Among the various new high crimes created by the media to badger politicians since the dawn of the new millennium, the flip-flop is certainly the most mind-numbingly irritating and irrational of all.

This issue came up last week when I saw a clip on CNN for Obama and McCain flip-flops (the sandals), poking fun at the flip-flopper label applied to politicians. While the I heard someone else laughing a rather annoying, high-pitched giggle at the news, I found myself disgusted. When did changing your mind in America become a violation of American values?

For clarification purposes, I’ll define the rhetoric used by media giants and campaign spinmeisters:

• a flip-flop is when a politician goes on the record as having one opinion, and then later (regardless of the time between or the mitigating circumstances that would otherwise alter the opinion of any rational human being), changes his or her mind by saying the opposite, or voting in opposition of what he or she said. A flip-flop is also defined as a type of thong sandal, but only if the sandal has expressly stated it has nothing to do with politics.
• A flip-flopper, therefore, must be a person who can be considered a spineless panderer, playing to all sides for the sake of personal interest, or someone who is simply too cowardly to make up their mind on an issue. It could also mean someone who collects thong sandals, regardless of the sandal’s political affiliation.

Note that this term only applies in politics…if every American who changed their mind was called a flip-flopper, we would be a nation of spineless cowards.

Keep in mind, of course, that there are instances in which the flip-flop label is applied appropriately. Politicians who simply pander to whomever is more likely to get them re-elected, and that is obviously wrong. The frivolous charges of flip-floppity given to politicians by the media, however, is clearly nothing more than a spectacular way to make people tune in - and the scary part is that it’s working.

People disregard what could be logically determined to be a rational change of opinion, settling for the “spineless flip-flopper” label - more like the Monty Python and the Holy Grail “witchhunt” scene than choosing the next leader of the free world. (”Burn them!”) Need some examples?

The presidential campaign thus far has seen its fair share of altered positions, etc, on both sides of the aisle. Barack Obama flip-flopped on campaign finance, McCain flip-flopped on tax cuts. Obama flip-flopped on FISA, McCain on his own immigration plan. Now, lets think rationally: does Obama, the fundraiser of fundraisers, to really need public funding? And wouldn’t McCain want to give corporate tax breaks in the hopes of boosting a failing economy?

What turns a change in opinion, based in facts, evidence, etc., into mindless pandering? Where do we draw the line between what is a flip-flop and what is ideological evolution?

Wouldn’t we rather someone admit they were wrong, and work to fix the situation at hand than “stay the course” and continue to allow yesterday’s mistakes affect the America of tomorrow?

Let’s think rationally, folks, and look at the issues rather than the pundit’s transcripts. Let’s see if we can make some sense out of the irrational clamoring frenzy that is “Campaign 2008.”