The problem with poor communication

Tonight we went to practice, and after the practice went to a local establishment for refreshments. Somehow, in a group of people who do not even know each other's last names, politics became a topic. How could that be anything but a great idea?
I pointed out I voted for neither Bush nor Kerry. Naturally, the socialist primarily, had to know why. I tried to explain that I cannot vote AGAINST someone, I have to vote FOR them. And Kerry is not a person I respect enough to ever vote for.
Please note that this, as it should be for EVERY responsible voter, is a personal decision. This is not party politics, public pressure, private pleadings, or any other alliterative nonsense. It is simply how I make my decisions.
Instantly he assumed it was because Kerry was a "flip-flopper". Please let me emphasize...I never once used that phrase. What I DID say was he had changed positions on a couple of issues (in one case, actually moving more in agreement with me) without giving a reason which could lead one to believe, based on the timing, that he might be susceptible to changes not because he believed in them but because it was expedient.
The unstated subtext is that he was not the first in recent memory to do this. Bush Sr. was okay at it (the notable "Read my lips" blunder aside) and Clinton was a master at it...however, the reason Clinton did well with it is he provided plausible reasoning for those decisions. Making 180 turns without reason at sensitive times demonstrates moral unsteadiness and nothing else.
Okay, the aside is over...so while I am explaining why I vote FOR people, not against people, he challenged me to name 5 times Kerry flip-flopped. Like an idiot, I bit and gave him two, then went back to explaining my point to the guy I had been talking too. He, however, could not let it go. He kept coming back to "you gave me 1-1/2, I asked for five."
Finally, I explained that A) naming even ONE completely missed the point. I was not talking about flip=flops (an unfortunate phrase the national discourse made so ubiquitous that most Kerry supporters start defending against the charge even when it is not laid down and is not germane to the topic), I never once mentioned Vietnam, etc...
What I really, really tried to make clear was Kerry did not inspire me as someone I could vote FOR. And I do not vote AGAINST. If my voice is to be heard, it needs to be for what I support, not what I stand against.
I then pointed out a couple other things; one, if Howard Dean had been the candidate, I would have voted for him in an instant. I disagree with more issues than I agree with him on, but HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES WHAT HE BELIEVES AND WILL BACK IT UP REGARDLESS OF PRESSURE. I respect that and will vote FOR that.
Second, I brought up Cindy Sheehan. And pointed out I have no opinion one way or the other on her situation. On the one hand, she got a meeting that, at the time, was good for her. On the other hand, she changed her mind and wants a second meeting. Guess what? That is her right. More power her to her, do what you think is right.
Just as Bush has the right to give it or not give it. Politically, he has been an idiot. Simply giving her the audience she is demanding removes the personal appeal. It is a real negative for his foes to have a charismatic situation to rally around. But he does have that right. I think it is a bad decision, but hey...do what you think is right despite the political backlash. That, believe it or not, is a move I can respect.
So clearly, somewhere along the line, things got balled up to where we went from discussing why I vote for people, never against them, to why Kerry is good or bad. A topic I actually find irrelevant.