With the general election fast approaching, we will undoubtedly hear from both sides accusations that their opponent has "flip-flopped" on major issues. The other candidate will be called indecisive, a waffler, someone who is unbalanced on the tight-rope of issues and who will lead America to a precarious fall if elected. The problem with this assertion is that many of these accused "flops" are generalizations and simplifications of complex issues. Being for abortion in the case of rape could lead you to be made to look as if you were for the mandating of every woman to have one. Vote against one military program, and you are a ninny-pacifist McGovernite. Likewise, if you vote for a campaign-finance reform bill that you don't agree with but recognize that the Americna people are for it-you get called a waffler. In one of Jesse Ventura's books, he stated that in order to be in politics, you had to accept the fact that no matter what position you take, someone will be standing around the corner wanting to kick you in the hindquarters for your decision. I know that many of you(like myself) have declared their partisan support to one of the candidates. At the same time, that doesn't mean that we can't look at things from a critical America's Debate perspective and try to bring some reality to some of these hyped-up charges.

Questions for debate.

1.)After consulting both hyperlinks to each candidate and their respective accused flops, explain how their positions on one or more "flop" really isn't a "flop" on the issue. In other words-how are these accusations untrue?

John Kerry's flip-flops

George W. Bush's flip-flops

I think it's more like this in the area of flip-flopping:

Kerry portrayed himself during the primaries as someone who could beat Bush better than Dean. Now that there's no Dean to energize the party base, Kerry is trying to get back to the center.

Bush tried to play the center game in 2000. I won't get into the whole Florida thing, but now, Bush believes that sticking with his conservative base is more important than trying to get voters from the middle.

As for myself, I'm a former "Deaniac" and current ABB voter. I could rail on about all the promises Bush has doubled-back on, but I can't have the heart to actively support Kerry because he just doesn't seem to have a core set of beliefs. If this election wasn't so crucial, I'd be voting Nader right now.