I have always thought that on some issues a certain amount of flexibility should be exercised, particularly on economic questions. More/less spending, more/less taxes, monetary policy, stuff like that oughta be adjusted to fit the times. I.E., when the good times are aboomin', taxes should be raised partly to slow down expansion and keep it from overheating, and partly to increased revenues that might be used for paying down debt or for spending when times get tougher. IMHO, there are times when the best option for the country might be contrary to your normal policy. Moral issues on the other hand, are not something to be flipflopped on. Oh, people can have a change of heart on things like abortion or capital punishment, but you don't change your position on these things depending on the current circumstances. Frankly, I'd rather elect a person who is willing to do what's best for the rest of us, and find ways to address the issues of the minority. But I wouldn't want a person who won't stand for anything on moral grounds either. I suppose there are those who equate taxes and spending as moral issues; I think that's when we get into big arguments, when we should be looking at what is the most effective or efficient way to use our resources.