I am a flip-flopper

I find myself absolutely fascinated by the national pre-occupation with "flip-floppers". The media will carefully track everything a candidate says and any indication that there has been a change in his or her view of an issue will trigger a flurry of articles, interviews, and condemnations.  Furthermore, the public seems to have bought into this activity - I hear it every day:  "I can't trust him - he's a flip-flopper!"

To me the idea that changing your mind is a sign of weakness or something that should be scorned is completely bizarre. Should you hold fast to your idea or opinion when presented with evidence or a good argument to the contrary?

Consider that a few years back our president was presented with evidence that there was no real threat from Saddam Hussein, no weapons of mass destruction, and no tie between Irag and Al-Qaeda. Yet, he stood fast to his idea and refused to "flip-flop". Still think "flip-flopping" is wrong?

To be clear, in a lot of instances, I find myself not agreeing with the change of view.  However, I don't think I can condemn someone for the process of changing their minds or consider them weaker or less trustworthy for doing so.  They are entitled to change their opinion, and I am entitled to disagree with their new stance.  

Further, I am not condoning changing your stance solely for political reasons.  I am not completely naive!  What I am focusing on here is the process of evolving a new opinion based on facts or arguments.  I believe it is this latter process that is getting grouped into the "flip-flopping" category.  That simply should not be the case, especially in a democratic society.  

So, for the record and in the interest of full disclosure, I would like to proclaim myself a proud "flip-flopper". I change my mind almost on a daily basis! Whether I'm at work, watching the news, reading the newspaper, or reading a good book - when presented with a compelling reason to change my point of view, I generally do.