A Public and a Private Position.

A lot has been made of this lately. This happens quite often but isn't much discussed. Sometimes policy on the books isn't necessarily the position of the prez. Here's an example by Jimmy Carter:

Although "personally opposed" to abortion, after the landmark US Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), Carter supported legalized abortion.[164] As president, he did not support increased federal funding for abortion services. He was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for not doing enough to find alternatives.[165]

In a March 29, 2012 interview with Laura Ingraham, Carter expressed his current view of abortion and his wish to see the Democratic Party becoming more pro-life:

I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that's still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother's life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions. I've signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life [sic] are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.

en.wikipedia.org...

While personally against abortion he ceded that fact to law. He DID try to minimize abortions as opposed to fighting a unwinnable battle. Remember this was less than 5 years after Roe vs Wade and it was HOT back then. Having a personal and public opinion isn't a bad thing. Sometimes it's a necessary thing.

a reply to: intrepid


Ummm...can you say duplicitous...?





YouSir

a reply to: intrepid

More to the point.

Hillary dismissed this challenging question in the debates by saying she had just watched "Lincoln" the movie.

Ever watch it?

I am a bot of a Lincoln nut..."Team of Rivals" was a long read, but worth it.

I also read multiple biographies etc.

Mostly because I am descended from a prominent member of his administration.

The reason people continually debate whether Lincoln was a racist or not is because he had both a "Private and Public View"

He played those around him. he manipulated them for what he thought was a greater good. I would argue he was right and it got things done and if not, slavery would have endured into the 20th century.

CLINTON's Answer at the debate to the leak:

CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic.

And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it. And, yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great — I thought a great display of presidential leadership.

That's where I sit...It's a knock against her...but she is right...You need to be strategic with what you publicly share, if not, you will never get anything done.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: intrepid


Ummm...can you say duplicitous...?

duplicate-eee-I-ious?...did I say it right?

Well, I guess it depends.

Do you want to vote for a candidate's public positions only to find out that her private ones are the ones she will actually push out through Congress and that they are in many cases 180 degrees different from what she told you and you thought you were voting for?

a reply to: intrepid

I think the problem with politicians taking this position is that it is conveniently having their cake and eating it, too. This is especially true in Clinton's case. She wasn't talking about abortion or standing law of the land... she was telling a bunch of Wall Street bankers "Don't worry about what I tell the public and how bad it sounds like I'm going to gig you all... when the cameras and mics are off, you're my huckleberries and I love you. *wink*" THAT is not Abe Lincoln or Jimmy Carter's personal conviction versus law, it's just two-faced lying.

a reply to: ketsuko

We really don't know any of Trump's positions on anything, do we? He flip flops like no other presidential candidate in history. You personally may think you know where he stands on a subject, but you don't, all you have are sound bites of his multiple opinions on everything.

a reply to: intrepid

Public and private positions is part of politics. The electorate can't fully understand an issue because there's no way to effectively educate them. This is actually the biggest reason I would vote Trump. If you pay some attention to things, it's not all that difficult to derive private positions from public ones.

I believe that the positions Trump was spouting off early in the election and historically are his actual private positions (most campaigns begin unfiltered, and Trump doesn't have a filter to begin with). The problem with Trump isn't that his public positions have since "evolved" to coincidentally line up with mainstream Republican thought, but rather than he's apparently handing over foreign and domestic policy to his VP. This makes it hard for me to vote for him. For as much as I've made fun of Trump here, I would actually be very willing to elect him just because he has new ideas. He's removing himself from the decision process though so I can't support him based on those private positions.

Hillary is similar, her public position is the DNC platform but on her private positions she's actually been center/right, similar to Thatcher (and you can see a glimpse into this with her leaked speeches and emails).

Note that I'm referring here to governing policies, not personal opinions.

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: ketsuko

We really don't know any of Trump's positions on anything, do we? He flip flops like no other presidential candidate in history. You personally may think you know where he stands on a subject, but you don't, all you have are sound bites of his multiple opinions on everything.

The implementation details vary a bit but Trumps general philosophy for private policy, how he governs business, and how he wants the government to function is to be alpha as #, but also be a great provider of everything to everyone.

a reply to: Aazadan

The Art of the Deal- "I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular."

If taken in context, the public/private thing as it relates to hillary is NOT a sign of dishonesty.

At first, I thought it might be, so I read through the leaks looking for context, at which point it became exceedingly clear that:

1) At no point does she say that her private and public positions are IN CONFLICT
2) She makes it clear that the public position is more like a press release, whereas her private position has more to do with politics behind the scenes.

In other words:

PUBLIC == OBJECTIVE or MISSION STATEMENT
PRIVATE == STRATEGY or TACTICS

It insults everyone's intelligence when people try to take this stuff out of context to score cheap political points.

And no, I don't like Hillary.

a reply to: WilburnRoach

No, that's where you are mistaken. I don't know exactly where he stands, but i DO know where she stands and knew it despite the lies she was trying to feed me.

I can still have some hope that Trump might be better.

Instead of running around slinging mud at him, it would actually damage him more if they were uncovering his actual policy positions. But they aren't doing that, and what I KNOW Hillary wants is enough to override my disgust at Trump's personality.

a reply to: intrepid

Before Carter, Reagan was also "personally" against abortion, but ceded to laws, and did so going back to his days as governor of California.


Your point in bringing up this is what?
Democrats are "flexible"?