There seem to be no lack of negative statements on all sides about a politician flip-flopping on an issue. I flip-flop if I make a statement without knowing all the facts and then learn more about the issue. Is flip-flopping always negative? It's sometime hard to find the truth or trust the source. But I would think that a public person would do more research, especially before voting in the Senate, for example. What I do dislike is when a politician skirts an issue or flip-flops seemingly in reaction to a poll. Why not state your conviction and stick with it?
So, here's an opportunity for you, my readers, to discuss your favorite flip-flops. Here's one to get us started:
Sarah Palin initially approved the Bridge To Nowhere, then defeated it, and now I hear that she kept the money. How much of this is fact and how much spin? Would there not have been a public outcry, especially from Democrats, if she had kept $400 Million of Federal taxpayer money for Alaska? Wouldn't somebody want to know where that money was going to be spent instead? I mean, if Sarah is being held accountable for accepting $50 per day to sleep in her own home when she's away from the governor's mansion, surely somebody would care about this apparent inconsistency of not really giving $400M back to the taxpayers, especially while bragging about reform? Unless it's a myth!
Talk amongst yourselves, then post a comment...
Ian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
According to this Fox News story (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/14/supporter-critc-spar-over-palins-support-for-bridge-to-nowhere/), Palin Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who is still awaiting official results in his primary battle against embattled Alaska Rep. Don Young, said Palin most certainly did reject funding the bridge but did her job as governor by accepting federal dollars.
Palin “has said that she would not stand in the way of infrastructure dollars coming our way to Alaska. But that was when that bridge was, what, $223 million,” Parnell said. “When she got to be governor and found out that it became a $400 million bridge, she said, ‘No, not going to do that.’ Congress was the — was the body that actually pulled the earmark language off of it, letting that money come to Alaska into our transportation formula funds, just like that money goes to other states’ transportation formula funds.”
Ian
In this era of political spin from both sides, it is hard to separate truth from myth. Give me information favorable to conservatives from a liberal source, or liberals from a conservative source, and I will have an easier time getting to the truth. I don't have any statistics, but I would venture to say that the majority of Americans (non evangelicals in particular) would vote on policy, and not allow political spin to sway them. How they vote on those issues would depend on their philosophy of government, shaped by their life experiences. At the risk of seeming judgmental, few evangelicals, from my observations, delve into researching "facts" as you do, but rely on prominent Christian organizations to tell them how to vote. These organizations apparently are aware of that tendency, thus joining the rest in their spin...
Post a Comment