Changing positions... how much is acceptable?

[leyton]

So Howard Dean has recently changed his position on taxes; originally, he wanted to repeal the entire Bush tax cut, on the basis that it merely shifted the tax burden to states and municipalities and actually increased taxes in the end. Now, he's decided he might or will pursue a middle-class tax cut. It seems to me that this flip-flop is due to the fact that he knows his chances of winning the nomination are pretty good and that he'll soon be heading into a general election where he would get attacked for raising taxes.

My dilemma is this: Now, I don't want to see Dean go down in flames in November because he was accused of raising taxes. I don't quite fit into the ABB crowd, but I definitely want to see Bush gone; thus I have to pick a candidate that is running a shrewd enough campaign in the primaries to be able to take on Bush. And Dean is this guy: he's come from the back of the pack to being the frontrunner, he's got a huge grassroots organization, and money is flowing in. So obviously his campaigning skills are first-rate. And the change in position on taxes is probably a well-calculated move now that he has a good deal of the base behind him. What's more, I speak as someone who is considering a career in politics (as in, being a political operative). But how much is acceptable in terms of these flip-flops? I don't want to elect a Democrat for the sake of having him cave to the right wing either to get elected or to implement an agenda. And in this particular instance, he traded a nuanced position for an appealing one (in my view). Because then, what's the point? I might as well just sign on to the GOP.

I think I'm OK with the flip-flop on taxes, but if Dean suddenly reverses another major position, I'm going to be disappointed. What do you think?

[Hep]

1. That no one can get this right

after numerous corrections makes me sad for the state of the left.

[poskonig]

2. I've been arguing *for* a flip-flop in taxes.

It looks like Dean might cut payroll taxes, which is the right place to go.

I'd like to see him flip-flop on the defense budget, but we aren't going to see one of those, at least before he is inaugurated. :P

[Hep]

3. I reiterate my previous comments.

[ClarkGraham2004]

37. I think Dean's latest flip-flop will help him long term.

He will still be seen as an out-of-touch tax increase monger, but this latest flip-flop should tame it a bit.

[leyton]

4. Help...

what's the difference between income and payroll taxes?

[democratreformed]

9. Serious?

Income taxes are the federal and state taxes that are held out of your check to you have to file a tax return on every year. Payroll taxes are the FICA and medicare taxes that are held out of your check and that your employer has to match. Payroll taxes pay for social security and medicare.

[leyton]

30. OK, thanks

for the clarification. I'm still learning... :)

I still stand by what I said originally, in that switching positions too much would alienate me.

[democratreformed]

33. Glad I could help ya.

I'm still learning a lot myself.

[democratreformed]

5. I think the change on the tax issue is a good move

I can't tell you how much changing you should accept. Only you know your feelings on that. Since I didn't support him to begin with, this doesn't affect me at all. But, I am glad that he is considering it b/c, like many others, I think the "raising taxes" issue would have hurt him very bad in the GE. And, yes, I do have a right to be interested in the issue (even though I am not one of his supporters right now) b/c I might have to work and vote for him.

[Hep]

7. Wrong.

More clowning.

[BootinUp]

6. I would phrase the question differently

I would like to know what positions Dean has taken that were unpopular from the get go and stuck with them on principle.

[BootinUp]

31. *crickets chirping*

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Oh, I am sorry Jim.....we aren't allowing you to frame the debate

See how that works?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. Principle? You'd have to explain to Dean what that means.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. I don't think it's bad if there is a GOOD explanation about it

He is FINE TUNING his policy not flip flopping..NOW were he to campaign on the war vote and then shift that position, I think I might be more suspect.

[Hep]

11. THANK YOU

You are my best friend for the day.

[blm]

10. So, Dean isn't a straight talker?

Dean stepped on ALL the other candidates for a year calling them "Bushlite" using taxes as one of the reasons...he was just being political? He doesn't really mean what he says? He was being disingenuous? He was PLAYING his audiences as gullible?

[poskonig]

12. Most of us are adults.

Gullibility isn't a serious concern. It appears you trust yourself to make good decisions about Democrats, but not other Democrats.

[blm]

18. Sorry, Dean is flipping on an issue he USED to berate the others.

It proves he was only USING it as a wedge issue against DAMN FINE DEmocrats and he had no sincerity behind his outrage.

You may find that acceptable, but I do not.

[arewethereyet]

45. well, yes, isn't that obvious ?

but frankly it's been obvious to me for months.

[arewethereyet]

46. changing positions signals changing principles

and principles should not change.

If it can be fairly described as non-principle, then why did they make a mistake like this to begin with ? Will they fail to think things through all the time ?

Like while the have their finger on "the button" ?

Edwards wrote his platform over a year ago and has had no reason to alter it in any way because it was properly thought out and well constructed.

He doesn't need to figure out which way the wind blows for "the people", he already knows because he IS one of "the people".

[eileen from OH]

13. The way I'm seeing it is this

(and I could be putting my own pro-Dean spin on it. Sue me.)

Dean wants to scrap the entire Bush tax cut to start with. That includes the way the middle class cuts were arrived at - i.e., the formula, etc.

But he then wants to propose a program that will include tax reform (hopefully including those goddam offshore ones and any breaks for businesses that go overseas) and a different formulation to give the middle class a break.

See, what I've been taking from the others keep-part-of-the-Bush-tax-cut candidates is that they want to break apart the Bush tax cut and keep only the ways-and-means of the middle class part. And Dean wants to scrap it all and come up with a different way to give the middle class a break.

I don't know why he's waiting and think that's stoopid. Although the way it could be presented is that he's learned, from being on the road and listening to people, that he has to be responsive and that's why he's taking his time to craft something that will help but won't break the bank. Nothing would be worse than putting out something that is terribly flawed, in the interest of just getting it out there now.

eileen from OH

[bearfartinthewoods]

34. a classic case of too much of a switch

'read my lips...no new taxes'

[dansolo]

57. Breaking apart Bush's tax cuts is pointless

There is no point to break apart the Bush tax cuts, because the only part that people want to keep goes away after 2004. Pardon the caps, but this is important:

AFTER THE ELECTION, THE BUSH MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT GOES AWAY.

Too many people don't seem to understand how Bush's tax cut works, including a lot of people here at DU. A total repeal of Bush's tax cuts will have no effect on the middle class. Their taxes are set to go up automatically in 2005.

[eileen from OH]

61. Dansolo, that is important

do you have a link that explains it in terms easy for us (well, me!) to understand.

eileen from OH

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. It has to be explained.

When a candidate comes out strongly for one position, talks about it as a matter of bedrock principle, mocks the other candidates if they disagree, and then suddenly makes a 180 -- they better have a damn good explanation if they are gonna have any credibility with me.

[BootinUp]

15. The other candidates are out of contention?

Is that a good enough explanation?

:evilgrin:

[Hep]

19. You'd have to get the premise right

for anything to be explained to you at all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. Your comment is meaningless unless it was meant as an insult.

[rucky]

16. I Go Back-and-Forth With This Question All The Time

[ecstatic]

17. If we can tolerate someone changing their political party

within the past few months, then surely we can tolerate a few minor changes from other candidates--as long as its just minor details of an overall policy that are being changed. Now, if someone switches their stance on a major issue, i.e. switching from pro-choice to pro-life, then that is a huge problem that should be dealt with.

I think its great to have candidates who are willing to change their positions as more information becomes available.

[blm]

20. Unbelievable. Dean USED that tax issue to berate the others.

His flipping on it PROVES how INSINCERE he was and that he demagogued taxes as a wedge issue for over a YEAR.

[Leilani]

21. I think voters want a candidate with solid core beliefs

When politicians start flip-flopping, it hurts their credibility: ex.Kerry on IWR.

I think voters will accept a candidate who has different positions from their own, as long as they respect them.

You may not like Reagan, but he had core beliefs, everyone knew what they were, & he was popular because people liked him & respected him.

[blm]

22. Kerry didn't flip on IWR.

He said the vote for the resolution was right but Bush went about it all wrong.

Kerry isn't waffling on war; the others are being simplistic


September  02,  2003
The Hill
By Josh Marshall

>>>>>
But even if Kerry slipped by Russert's big guns, his ambivalent stance on the war clearly will remain a target of his political opponents for the remainder of the campaign.
That's a problem for Kerry, but it's an even bigger one for the country.
Here's why:

The key dig against Kerry is that he waffled on Iraq. His critics say that he voted for the war resolution when President Bush and the war were popular but as the president's popularity declined and the facts piled up about deceptions, poor planning and incompetence, Kerry shifted toward mounting criticism.
But some issues are complex enough that nuanced, even ambivalent, positions should not be a liability.
>>>>>

But what to do about Iraq was always an issue that required a careful weighing of one priority against another, and that's not something we've seen much of from Kerry's opponents, who appear on the surface to have positions both clearer and more consistent than his.
>>>

>>>>>>
Or set aside inspectors. One conceit of the antiwar crowd is that Saddam could have been held in check indefinitely by stationing a few tens of thousands of troops on the country's borders. Perhaps so.
But one thing that pulled many reluctant hawks into the regime-change camp was the realization that containment itself amounted to a running wound on American interests in the region. Garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia helped kindle the rage that walloped us on Sept. 11. And in myriad ways, the status quo of the late 1990s was one in which time was on Saddam's side, not ours.
That running wound doesn't look nearly as bad now that we have 10 times more troops just across the border and each week brings a new suicide truck bombing. But that just shows that the case was difficult from the start.
As nearly as I can figure it, Kerry's position was to get inspectors back in the country and then see if America's national interests could be safeguarded short of war.

If war was necessary, he was willing to wage it. But if he did so, it would be with the mix of planning and international support that would avoid the parade of deadly misjudgments we've seen over the last few months.
To me, that sounds not like waffling but like a much sounder approach than the one we've been following for the past year.
>>>>>
But from where I see it, we already have enough folks in the field who spout dogmatism, inflexibility and maximalism and mistake those qualities for leadership.

[Leilani]

26. Actually, I agree with you

However, I meant the perception of the whole thing.

Kerry was perceived to have flip flopped, & I think this was due to media always taking an over-simplified approach to everything. If it doen't fit in a 1 sentence sound bite, it gets distorted.

And also, I think the Dean attacks against Kerry really damaged him.
The attacks made Kerry look weak & indecisive.

It was my mistake to repeat conventional wisdom, because I completely trust Kerry on foreign policy.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. so Kerry being weak and indecisive had nothing to do with it?

This is a real problem for Kerry and the reason he would be a terribel candidate. First he allows bush to frame the debate and then according to some of his supporter he allows Dean to frame the debate. If he is that weak, how could he possibly beat bush, much less be a good candidate?

[isbister]

50. Re: so Kerry being weak and indecisive had nothing to do with it?

This is a real problem for Kerry and the reason he would be a terribel candidate.

A crowded field of candidates clammoring for the attention of the media while the nation is at war is a lot different than having the debate in a two person field.

First he allows bush to frame the debate and then according to some of his supporter he allows Dean to frame the debate.

Kerry never allowed bush to frame the debate. I assume that by this you mean the IWR. If so, nonsense. Kerry voted in a manner consistent with his position. (Inspectors needed to be in Iraq. The UN and Saddam needed to know the Congress, the U.S. was serious. How can one minority party Senator force the President to follow the IWR other than by speaking out publically? ...as Kerry has.)

Kerry allowed Dean to falsely attack him for a very long time and Kerry delayed his response(s). This could have been, in part, a lack of desire to attack a fellow candidate... not wanting to drag the party down. However, as we well know, negative false attacks work well in the United States. So, Kerry responded by attacking but, in a much different way than Dean. Kerry resort to making false attacks but brought up honest differences between them. Where people are listening to his message, namely Iowa right now, this works.

If he is that weak, how could he possibly beat bush, much less be a good candidate?

He can beat bush because he knows both foreign and domestic policy inside out. He can clearly identify where bush has gone wrong and offer an intelligent plan to fix it. He's not hot air spouting out slogans, he has a vision for the country.

He can beat bush because because he can stand on a debate stage and ask george where he was while Kerry was fighting for his country, he can use his line about his knowing about aircraft carriers for real. bush can say he was chasing girls and boozing it up on Florida beaches.

He can beat bush because he can stand with veterans who are there because they know Kerry has and will fight for them... unlike bush who uses them as campaign props.

He can beat bush because the republicans will drag Kerry's wife into the fray and will attack her. They won't be able to resist. She has 600+ million with which to defend herself... and she is the type of person that will spend as much as necessary to do so. Any other candidate's wife will also be dragged into this general election by the republicans... none have the same ability to defend themselves in the eye of the American public. Remember the hate they have for Hillary? The next Democratic candidate's wife might not get the same treatment as she does, but they will hate her none-the-less.

Read the recent Quad City Times endorsement, you'll get the ideea:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0109c.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. So Dean being a liar had nothing to do with his many positions?

This is a real problem for Dean and the reason he would be a terrible candidate. First he says he believes one thing, then when the polls indicate it may not be the most popular position, he says something different. If he can't be trusted to tell the truth about what he thinks, how could he possibly beat bush, much less be a good candidate?

[BootinUp]

25. No question you are right, but

Another poster below makes the case for reconsidering. The truth is that both are important, the reason for changing a position or not changing is what the voters want to hear.

Also, if a cnadidate seems to change as often as a chameleon on many issues, his credibility will get damaged.

[Leilani]

27. I agree with that

Most thinking people evolve on various issues; a closed mind is ignorant. I don't have a problem with thoughtful change.

What I meant was, a politician basing his positions on what is most popular, is the worst kind of pandering.

[BigMcLargehuge]

23. I am more comfortable with a candidate that reconsiders their positions

and adapts rather than one who sticks to a set of beliefs irrespective of current events. That sort of self reflection is the hallmark of a mature mind and active intellect.

[blm]

29. The issue you used to beat up the others for over a year?

You think that was just self reflection? If it was truly self reflection, he would apologize to the others for his abusive comments against their proposals.

[mzmolly]

55. Such as?

What "abusive" statement are you refering to?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

24. He's flip-flopped too many times IMO: Nafta, Soc. Security, Iraq, N. Korea

trade in Cuba, death penalty, legalization of medical marijuana, publci financing.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000622.html

Public Financing and Campaign Spending Limits: In March, Dean promised to raise a fuss if any of the other candidates decided to abandon spending limits and skip public financing.

"It will be a huge issue," Dean said in March. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.... always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in." As recently as June 7, Dean wrote to the Federal Election Commission that he will abide by spending limits in the primaries.

[chimpymustgo]

28. Affirmative action, Iowa caucuses - gee is anything left?

nt

[leyton]

32. Public Financing

I wish the public financing issue had come to mind when I wrote the original post. I can accept that he might have an open mind and change some of his positions, and I respect politicians that have open minds. But the public financing is obviously an example of Dean flip-flopping for political convenience.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. Especially since he said he'd raise a ruckus if anyone else did it...

The ultimate in hypocrisy. I can't beleive he gets away with all this... Sometimes I feel like we're back in the 2000 campaign - Gore vs. Bush.

[chimpymustgo]

36. That's IT: Gore v Bush - "I can't believe he gets away with all this."

Great analogy.

Another of the MANY similarities between Dean and Bush.

[BootinUp]

39. I firmly believe

that he did this to have a financial advantage in the primaries.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

42. That one did bother a lot of people..

Do you have the quote? Dean said something like it was a standard he would hold the other candidates to.

Then he realizes he gather a large amount of money, which is being used against the dems he said he would hold to that standard.

The common response is "He let his supporters decide".

If he was serious about it in the first place he would NOT have let his supporters decide.

TWL

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. Direct quote from Howard....

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Local/Story/61946.html

"Former Vermont Gov. Dean said he has already met the requirement (for publci finance). He promised to make it an issue in the Democratic primaries if any of his rivals decide to skip public financing, as President Bush did en route to winning the Republican nomination in 2000.

"It will be a huge issue," Dean said. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform."

[Capn Sunshine]

38. I've never understood this flip flop notion

Are you saying that we must remain the smae people we were 20 years ago?

Or does this only apply to candidates?

Is Changing for example , from a republican to a democrat, not GOOD?

Or is it the KING of all "flip-flops"?

Personally, what you care and say TODAY carries a lot more weight with me than an inability to admit that you are flexible enough to accept another viewpoint.

[paulk]

56. The discussion doesn't involve something that happened

twenty years ago.

And it does apply only to candidates. If a candidate has gained support by espousing a certain position, it should be worrisome when that position is changed. Especially if that position has been used to differentiate from other candidates.

[andym]

43. Changing positions is OK, but time frame is important

Periods of say 6 months or more (maybe a year) will usually do no harm.

But changing major positions in a period of less than 6 months is more dangerous.


The worst example was McGovern in 1972:
1 week: I'm behind Eagleton (VP candidate) 1000%
2 week: Eagleton is no longer the VP candidate

Fortunately, I don't think Dean has changed any major position yet.

[leyton]

44. Ditto...

I don't expect Dean to be the same as he was ten years ago just like I don't hold Clark's past statements supporting Bush against him. What bothers me is that Dean switched his position in what seems to me to be a switch of political convenience.

By the way... but a lot of people seem to be dissatisfied with the tone here at DU, especially with the negative threads. I hope I haven't gotten anyone too upset, because I didn't mean this to be an anti-Dean thread. I like Dean and the question I'm posing here is really meant in general, it could apply to any candidate.

[arewethereyet]

47. and if Dr Dean says the sky is red ?

he's waffled on pretty much every position.

The guy is jello.

Dean supporters love Dean. Love is blind and also deaf.

[Clark4VotingRights]

48. I don't understand what's bad about learning and improving one's platform

Isn't that what the primaries are for?
Isn't that what we want candidates to do?

They're road testing their policies, and in some cases
adjusting them as they get public reaction and learn more.
Isn't that...good?
The media will dub evolution and refinement of policies
"flip flops," but they're whores.
That's the point of concern for me.

Now if a candidate goes back and forth on an issue daily,
that'd be flip flopping. Who has done that?

[chimpymustgo]

51. Dean. He's changed on EVERYTHING.

It's a blatantly finger in the wind approach to politics.

He has no principles.

[paulk]

59. A candidate can say whatever they feel will get them elected

it's up to the voters to decide - if changing a position is a reflection on that candidate's integrity.

[mzmolly]

58. Well if we can forgive someone for changing "Party's" I think we can

understand a little tweeking of a tax plan can't we?

I wouldn't call it a "flip-flop" personally, sounds a tad inflammatory, and it's not fitting ? ;)

[SadEagle]

60. He did not change his position.

For a long time, he has been campaigning on a reversal of the Bush tax cut, followed by a more extensive tax reform to shift the burden away from the less affluent. Now, it is probably fair to say that the exact policies are long overdue, but that's not a change in the position --- it's a lack of details.

[arewethereyet]

63. "you can't have it both ways"

which is what he actually believes ?

Is he mearly belittling the other candidates for thinking the same as he himself does or does hereally think you can't have it both ways.

It can't be both.

[thebigthink]

62. The good news is...

At least we no longer have to listen to the Deanies blindly reciting "Why would you want to keep any part of a mistake?" a thousand times a day.

That was right up there with "Dean was against the war from the beginning." in terms of annoyance value (for anyone who had actually been keeping track of the candidates' positions).

[mikewriter]

64. Dean could change his mind anytime he wishes

and he will still get my vote

[arewethereyet]

65. and therein lies the problem

as you fail to see that he is just as capable of selling you down the river as he has been to his other constituancies.

And thats the sort of thing that produces landslides crashing down on you.

Thanks for your studied and careful efforts at fulfilling your civic duty.