With McCain, it’s about more than a simple change of heart
CNN’s Jack Cafferty did an on-air commentary a few days ago on John McCain’s major policy flip-flops for months now. It’s a “delicate dance,” Cafferty said, “and if McCain’s not careful, he’s liable to break a hip.”
Yesterday, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer followed up by asking the question, “What’s wrong with a politician who changes views?” Whether this was related to Cafferty’s commentary is unclear, but Blitzer seemed anxious to give political leaders a pass for reversing course on various policies.
There’s nothing wrong with people changing their minds. We all do it – all the time. But as Luke Russert reminded us at his father’s funeral this week, politicians have a hard time admitting that they ever change their minds. They are apparently afraid that they will be accused of flip-flopping, which supposedly is bad for a politician.
Luke said that Tim Russert would also point out that the Americans are a very forgiving people. They will certainly accept politicians changing their minds as long as they are up front about it. What’s wrong with political leaders simply saying they’ve had a change of heart? “I used to think one way, but now think another.”
Including Russert in this context is rather ironic, given that his brand of “gotcha” questions was predicated on the belief that politicians who change their minds have necessarily done something wrong.
Nevertheless, as the self-designated keeper of the Official List of McCain Flip-Flops, I thought I’d take a moment to respond to Blitzer’s observation.
In short, he’s right. There’s nothing offensive at all about a political figure changing his or her mind. Policy makers come to one conclusion, they gain more information, and then they reach a different conclusion. In some ways, this is actually a positive — it reflects a politician with an open mind and a healthy intellectual curiosity. Better to have a leader who changes his or her mind based on new information than one who stubbornly sticks to outmoded policy positions, regardless of facts or circumstances.
So why do I challenge McCain on his flip-flops? Because all available evidence suggests his reversals aren’t sincere, they’re cynically calculated for political gain. This isn’t indicative of an open mind; it’s actually indicative of a character flaw.
I won’t bother republishing the full list of 48 that I’ve come up with over the last several months — I just ran it a couple of days ago — but go ahead and look it over, keeping an eye on the ideological trend. Some of the reversals are because McCain is embarrassed by what he used to believe — he argued, for example, that the war in Iraq would be easy, which looks ridiculous now, which leads him to argue that he knew all along that the war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
Most of the flip-flops, though, show McCain dropping his centrist/moderate credentials in order to be more in line with today’s Republican mainstream. Tax cuts, foreign policy, immigration, abortion, the religious right, the environment, detainee policy, campaign finance reform. In every instance, McCain was a “maverick,” willing to break with his party. Now, he isn’t.
“What’s wrong with a politician who changes views?” Nothing in particular, but when a politician changes his views so much that he has an entirely different worldview, and that new worldview is conveniently necessary to win his party’s presidential nomination, is it unreasonable to wonder whether it’s entirely sincere? Especially when there’s no other apparent explanation for four dozen significant policy reversals?
“What’s wrong with political leaders simply saying they’ve had a change of heart?” Nothing, just so long as it’s genuine. Given the circumstances, one would have to be hopelessly naive to think McCain, all of a sudden, out of the blue, just happened to reinvent himself and his policy agenda based on nothing more than a simple “change of heart.”
Are there are worse qualities in a presidential candidate than changing one’s mind about a policy matter? Sure. McCain has been in Congress for decades; he’s bound to shift now and then on various controversies.
But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned literally dozens of positions he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops — though that’s part of it — it’s more about the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops. That the media still perceives McCain as some kind of “straight talker” who refuses to sway with the political winds makes this all the more glaring.
As Josh Marshall recently put it, “McCain is absolutely gung-ho and certain that he’s right about whatever his position and ‘principles’ are at the given moment. But they change repeatedly.”
It seems to me that a Repub is allowed to change their “mind”s because we all know that Repubs are the wisest, sanest, kindest, knowledgeable and bravest of human beings unlike Dems who are not like Repubs and thus have to act before they act or they’ll be considered the worst appeasers since Nevillie Chamberlain.
If your sarcasm meters haven’t exploded by now, you might want to consider getting a replacement or getting one installed (and unlike Repubs I do know what an appeaser means–current definition: Congress.)
now where did anyone get the idea that a presidential candidate changing his mind was a bad thing?
Ooooooh riiiiiight, Fox News during the 2004 campaign, constantly branding Kerry a “fliiiiiiiiip flooooooop”er, even when his positions were consistent.
Tracking votes that McCain has cast as a legislator, analysts readily found that McCain’s votes were consistently more in line with his party during election years. McCain knows when and where to draw the line and largely jettisons any tendency toward bipartisanship when the votes really count — for his reelection.
There is a little straight talk.
Either McCain or Obama are going to swamp America, with another AMNESTY proposal. That will legalese millions that taxpayers will be forced to pay for. Then millions more from third world countries will hop the border, looking for free handouts.
Doesn’t it make sense not to endorse the SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) that would add real, razor sharp teeth to state immigration laws. We need more enforcement to stop the interdiction of drugs and illegal immigrants. Funding is being cut by the Democrats, so they can gut the border fence and stop the enactment of this law An army of ICE agents, twenty thousand more border patrol along with massive funding, to supply helicopters, spy probes and other equipment.
The e-verify data base the Fed’s are using has a 90.5 success rate.Ice has a free tip-line: 1-866-DHS-2ICE for intelligence to locate illegal aliens, or predatory businesses that employ them. It would be a major deterrent against pariah employers, who hire illegal workers. Its pennies compared to what taxpayers are unknowingly spending now. Call your Democratic Representative (2022243121 ) to endorse the Federal SAVE ACT. NUMBERSUSA
“So why do I challenge McCain on his flip-flops? Because all available evidence suggests his reversals aren’t sincere, they’re cynically calculated for political gain.”
For me, there’s two reasons to challenge McCain on his flip-flops: 1. Because many people don’t realize yet that McCain isn’t the ‘maverick’ he was in 2000, if he ever was, and it’s our responsibility to make sure everyone realizes that. 2. To hoist the Republicans by their own petard. They were the ones to introduce the idea that ‘flip-flopping’ is always a bad thing, and they should be reminded of their own failed standard and their own hypocrisy any time possible.
I’ve never understood why changing one’s mind is a problem for a politician, unless one is talking about a pledge or oath made to the voters (e.g. Lieberman). It seems that Republicans want to elect “Robo-candidate 2000” who is pre-programmed to wage endless war and cut all taxes.
Blitzer’s question is a poorer version of Keynes’ quote:
“When the facts change, I change my mind.”
The problem is that McCain was proven right when he claimed that George Bush’s tax breaks would mainly benefit the wealthiest in our society at the expense of huge budget deficits. He couldn’t have been proven more right, and yet now he supports them.
And that’s the problem with McCain’s changes of heart. Most of them aren’t supported by new facts, they fly in the face them.
Well it matters most where you flipped from and where you flopped.
Barack Obama and John McCain raised about the same amount of money in May.
Does this scare anyone else?
The main problem with professional flip floppers like the man in the Edgar Suit is that they don’t give any reason for it. They just do it and say “Deal with it”. McAce has every right to flip flop 90 times if he can also supply reasoning for why he has changed his mind. Then let the electorate decide whether they buy it. Instead he just switches positions and leaves the electorate thinking he has no stand on anything. People like Wolf Blitzer was never this kind to Kerry. Wolf is a MSM lemming tied to his program by directives coming from above that he needs to pitch or he’ll be the one “pitched”. Ask Rather.
Let’s drop the “change of mind” nonsense here, too. The only thing McCain says more often than “my friends” is “I’ve been consistent all along.”
We’ll know the knock on McCain is justified when his campaign accuses Obama of doing it.
Projection never lies.
It seems to me that some of McCain’s changes aren’t due to him changing his mind, but due to his not knowing what he is talking about. He forgets, or never knew, the details of the reasoning behind a policy position and so, if asked, says whatever strikes his fancy, only later to discover that it conflicts with his official position, or the position he wants to be seen taking, or whatever.
He’d have to actually hold a position in order for him to be able to change his mind about holding it. So far, the only position I’m really sure he actually holds is that he wants to be elected.
Another problem with his flip-flops are that he tries to characterize them as the position he’s always held. He’s admitted repeatedly that he doesn’t know enough about economics, but when a moderator asks him about it, he claims he never said that. It’s like Rudy Giuliani claiming that he didn’t say “9/11” all that much.
Shag it!
That’s it… That does it…
Just got an email from McCain’s campaign asking for more dough.
Wrote back that I am not giving another cent because of John’s flops.
Maybe I’ll vote for Huck, or Barr, or even Nadir [insert sic here please].
/Parody of a McCain voter parodying a Obama voter after the FISA vote….
Which is my way of saying: Grow up folks. Eyes on the prize please.
This isn’t about you. Or Hillary. Or even some telecom pricks going free.
Only one thing matters: Claiming the “White” House. If Barack has to run to the right of left blogosphere to do it, (and he does), then so friggin’ be it. Keep this uppermost in your noodle: He is the change and anti-war candidate. Ergo, by definition, he has got to blunt the possibility of being waylaid as a “radical.” Got that? Because it is absolutely true. This is high stakes poker for all the fugging future chips in the world.
I like the way Barack is playing his cards. Absolutely love it. You’ve got to give to get. You’ve got to waste some hands to win the big hand. Don’t forget that. Nothing matters now. Everything matters in November. Everything! He is positioning himself for the hand that matters most…
Eyes on the prize please.
Eyes on the prize please.
Eyes on the prize please.
Does this scare anyone else? -Dale
It does, and with Obama’s support of illegal spying, he’s effectively shut down some of his donors.
Eyes on the prize please. -ROTFLMLiberalAO
My eyes are on the fucking prize. Since when is the fourth amendment a liberal position that Obama has to run to the right of?
I’m starting to see what Hillary supporters meant about the cult of Obama and their ability to absolve him of any transgression.
I guess he heard some of the yelling.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml
Required reading for the apologists who don’t give a damn about the fourth amendment:
McCain understands that it’s not what actually is that matters but what you think it is. He’s no maverick but has a number of people constantly referring to him that way. He is not a straight talker either, by any means but is heralded as one by the press.
The reality is he’s a confused, politically pandering, impostor presenting a false image that changes with the political wind…like trying to say he would not be George Bush’s 3rd term or that he represents some sort of change.
It’s blatant enough that despite the spin everyone can see it and even though the press tries hard to ignore it, it only demonstrates the desperation of the GOP to defend and continue this republican disaster.
ROTFLMLiberalAO said: I like the way Barack is playing his cards. Absolutely love it. You’ve got to give to get. You’ve got to waste some hands to win the big hand.
Yeah, but what if you’re the one he’s bluffing.
You cannot argue on the one hand that Obama was forced to support the FISA compromise as a matter of understandable political expediency, then argue that McCain has a character flaw because he too has adopted positions out of political expediency. McCain was not part of the Republican mainstream when he became the nominee. If he held to all of his old positions and statements he would be unelectable. I realize that you wish him to be unelectable, but expecting him to be consistent just makes no sense. People here have talked about Obama moving to the center during the general election. That’s what McCain is doing too — moving to attract votes. I don’t see it as evil in either candidate. If you’re going to villianize McCain, do it for something real, like what his current positions say. Obama’s current position stinks because of what it is, not how he happened to espouse it. The same goes for McCain.
If you don’t admit you ever held the ‘wrong’ view, then it’s just lying. That’s when Russert style interviewing gets good.
And yes it bothers me too that McCan’t is going to pass Obama on fund raising.
I think a smarter donation might be to Bob Barr. Barr needs as big a voice as he can get, because every single vote Barr takes will be from the embalmed zombie.
I haven’t donated to Obama, but I may well donate to Barr.
ROTFLMLiberalAO @ 13
Your premise is wrong. He doesn’t “have to” run to the right of anyone. You (and astonishingly, he) are buying into the Republican meme on this, something not supported by actual polling or data. People actually do “get” the Bill of Rights. It’s possible that they need more education to understand how this law fails in its stated purposes while opening up a hornet’s nest. Funny, I would have thought it was the job of the nominee to do that educating.
Defending the Constitution is not a “liberal” position. Demanding accountability for those who break the law is not a “liberal” position. Denying unfettered power to the executive is not a “liberal” position.
I’m not one to exorciate the Senator for adapting to the realities of the campaign or to changing his mind or even his position on things. I was unbothered by the rejection of public financing, for instance. This is something different. This is the Constitution on the one hand and the slippery slope into tyranny on the other. This is Adams and Jefferson against Hoover and Orwell. And since he has sworn an oath as a Seantor to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, this is not optional. It was a clear call and he blew it.
I understand that we face a stark choice in November and I still support Obama over McCain. But as others have said… How sad that already this campaign is descending into the lesser of two evils?
I guess he heard some of the yelling.
No, as the piece says, that stance was in his original statement. He’s had that position all along, but few have been willing to give him a chance to take a stand. We’ll see.
We need more enforcement to stop the interdiction of drugs and illegal immigrants. — Brittanicus, @4
Big words — like “interdiction” — are impressive, but only when used correctly. I suggest a small investment in a good dictionary. But, anyway… Why should a Briton give a damn about the immigration situation in USA?
Former Dan, @15,
Like TR says, this was in Obama’s original statement. And as lame on the second reading as it had been on first.
It Seems like the 2000 McCain and the 2008 McCain are two different people.
When McCain embraced Bush, He didn’t just shill for Bush. He actually became more like Bush.
…he argued, for example, that the war in Iraq would be easy, which looks ridiculous now, which leads him to argue that he knew all along that the war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
What Obama needs to talk about, and any Democratic video needs to show is:
1) Show the clip where McCain says how easy it will be in Iraq.
2) Show him saying that he knew since the beginning that it was going to be hard and tough.
3) Statement: That doesn’t look like McCain has been consistent all along.
4) Question: If McCain claims to have been consistent on the War in Iraq since the beginning; does that imply that McCain knowingly lied to America in 2003 when he claimed it would be easy and we’d be greeted as liberators?
…“What’s wrong with a politician who changes views?” Nothing in particular…
That’s exactly right. Except.
1) You can’t claim to be a “Maverick” and a “Straight Talker” and “Consistent” when you keep flip flopping.
2) Pandering to the party line, is not being a maverick… It’s more like towing the line. Nothing special in that department.
Someone needs to point out that
You are NOT a maverick when your voting record shows that you are:
100% GOP on a woman’s reproductive Rights.
around 90% Lifetime Conservative voting record.
95% voting in agreement with the Bush administration.
etc
There are a few reasons why someone would change their stance on an issue: Either
1) New information has become available
2) Through experience, a person has changed in some fundamental way
3) Because another stance is more convenient
4) Because they’re ‘confused’ 🙂
In McCain’s case, it is easy to rule out option 1 for most of the items on CB’s list. For example, the reasons for McCain’s original opposition to off-shore drilling (presumably for the reasons these areas are protected in the first place) have obviously not been upset by any change of evidence in the time in which he switched stances.
Option 2 is just as easily ruled out due to the short duration and frequency of these ‘changes of heart.’
Option 4 is ruled out because according to his campaign, McCain is certainly NOT confused.
Which leaves option 3: McCain’s changes of heart are for convenience purposes. Is this wrong? His views, based on convenience, do not reflect his personal experience. What he is telling us is that he has one fundamental stance, which is to please those who will help to put him in power. He is anything but a leader in this sense. Whether this means he will be a poor president depends on whether your priorities coincide with the priorities of those pulling his strings.
“Including Russert in this context is rather ironic, given that his brand of “gotcha” questions was predicated on the belief that politicians who change their minds have necessarily done something wrong.”
Wow you hit my holy cow button.
Or those that change their mind are incapable of leading in producing good analysis. This is not only true of the majority first line Journalist like Russert, but also Chris Mathews is a master at extending some slight appreciation for a politician, than after an instant, cut them down. The problem is that flip flopping in that “Mainstream Media gotcha culture” is done as often as they change their shoes with out hesitation or challenge. And that challenge is only happening now because of the Internet, and they don’t like it, no, they hate that unkindly feedback yet are able the deliver unkindly feedback for decades.
That mix with an interview which is usually amplified by intense expressions then are deliberately tooled with commercial brakes. You know whats interesting is some commercials pound in a sublime eerie fractured marketing phrases that link ones mind to turn and embrace that supplement that contextual twist in what is Russert’s directive a little secret the media has a monopoly on. That part of free speech treachery.
You hit it the target on the head for me as one of the reasons I never liked Meet the Press, or Russert’s personal pernicity political approach. Actually one can dislike MSNBC and parent station program management to hone this interviewing style acceptable to public endearing. Russert did what any good sophist of confusion would do in a science of Political Celerity, here Russert moves his victims to a corner to establish his power of being right, yet it was was the wrong thing to do.
For me it is incredible American Culture endured this Style for decades and the topper, celebrates this performance with pomp. When in fact it should have been taken off the stage a long time ago.
Changing one’s mind given new input is a sign of intelligence. What McCain has repeatedly done however, is different. (McCain is not “changing” his mind, and may have never had one.) What he does do is reinvent his line. He says one thing and then another and then says he never said the first thing…but u tubes are there for a reason…if only to show that McCain does 180 degree turns with alacrity and doesn’t recall what he said in the first place…or else is a truly amazing liar.
And I think Steve gives Blitzer too much credit when he says:
It’s one thing to change your mind on one thing, or even a few things. People do that, and even pols should have the freedom to do so every now and then.
But when you’re regularly changing your mind on a whole slew of issues, how on earth are voters supposed to know what you’ll stand for after you’re elected? If you just changed your mind on two dozen issues between last year and now, who’s to say you’re not going to do the same thing between now and next year?
Not to mention, if you’re 70 years old and have been in politics for over 25 years, shouldn’t you have really thought through your positions on most major issues by now? If you haven’t, then something is really wrong with you.
Well, the old saying was “able to turn on a dime”.
But for McCain it should be modified as “able to spin like a top in all directions when handed a bag of cash from K St and told to spin like a top”.