I've spent some time this evening visiting a blog by a lady "on the other side of the aisle" as it were. The topic has been Marlin Stutzman in general and one of the specifics was his vote in favor of the tax cuts-for-unemployment extension compromise. This lady accuses Marlin of flip-flopping, to her because it was better for him to appease the rich people getting the tax break than to stand on his principle and vote down the unemployment extension. Of course, simply deciding to compromise for the good of the country couldn't possibly be his reason.
Earlier today, I heard Sarah Palin use the same rhetoric for President Obama for his flip-flop on the bill. And I thought the same thing here. Anyone who compromises for the good of the country is a horrible, evil "flip-flopper"; anyone who holds his ground is a radical, a puppet of his/her party's line, the reason why government is so f'ed up.
And maybe she's right (the lady blogger, not Sarah) and Marlin is just lining up his future nest egg. If so, consider this. Who is Obama's core constituency? Is it not the largely African-American chronically unemployed who thought his election would guarantee them a release from their mortgages and a full tank of gas? This group might bitch and complain about rich folks getting the breaks, but at the end of the day, as long as Obama comes through with their care package from IWD, he's all right. Obama may be a flip flopper, but at least he was loyal to the main group that put him where he's at.
So, let me get this straight, if a person changes his or her mind in a compromise, you will never call it a flip flop?
ReplyDeleteNo one says it is not good to compromise - I am simply noting that it sure did not take Stutzman very long to back off his absolute of not adding to the deficit.
And, by the way, I favored the compromise from the start.
Not when in current usage flip-flop is a perjorative. I would use it if I thought it was an indication of a weak committment to stated values, as you seem to think Marlin's is. I don't think that is what happened here, for Marlin or the President.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you favored the compromise. I think its sad that some of these people who really need the help have to become political footballs.
By the by, I was just looking at more responses to your earlier post. Usually R. Enders is a well thought and considerate poster, but I think bringing in this pointless debate about Indiana's consent law was off-point, flippant, and pretty dumb. Go get'em, Charlotte.
I pretty much agree with your assessment of using the term "flip flop." And, I will admit, my assessment of Stutzman arises from his statements during his campaign as well as my commitment to his opponent. But, I see that as one reason why politicians need to be more out front with their statements during campaigns.
ReplyDeleteWhile I consider my views to the left, I do take stances that often surprise my friends and other bloggers.
For example, I do not favor "Cap and Trade." And, while I would like to see all of us have health care coverage, I think the mandate to require health insurance coverage is not constitutionally supportable and may ultimately be struck down permanently. That will only happen at the point it reaches the Supreme Court.
I am okay with that.
And, I also am not quite sure why Robert diverged into the consent area - that is usually an element in the area of criminal law. Force and consent are on opposite ends of the spectrum.