NationStates Jolt Archive

Which party flip-flops more in general? Republicans or Democrats? (I don't mean individual party members, but the parties in general)

I'd say Republicans.

bush but since we have to take party averages it evens out overall

Zell Miller. He's a Democrat for crying out loud.

I'd say Republicans. I'll give just one example:

In the 1980s, Reagan and Bush (the first) staunchly supported Saddam Hussein. They showered him cash, weapons, and endless praise, and vigorously promoted him as a respectable ally. Bush becomes President, and...you know the rest.

I'd say Republicans. I'll give just one example:

In the 1980s, Reagan and Bush (the first) staunchly supported Saddam Hussein. They showered him cash, weapons, and endless praise, and vigorously promoted him as a respectable ally. Bush becomes President, and...you know the rest.

In fact, Bush (the first) "staunchly supported" Saddam so much that he went the extra mile to kick Hussein's ass in the first Gulf War. Saddam was a puppet for the Soviet Union far more than he ever was for the U.S.

In general, both parties are responsible. Still, I am inclined to say Republicans has a slight edge, but meh. I'm liberal, but I "try" to be moderate, though it isn't working.

That depends on your defenition of flip flop. My defenition is a lack of core values that leads you to contradict yourself over time. The democrats win this hands down ie kerry on Iraq, abortion, SUV's, troop funding, ect.

Both equally. They do it at about the same time.

recent example: During the late 1980's, the Republicans supported a balanced budget and the Democrats supported out-of-control deficit spending. The Democrats who supported a balanced budget were dismissed as conservative Democrats. Then one of those rare Democrats became the president in 1993 and helped balance the budget. When one of the rare Republicans who supported out-of-control deficit spending became the president in 2001, the exceptions couldn't be considered exceptions anymore so the Republicans switched sides on the issue, leaving John McCain behind as a so-called "maverick". When one of those rare budget-balancing Democrats became the front runner for the nomination in 2003 and was then replaced by another budget-balancing Democrat in early 2004, they couldn't be considered exceptions anymore so the Democrats switched sides on the issue, leaving Zel Miller behind as a...something.

old example: From the 1860's to the 1940's, the Republican Party supported civil rights for blacks and the Democratic Party opposed it. In the late 1940's, with Truman's influence, a majority of Democrats supported civil rights, causing a large number of Democrats to leave and become Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats registered as Republicans in the mid-1950's, leaving the Republican Party as a strong supporter of Jim Crow laws until the late 1960's

In fact, Bush (the first) "staunchly supported" Saddam so much that he went the extra mile to kick Hussein's ass in the first Gulf War. Saddam was a puppet for the Soviet Union far more than he ever was for the U.S.

After years and years of supporting him.

Everyone hold still, I'm going to kick everyone's ass, right now.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance


Via con dios

Democrats but republicans after choosing a course of action will ride a sinking ship all the way down usually. Neither one is to good.

Change of policy:
Bush promised an isolationist foreign policy during the 2000 campaign.
Self-contradiction:
The people who want to censor sensual material are the same people who want to track what goes on in the bedroom.

They're both bad, but the above examples are interesting, to say the least.

I voted both...although it does seem that Republicans' flip-flops are a lot more grievous (ie can't win the war on terror, sure we can win the war on terror & Bush running as a bi-partisan uniter in 2000, and becoming a huge partisan divider).

Everyone hold still, I'm going to kick everyone's ass, right now.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance


Via con dios
Rock on!
Nasdravlje

politicians are politicians...


And why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over "flipflopping" (or fence-sitting, as it used to be called). When a politician is in error, I would rather them correct the error than stubbornly hold to it. But it goes either way.