THere is a fine line between changing ones mind on an issue and pandering to the mob to get re-elected. Certainly I can understand when someone thoughtfully changes their stance on something due to new data or even a change in heart. What I can’t stand is when someone changes their stance falsely in order to pander to a different segment of the voting public…especially if its radically against their previous stances. Either A) they think they have the voters from their old side locked up and so can screw them over or B) They are merely trying to trick the voters they are currently courting in an effort to win, with no real intention of changing their stance…only APPEARING too.
I think that both GW and Kerry could be characterized as the later type. Bush panders to the center while maintaining at least a facade of conservative positions However he really hasn’t done all that much FOR the conservatives, so he really has gone (mostly) centrist. This makes Bush an “A” from above.
Kerry on the other hand is a “B” (IMHO), trying to portray himself as a centrist and down play his liberalism to appeal to the center (everyone wants to appeal to the center). The entire DNC was a master piece of this in fact, with most of the truely ‘liberal’ stances downplayed or danced around. My hat is off to them…it was a master stroke. However, it doesnt’ make it honest. And the jury is out on Kerry (and will remain so until he’s elected and sworn in) as to whether he will screw over his liberal voters by taking centrist stances on various things or if his centrist stance was a game to get elected and he’ll screw them over…my guess is, a little of both. We’ll see and I’m fairly sure he’ll be the next president.