|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Political question, but not for US Election thread | by ag__wyvern | 2008-07-10 10:51:47 |
| Motives differ |
by MrConceited |
2008-07-10 12:59:54 |
Changing a position because you have been convinced by new and relevant information or arguments is fine. More than that, not altering a position in the face of information or argument you cannot reasonably contest can be a bad thing.
However, positions taken by politicians are a different animal because politicians have a motive to change positions beyond the mere pursuit of truth. The pattern by which they take and change positions doesn't match someone convinced by an argument or information about the subject matter. They generally appear to take positions based on political convenience.
During primaries they take positions that will help them get through the primary by appealing to the core of their party. After they secure the nomination, they change tack and take positions more appealing to the generally more center oriented independent voters to capture as much of the vote as they can in the general election.
For years they take positions that make them unpopular in their party, and then decide they want to be nominated president and start talking like everyone else instead.
People don't see this as a sincere change of heart on an issue. They see it as political ploy. It draws attention to the opportunism, desire for power and position, and hypocrisy that presumably lay behind this political position. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
