That's a good point....but it brings to mind another. Congresspersons in the house only have to please a small area of their home state, usually either rural or urban, rarely both; Senators must please an entire state which will most certainly comprise both rural and urban....this will naturally lead to more flip-flopping.

The whole flag pin thing is a dinglecheese issue.
What a waste of time...

Is that still being discussed? Oy

I just read a Rowland Martin op/ed piece on CNN about it. People are trying to paint Obama and his wife as unpatriotic. It's silly.

:rolleyes:

Actually, I think that being a senator (or member of the House) does make one much more vulnerable to flip-flopping charges.

Legislators vote on a huge number of bills - I don't know how many exactly, but I would certainly think that there are thousands or tens of thousands in a single senatorial term. And many bills will have multiple versions, of which a senator might choose to support one version and vote against other stronger or weaker versions, thus opening himself up to charges of voting against something he is putatively in favor of. Additionally, many bills become huge monstrosities with dozens of clauses possibly unrelated to the original subject of the bill, so that in order to vote for a bill that you favor, you has to accept provisions that you would not support on their own. It is a common legislative maneuver to try to attach amendments to a bill that would make it politically embarrassing for your opponents to vote it up or down.

When one examines charges of flip-flopping made in recent elections, these are frequently where they come from.

Here's a top contender to be McCain's Mid East envoy if he's elected stating that "talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/james-baker-tal.html

Good one, GD.:snap:


I find it interesting that simply leaving the potential for diplomatic options on the table can be twisted into 'appeasement', a la Neville Chamberlain. We need to look at our own actions at the outset of WWII- we didn't exactly come rushing to anyone's aid until we were drug into the war following the attack at PH. (Btw, we were engaged in talks with Japan hours before that attack).

Let's say a co-worker is giving you a hard time. You're angry, so you:

a). Go to Human Resources, or a supervisor, etc, and discuss solutions for the problem at hand, such as mediation or directly confronting the troublemaker.

b.) You ignore the asshat and hope the problem just goes away.

c). Load up the 9mm and go rabbit hunting at the workplace.

We've been very busy hunting rabbits, and I don't think our problems have been alleviated in the slightest. We've only hurt ourselves- maybe it's time to try a new tactic? At least try?

Here's a twist (just playing Devil's Advocate here):

Let's say that co-worker is certifiably crazy and is often seen reading gun magazines.

Even so, "A" is still the only option that can lead to a positive resolution. All "C" does is increase the odds that a bunch of innocent people will be killed in the crossfire.