When is a flip flop a flip flop?

For many years I was adamant in my support of the death penalty. My support was philosophically based on the idea that as a society we have the right and the obligation to punish people who have committed certain heinous crimes.

Cases have come to my attention over the last several years leading me to believe that our legal system is seriously flawed. Many on death row have been cleared through DNA evidence, admissions by other parties and other means.

My position has changed. While I still believe that the death penalty is appropriate it should reflect a level of proof not now required. It's really simple; There needs to be NO DOUBT. I should add, once this burden is met, it shouldn't take 14 years to execute the sentence.

The above brings us to the question framed in the title. Does my change in position constitute a flip-flop or would it more fairly be described as a carefully considered evolution of thought?

Is the flip-flop label applicable whenever someone changes or modifies their previously stated positions or should it be reserved for special cases? Is a flip-flop good or bad?

Case 1: Sen. John McCain co-sponsors a bill with Sen Ted Kennedy addressing the illegal immigration issue. Oversimplifying the bill, it basically offered a path to attain legal status. The conservatives called it amnisty and McCain almost went to defeat in the primary. He has since stated,"I got the message." He has since modified his position. He now says his first concern is securing the border.

Case 2: Sen. Barack Obama takes the position early in the primary season that he is in favor of public financing of campaigns which would limit the amount of fundraising and make for a "level playing field" in the general election campaign. He subsequently defeated Sen. Clinton and has set records in raising funds. He has recently decided that he will not abide by his earlier agreement and will not limit his campaign by living within the public financing pledge he made.

Both candidates have changed their positions. Should both be labled flip-flops? Further, is it a good or bad thing?

At issue is whether the reassessment is based on a change in the candidate's philosophical foundation or on political expedience. Has McCain altered his fundamental beliefs or is he recognizing the political reality that Americans want a secure border. Is there any doubt that McCain is still committed to immigration reform but has come to understand that the first priority must be border enforcement?

When he made the pledge and voiced his strong support for the "level playing field" offered through public financing, he was trailing Sen. Clinton and was a long shot. After a successful primary his campaign benefitted from unprecedented levels of contributions. In fairness, the question must be asked. Did anything happen that would cause Sen. Obama to reassess his earlier stated position or did the change simply reflect the reality that by foregoing public financing he would most likely have a 2 to 1 capital advantage?

The Edge