Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Repuplican flip-flops

  1. Aug 4, 2010 #1
    Republicans are against their own policies when Obama is for them!!

    Yesterdays ( Aug 3, 2010) "They're not embarrassed"! was better. Unfortunately, its not on youtube yet. On yesterdays video Maddow has tapes of top republicans saying they are for ,1.cap and trade 2....etc * ( the list is very long)and then them saying they are against it after Obama embraced their idea. I'll post it when youtube posts it.
    * In this tape Maddow only has tapes of the Republicans being hypocrites about the stimulus.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 4, 2010 #2
    So what?

    Democrats were likely against all those Republican ideas, and now they're in favor of them.

    If two U-shaped magnets are placed pole to pole (so they repel), it's not much of a surprise if they still push away from each other after both are reversed, now is it?

    Using the above metric, both sides are hypocrites if they both reverse position on an issue. It's when you have agreement, when the hypothetical magnets attract, that only one group is a bunch of hypocrites.

    Which is worse? One side voting "no" on what they said was good policy, or the other side voting for something they argued against?

    Looks like Maddow has decided, but she can't change the laws of magnetism (or politics) no matter how smug she is.
     
  4. Aug 4, 2010 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "Democrats were likely..."? Was that a biased guess?

    Most likely.
     
  5. Aug 4, 2010 #4
    Safe bet, given the fact that Dems have had, at worst, a working majority in Congress since 2007. They obviously weren't supportive of those Republican ideas until (as the OP states) Obama was for them.

    Maybe they agreed with the Republicans all along, and were biding their time so Bush couldn't veto the stolen GOP legislation after Obama was settled into office... That must be it, right?
     
  6. Aug 4, 2010 #5

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    News flash: ideas are regularly pilfered in politics.

    As long as it's a good idea, and *someone* spent the political capital to get it done, why does it matter where the idea came from?
     
  7. Aug 4, 2010 #6
    because politics isn't so much about ideas as it is about power.
     
  8. Aug 4, 2010 #7

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can see why someone who is in politics may care and want to get credit for their idea, but for those of us being governed, it shouldn't matter.
     
  9. Aug 4, 2010 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed, lisa, but the OP wasn't about whether the ideas were good, it was about the political maneuvering people do with ideas.
     
  10. Aug 4, 2010 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You've gone a long way with nothing more than a magnet analogy - at best hand waving, if you ask me - and an unsupported assertion (albeit, with a plausible explanation). I believe it would raise the level of discussion significantly if you could recall some illustrative examples.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  11. Aug 4, 2010 #10
    I believe the OP's main thrust had to do with a video on Maddow's site called "Dems left out as Republicans run against themselves." The lead-off example is how Sen. Grassley said the individual mandate for healthcare was unconstitutional after he had gone on the record supporting it.

    The thing is that I can just as easily use google to pull up a right-wing think tank blog post: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/07/19/obama-flip-flops-on-the-individual-mandate-again/

    So what's the story here? A Left-leaning figure (Maddow) calls out a Republican for switching sides on an issue while a Right-leaning blogger does likewise about Obama. It's just like Stephen Colbert said about Brett Favre's "retirement": the thinkable has happened.

    If both sides reverse positions, they're both defending positions they once assailed. That makes both sides hypocrites!

    For the record, I think measured, mutual hypocrisy is actually admirable: it's called compromise! It has to do with whether a politician fulfills his ideals by making concessions to reach a compromise, or if he compromises his ideals by making concessions. I favor the former, which means that I'm actually at odds with those who are rejecting what may have been an olive branch from the Obama camp. That doesn't mean the lemmings on both sides don't fall into place once the battle lines are drawn, however.

    That's why politics is so polarizing. And as you might see from my choice of words there, it's also why the magnet example works.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2010
  12. Aug 4, 2010 #11
    no, compromise is something else entirely.
     
  13. Aug 4, 2010 #12
    Really? A political compromise doesn't entail any retractions of principles the parties previously fought for?
     
  14. Aug 4, 2010 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The GOP has not compromised one little bit since Obama got elected. They vote en bloc and they are determined to deny him any legislative achievements. Once in a while, a few Republicans will break ranks and vote for their constituents, but that is very rare. The GOP is the party of NO. They have filibustered or have threatened to filibuster a record number of proposals, and have put holds on so many nominees to the Federal bench that the Federal justice system is severely compromised. Log-jamming our government for partisan purposes is sick. When judges comes out of the Senate Judicial Committee with unanimous approvals and some jerks puts holds on their nominations so they can't come up for a vote before the full Senate, that is beyond reckless.

    It is time to end obstructionism in the Senate by abolishing "holds" and filibusters. If we can't have majority rule in this country, we are at the mercy of special interests and their bought minions.
     
  15. Aug 4, 2010 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I believe the Maddow piece does a lot more than call out a Republican for switching sides on an issue. It shows that nearly every notable Republican with a position on the Stimulus Bill was simultaneously holding opposing positions on it: one for the national audience and the opposite for a local audience.

    I believe it is a much clearer demonstration of hypocrisy when you can show someone saying something while almost simultaneously doing another. Flip-flopping (especially when you change opinions on an issue over some non-negligible period of time) may just as easily be a genuine change in one's position due to changing circumstances, new information that was not previously available, or even just more thought given to the issue. It's harder to argue that such a flip-flop is a demonstration of hypocrisy, than when someone is flipping while simultaneously flopping.

    An clearer example of hypocrisy from Obama (IMO) was his appointment of William Lynn as Dep Dec Def just after announcing his new rules against appointing lobbyists to Executive positions.

    The problem with the magnet analogy is that circumstances never change with magnets. Political positions can be functions of the times, but the physics of electromagnetism is not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  16. Aug 4, 2010 #15

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Meh. Not saying that Republicans are at all morally good or honest (the vast majority aren't), but most Democrats are just as bad. I still don't know who to vote for this fall: the Republican incumbent proven to flip-flop and vote party against the interests of Spokanites... or this Democratic challenger, likely just as bad?

    Hobson's Choice.
     
  17. Aug 4, 2010 #16
    really. compromise is give and take, pragmatism to get things done. but it comes with the understanding that your true ideals did not change. nor does it require you to flip-flop on what you say your ideals are from day to day.
     
  18. Aug 4, 2010 #17

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you have a citation for that?

    Also, don't forget the Miguel Estrada shenanigans.
     
  19. Aug 5, 2010 #18
    They need to be more like this guy:
    MG_0216x.jpg
     
  20. Aug 5, 2010 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you Google "GOP filibuster record" you will find many more citations, but since they are often posted as political analysis and not mainstream news articles, I'd rather not link to them.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=9974807
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook