Why is it when a candidate or representative adjusts their position to fit the desires of the people or the circumstances everyone wants to jump up and say they flip-flop? I think there is a definite distinction between pandering to whatever audience you are addressing vs.changing your position to address a concern most Americans share. Sen. McCain has seen we are headed for even higher gas prices and we need to become independent of foreign oil, not supply more money to the ME countries who do not favor us. Both candidates have mentioned using alternative fuels but it will take decades to transition us over to the new changes. Whether Americans like it or not, our economy and our lives are dictated by the use of oil. We can all do our share by reducing our consumption until we can get things back on track but it still will not be enough.

I agree with the author of the post, Sen. Obama made a promise which he broke. That is not flip-flopping on issues to meet the desires of Americans or the situation we are presently under.

Everyone who reads these articles knows that our lives and this country are not static and what a candidate said 5, 10, 20 years ago does not mean it has to be the same today. I am sure we can all come up with situations in which our stance or views have altered in a month or year's time. The question is, did we change our views to overcome a specific point/circumstance in our lives or in the best interest of those around us, or did we just say we did in order to make everyone feel good so they would find us more accepting?

"Everyone who reads these articles knows that our lives and this country are not static and what a candidate said 5, 10, 20 years ago does not mean it has to be the same today"

Republicans used the flip flop to their advantage in 2004 by demonizing it. Dont be surprised that the tactics will be used against candidates this year.

One should reserve the right to change their mind at any time, especially when presented with new, conflicting information. Any less is stubbornness or arrogance. Two attributes that a capable leader should avoid.

In 2004 the republicans used the "I voted for it before I voted against it" as a club to beat Kerry with.

How did you feel about that allegation that his two votes on the $87b funding legislation was an example of a flip flop?

I think your concept is totally correct. However, the media and I have to believe a lot of people in this country view changing your mind as a weakness. As I said in another post, I probably would vote for a candidate that said they heard arguments against their position that made sense so they are going to incorporate this new information into their plan.

I think what McCain is doing is a great example of defining this problem. If you change position to support a position that is so obviously valid that every one or most everyone can see that the new position is the way to go is it pandering because he is dong what public opinion says they want done. Is he doing what their job is, which is work for us and therefore work for goals we see as important? Or is it careful reconsidering.

McCain is pushing to move us away from oil by using both a short and long term path. I think that if it obvious that this problem has both short term and long term issues. The long term solutions are not ready as of today. The short term solutions are not in agreement with the long term goals of clean energy.

I think that it is obvious that you need to treat the short term problems. If a person with leukemia cut an arteries you would not say that keeping the blood in you does not cure your leukemia so we will start chemo to fix the real problem with your blood.

Remember a single step is required for even the longest journey.

In fact, the two votes on the funding bill were for two different bills. The first said that the money was a loan to Iraq which had to be paid back, the second made it a grant. By making it seem that it was exactly the same bill, the republicans made Kerry look like he was wishy washy.

You are talking about McCain and one issue, energy. The number of times that McCain has switched his views includes the "agents of intolerance"....Dobson, Robertson et,al. Now McCain doesn't think they are so divisive. That, in my opinion, qualifies as pandering. He voted against the Bush tax cuts because he said that those tax cuts would favor the rich and would drive up the deficit. He was right on both counts. Now he wants to make them permanent.

Funding an economic bump by borrowing money to pay for government operations is only putting off, and exacerbating, the final accounting. McCain knows this, but is willing to play to the republican base.

I agree. Going along with the Bush tax is strictly a political move. I think he is presenting some reasoning that seems to defend this switch pretty well. However, even if you agree with the logic of why he changed his view, the view is wrong. Thinking that reducing the taxes paid by higher income individuals will some how trickle down to the lower income levels just does not work.

Unfortunately, neither one has the courage to venture very far from the expectations of their parties, so they can not walk away from issues that their party holds dear but do not work or are detrimental to getting this country going in the right direction.

I agree that McCain has discovered that courage isn't the way to get elected. I'm not sure about Obama, as yet. I'm willing to take the chance.