It’s a flip-flop if he still thinks A is a bad policy and is on the record against it, but switches to a public pro-A position for no reason other than to attract votes.
As for the larger issue:
[QUOTE=Edmund Burke]
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
[/QUOTE]
If we’re talking about Williard, I have NO IDEA if his flip flop is about his own personal convictions or if it’s about pandering to the extreme right. I have a sense that he just said
“Fuck this ultra conservative crap, I’m embracing Romneycare as Grandpa in chief to Obamacare…” but this drastic change is going to hurt him.
I think the primary question has been answered. In a nutshell, I would say that changing your mind to adopt a more factual position is laudable. Changing your mind to try to adopt a more popular position is suspect.
I would also add, though, that if you find yourself repeatedly changing your mind to adopt a more factual position, you ought to re-evaluate your decision making process. It would seem to me that there’s an inherent unreliability in your methodology if you keep getting different answers on a particular question. You may want to check your sources more carefully.
Romney used to support abortion and health care while running for governor of a blue state.
Now Romney is against abortion and wants to repeal health care.
The end result is that you see he holds no opinions at all, or bad ones, and only tells you want you want to hear. Thus he is not reliable, and if you vote for him, you cannot rely on past behavior to judge future behavior. For a man who wants to be the leader of the free world, that is dangerously unpredictable. It makes him a bad leader. It doesn’t make him right either. He could change his mind on an issue simply because the people who he’s appealing to likes that issue without regard to whether its right or not
Now here’s an example of a flip-flop that’s not bad:
Obama saying he doesn’t agree with marriage for gays.
Then Obama saying his views evolved and now supports them.
The end result is one that many Americans have taken. People who 50 years ago would turn a firehose on a black person now have come to regret it. Gays used to be a completely marginalized and hated minority. Now in much of society, they are not only tolerated but celebrated as equals. Obama’s position changed perhaps because of political necessity, but (and here’s the important part) he doesn’t show any likelihood to change back. He’s told people that gays should be able to get married. He’s repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He doesn’t demonize gays or tell conservative states one thing, and tell gays something else. That is a true evolution of a belief. Plus, we all know that gays will get full rights soon, within our lifetimes. This is the correct and moral way to go. So not only did Obama change positions, he is correct