So, I stumbled upon something I've been telling people for a long time. Bush is the true flip-flopper. Allow me to make my case. Kerry's Job is to vote on issues that require the careful reading of proposals. In these proposals, the smallest detail of wording could be the downfall of the issue. Let’s say the proposal was good overall, but due to ambiguity, the bill could be misused. Do you just vote yes because it sounded good regardless of potential misuse, or do you vote no?

I don't see what is so unreasonable about voting on issues in different ways. A minor change can make a questionable bill a great bill, or vice versa. Also, you have to admit that sometimes things sound like good ideas (like... a war to get rid of threats to our countries well being) and turn out to be bad ideas (like, Vietnam or the Iraq War). If someone doesn't change their minds in light of new information, it isn't exactly a good thing.

Bush, on the other hand, is a flip flopper off paper. Here are the first several web pages describing flip-flops, most of which I've noticed before, but some which are new.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43093-2004Sep22.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/21/opinion/main644838.shtml

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/bush-flip-flops.html

So yeah, I repeat for all to hear, how can you possibly want to vote for the man twice in a row, when he didn't do, or did the opposite of, everything he ran on in the first place?

Give someone else a chance to do nothing and get paid for it.