tolerant party. The Party's tolerance for different views in one's past is the reason why they are doing well right now. As an Independent, I am more inclined to lean Democrat because I have been a flip-flopper and at least a Democrat won't demean me by calling me one. I used to be pro-life even in the case of rape or incest. Now I'm pro-choice. And you know what? A Democrat will look at my viewpoint and feel good that the Democratic agenda steered me to the correct way of thinking.

Here is my advice for Rudy. According to the last poll I read, over 1/3 of Republicans are pro-choice. Currently, he is the only candidate they can vote for besides Gilmore who hasn't created any buzz. In addition, he can link fixing NYC to fixing the problems America has. It is my belief that evangelicals will care more about security and taxes than if Rudy has flip-flopped on abortion.

The other thought that came to my mind is why are Republicans upset about their choice of candidates? Only 56% of Republicans like their choices. I constantly hear that there is no "real" conservative candidate. Oh really?

Sam Brownback is very conservative. He did admit Pat Robertson got him elected in Kansas. He always votes against tax increases. He got the FCC to change fines from 35,000 to a half a million dollars. Tom Tancredo is far to the right on immigration reform, how is he not a real conservative? Mike Huckabee is another very conservative evangelical. Ron Paul is probably the most conservative as he votes based on the constitution and only the constitution. He is a believer of the Founder's original intent, how is that not conservative? Tommy Thompson reformed welfare before the federal government did it, how is that not conservative?

Since there are lots of real conservative candidates, one must wonder why Republicans are so unhappy and I think I figured it out. Republicans are upset that their "real" conservative candidates would get slaughtered by Hillary. They have trapped themselves in a box by demanding that their candidates be super conservative and electable to the moderate American public.

To these Republicans their messiah is Fred Thompson. He can be that "real" candidate and have a chance at actually winning. But I have some bad news. In my mind, here is what makes a "real" conservative candidate

1. Pro-Iraq war.
2. Pro-Life
3. Low Taxes on the rich to stimulate economic growth
4. Fix health care by limiting lawsuits
5. Free trade regardless of country
6. A strong focus on hetero-marriage
7. Global Warming isn't man made and the government should not get involved in gas regulations

The problem is that these beliefs are the reason why George W Bush is at 28% approval. The "real" conservative candidate to quote Vince McMahon has "no chance in hell" of winning the general election. If Republicans don't realize this, they are going to turn their only electable candidates: Mitt, Rudy, McCain, and maybe Fred into losers. They are pushing them too far to the right and the sad thing is when they push them far to the right, they get called flip floppers by those who are pushing them.