It isn't bad to shift positions if a person can give a reasonable explanation why they held their previous position and why they changed the position. Most of the time with politicians the reason they have changed positions is simply because it was politically expedient for them to do so. That is, they had something to gain politically by changing their position. If some new evidence comes to light which causes the person to change their position, I don't think that is held against them.

Of course, you can have whatever opinion you want, but saying that a gossip tabloid has more credibility than historical facts seems a little odd to me. I don't really care who wrote or reported the information - facts are facts.

Facts are only facts when they can be substantiated. Arianna Huffington is not a reliable source of such facts. She is now saying that McCain told her that he did not vote for Bush in the 2000 election. Well, he campaigned for Bush so if he didn't vote from him it would be highly unusual and nonsensical. Why would a person go out and try to persuade other people to vote for someone and then not vote for them themselves? That would make absolutely no sense.

Arianna Huffington is in the same boat with Rush Limbaugh, David Brock, Sean Hannity, Micheal Moore and other extremists. They make some good points on occasion and give us things to think about but unless their "reports" are substantiated by credible news sources, we are foolish to trust in them to be credible themselves.

I agree that the Bush vote issue is "he said / she said." Supposedly there were others at the table who heard the conversation, but no one has stepped forward to substantiate it. Other issues such as immigration, tax cuts, and torture (of all things!) are easier to substantiate. At any rate, it appears he has become a lot more political in order to win the Presidency.

You've probably heard this before but to make a point, "Your friends require no explanation, and your enemies don't believe them anyway" If politicians spent their time giving explanations for each decision they made on which there was disagreement, they would have little time to get to the reasons they hold for why they believe they would be the best to hold office for which they're running.
Politicians have the thankless task of proving their innocence of all they are deemed guilty. We will have more honest politicians when the populace in general meet this counsel.

"Love....is ever ready to believe the best of every person..." 1 Cor 13:7 AMP

And if we are unwilling to give them the benefit of a doubt when they are in the most unenviable of positions, why should we expect any different from them when they get into office?

"....whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal 6:7 AMP
Regards!

McCain is a politician - no doubt. He gives and takes and knows how to compromise in order to accomplish something.

This is a political train of thought. It is better to compromise and accomplish something than stand firm and accomplish nothing.

The other train of thought is that it is better to do nothing than compromise and do something which doesn't serve the original goal.

I'm curious whom you would consider to be credible news sources.

I tend to be pretty skeptical of the mainstream U.S. media, and I try to listen to the BBC as often as I can, just to get a different perspective. I like independent news, also, and wish there were more sources for it.

I don't trust any one source of news. In my home I watch CNN, FOXNews and Al Jazeera English because that is what I get from satellite. On the internet I surf various news sources. Most of the time we can trust a story when it is reported by more than one news source. Often too, news outlets practice selective reporting - they only report part of the story. Thus when we get our news from more than one source, we tend to get more of the "facts".