The press helps McCain whitewash Bush
CNN.com announced last week that among McCain's top political priorities for the Republican convention was his "need to make it clear that his first term will not be Bush's third term."
In fact, it was probably the worst kept secret in St. Paul: McCain had to completely cut ties with the wildly unpopular Republican incumbent and his record of failure. Republicans in St. Paul sure did their best whitewashing Bush: For the entire convention, Bush's name was only mentioned six times from the podium, according to a running count kept by a Los Angeles Times blog.
But how to erase Bush completely? Sitting presidents traditionally enjoy high-profile send-offs at conventions. When Ronald Reagan bid farewell to the GOP faithful at the party's 1988 convention in New Orleans, he addressed party activists at length the day before the convention began, he was fêted with an 18-minute video tribute inside the Superdome the next night, and then delivered the evening's keynote address.
Republicans in St. Paul seemed to catch a political break when, thanks to the threat of Hurricane Gustav, they were able to ease Bush out of the spotlight when Bush announced he had to monitor the storm and could not attend the convention. But then Bush turned around and, according to one report, demanded some convention face time (via satellite, as it turned out), creating a potential PR mess for Republicans.
Fast forward to McCain's convention speech Thursday night and immediately upon its conclusion, MSNBC's Chris Matthews reiterated that if McCain had a chance at winning the White House, he had to separate himself from the unpopular GOP incumbent, and that with his Thursday night address, McCain had "effectively" done so.
"It is dramatic and may well be the one brilliant move that could win him the election," Matthews announced, toasting McCain as some sort of Harry Houdini.
But if McCain did pull off the great escape, it was only thanks to the press and the way eager journalists pitched in to erase Bush from the political picture.
And here's why: The press is just as anxious as McCain to have Bush go away. The press is just as anxious as McCain to forget about the failures of the last eight years. Why? Because the press, like McCain, is partly to blame for Bush's White House misadventure.
And that's why Bush was a non-story in St. Paul and remains a non-story in the unfolding campaign. Forget about the 15,000 journalists who were camped out at the Xcel Energy Center and supposedly desperate for even the hint of internal struggles and political squabbling in order to create news at the tightly scripted event. Forget about the press glomming on to the Bush-McCain story the way journalists did in Denver the week before when they displayed an insatiable appetite to speculate about and hype supposed conflicts over the speaker scheduling at the Democratic convention.
It's true that on the surface, two convention storylines appeared remarkably similar. "The Democrats had the awkwardness of the Clintons at their convention," the Associated Press noted. "Republicans now have their version of a precarious guest: President Bush."
But boy, the coverage sure wasn't the same. On the day Hillary Clinton addressed the convention in Denver, there were more than 1,200 mentions of "Clinton" on cable and network news, according to TVeyes.com. The following day, when Bill Clinton spoke, there were more than 1,500 mentions. By contrast, on the day that Bush addressed the GOP convention, TV news outlets made reference to him only 500 times.
In other words, TV chatters and reporters were nearly three times as likely to discuss the Clintons in Denver as they were Bush in St. Paul.
That, despite the fact that Bush was essentially disinvited from St. Paul. And let's face it, if the internal strife that gripped the GOP surrounding Bush's role at the convention had played out the same way in Denver (Hillary's going to speak via satellite???), it would have been the topic of breathless, non-stop newsroom chatter and cable buzz, as pundits and reporters spent endless hours hyping the drama and assigning the roles of heroes and villains.
Not so in St. Paul. Or did I simply miss all those breathless Politico accounts filled with anonymous sources detailing the drama and how mistrust and resentments "continued to boil" between the Bush and McCain camps. Did I miss the endless speculation about what it all meant to the party's future health?
I didn't miss it because it didn't exist. The press showed very little interest on dwelling on Bush's convention appearances or the uncomfortable questions it raised for Republicans. Instead, the press treated the convention squabble as a gentlemanly disagreement that was best sorted out privately by adults.
I mean, did the press even pretend to care why Vice President Dick Cheney couldn't postpone his overseas trip (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Italy) by a single day in order to address the party's faithful? Not a chance.
And recall that in Denver the excitable press corps thought it was a very big deal when former President Clinton did not attend the convention for all four days. (CNN talking head: "I think it's bad form. He needs to be passing the torch onto Obama as the nominee of the party.") But when Bush didn't even show up in person, not even for four minutes, the same pundits just shrugged. It seemed to make sense politically they agreed with calm nods.
Instead of journalism in St. Paul, we saw a lot of winking and nodding going on. The Republicans announced, with a wink and a nod, that neither Bush nor Cheney could possibly attend the GOP convention. Instead of a) pointing out the logistical absurdity of the claim or b) analyzing (ad nauseam) what the White House no-shows meant, the press mostly signed off on the phony script.
And it's not just about St. Paul. The press remains allergic to the topic of what Bush's deep political stain could mean for the GOP on Election Day. The press has virtually erased Bush as a player in this campaign, which is striking because back in 2000, when Bill Clinton was the retiring two-term president, the press couldn't stop writing and gabbing about his role in the unfolding campaign. (It was mostly bad for Dems, the pundits agreed.) But Bush? Who's he?
It's fitting, really, that as the media's lapdog performance under Bush comes to its conclusion, the press would soft-peddle the president's role in his farewell convention fiasco. It's fitting because, let's face it, Bush's presidential failure is really the media's failure, and what journalist wants to dwell on that? Remember, this is the same political press corps that just had a gut feeling about Bush in 2000; just liked the guy. They vouched for him. Said he was a real, authentic politician who would restore bipartisanship to Washington.
For years, the press and Bush just seemed to be on the same page. As Eric Alterman recently noted, "The [mainstream media] was wrong about most things in just the fashion that the Bush administration was; and that's apparently the way they like it."
That's why the press still refers to Karl Rove as some kind of political genius ("the maestro of national politics") even though he's the architect of Bush's epic second-term failure. (i.e. Trying to privatize Social Security and initiating the Terri Schiavo fiasco.)
The media have, throughout Bush's gruesome political collapse, shown very little interest in taking part in the usual Beltway pastime of dissecting the miscues, assigning blame, and yes, doing a little bit of grave-dancing. When it comes to Bush's four-year decline, the press has remained oddly detached.
So when McCain and company wanted to erase Bush from the presidential picture, the press was only too willing to oblige. More importantly, that timidity helped McCain pull off his top priority; separating himself from Bush with a clean break. (McCain to the press: Thanks for the bounce!)
And let's not kid ourselves, there's a real, deep-seated dislike between McCain and Bush that the press could gnaw on for days and weeks. It's just that journalists don't.
For instance, according to one report by Sidney Blumenthal at the Huffington Post last week, Republicans were willing to cancel an entire evening of convention activities just to make sure Bush did not address the nation in prime convention time from St. Paul. According to Blumenthal's Republican sources, the feeling was that if Bush and Cheney bowed out of the convention (as they cited concerns about Hurricane Gustav), organizers would cancel all of Monday night's speakers, so as to not make Bush and Cheney look bad and to reinforce the notion that their absence was strictly hurricane-related.
But then a "furious" Bush refused to take the hint and demanded that he be able to address the convention in prime time the following night. "Once the hurricane passed, Bush asserted his primacy as president and forced his way back on the schedule to deliver a satellite speech to the convention," Blumenthal reported.
Bush's stubbornness then set off backroom negotiations as the McCain camp tried to come up with a way that the president of the United States would be allowed to speak at his own party's convention but not ruin the nominee's chances of winning in November.
Blumenthal's reporting buttressed what Peter Baker wrote in an August 31 cover story for The New York Times Magazine, which examined Bush's relationship with McCain; "a relationship fraught with bitter resentment, grudging respect and mutual dependence," as Bush "privately rails" against McCain and ridicules his campaign.
Actually, relationship is not the right word, since the two most important men in the Republican Party right now don't even speak to one another and haven't for months. Can you imagine back in 2000 if the press discovered that party nominee Al Gore and party incumbent Clinton went months without speaking? I mean, drama alert, right?!
Not in St. Paul. Even though the Times Magazine (a stand-alone entity from the Times' more insular Beltway reporting staff) laid out in detail the Bush-McCain rivalry, and even though Blumenthal reported on the festering, backstage convention resentment, most of the press in St. Paul had no interest in picking at that GOP scab. And they certainly had no interest in portraying Bush as a delusional, diva-like character who refused to get off the political stage and whose ego was in danger of destroying the Republican Party.
Instead, they mostly reacted passively to the eight-minute pre-recorded comments Bush made via satellite to the convention. Unusual? Sure. Newsworthy? Not really.
Truth is, Bush's here's-your-hat-what's-your-hurry treatment was unprecedented in the history of modern conventions. And traditionally, historical political events have been seen by the press as being, y'know, newsworthy. But not in St. Paul.
Bloggers though, seemed to have no problem detecting the significance of the events. As "fladem" wrote at Open Left:
There is only one message to draw [from] the Republican Convention tonight: the Republicans are ashamed of George Bush. He did not appear in prime time. He did not appear in person. The Vice-President isn't even in the country. In fact, Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman are so ashamed of George Bush that they did not mention his name. It is an amazing night without precedent in modern convention history.
The press, however, didn't care and wasn't interested in drilling down into the issue and jarring loose the attached resentment and hard feelings that apparently racked parts of the Republican Party. The press didn't want to play the blame game or speculate endlessly about the players involved and what the political ramifications might be for the snub come Election Day.
That's because journalists, like McCain, just want Bush to fade away.
That's because journalists, like McCain, just want Bush to fade away.
Personally, I want Bush's image and the stupid look on his stupid face out there every day and every night until the election, with the constant reminder that Mccain voted with Bush 90% of the time. That's the only way for Bush to fade away - as a national nightmare that will be soon coming to a close...
The American people are smart and they see the difference, they remember the Bush smear on McCain in 2000 they know they are not the same despite what the McCain haters want.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
Bob,
On what major policy issues has McCain broken away from Bush?
As for the smear campaign, Bob, you really have an incredible knack for irony. Did you know McCain hired one of the VERY SAME GUYS he blamed for the smears in South Carolina that Davis refers to in your link?
Please tell me your link was humor and then read this one:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-hires-go.html
"The American people are smart and they see the difference, they remember the Bush smear on McCain in 2000 they know they are not the same despite what the McCain haters want."
Um......no!! We the little people of America are smart enough to know that it was politically convenient for BushCo to attack McCain they way they did in 2000! It was politics... not personal (althought the attacks themselves were personal.... it was political by nature).
BushCo wanted the WH that bad..... those sleezy bastards would have smear God himself to win the WH..... oh wait..... they did that too, but the religious right is to collectively stupid to have noticed.
So your attempt at trying to defend Bush and Grampy by smearing the 'McCain' haters...... is weak and childish! How to back this claim of mine about your ineptness...... hmmmm....... if Grampy hated Bush for the 2000 dirty hits..... why then would Gramps vote over 90% of the time with Bush then? Oh right....... politics as usual!
Maverick my ass!
"it would have been the topic of breathless, non-stop newsroom chatter and cable buzz, as pundits and reporters spent endless hours hyping the drama and assigning the roles of heroes and villains."
Of course....... I got the memo that the Clintons are to be forever treated as the enemy of the rightwing.... didn't ya'll?
(CNN talking head: "I think it's bad form. He needs to be passing the torch onto Obama as the nominee of the party.") But when Bush didn't even show up in person, not even for four minutes, the same pundits just shrugged. It seemed to make sense politically they agreed with calm nods.
And there are people in this country that still think the media is liberal..... WTF?
Remember, this is the same political press corps that just had a gut feeling about Bush in 2000; just liked the guy. They vouched for him. Said he was a real, authentic politician who would restore bipartisanship to Washington.
Guess there won't be any beer drinking with W anymore..... huh boys and girls of the corporate owned media??
Like you people really want to sit and have a beer with Grampy..... I couldn't.... not because I diagree with him fully.... but because I'd find myself staring at his left cheek the whole time wondering if the damn thing will burst open and a dancing alien will come out and start a dance routine........
Fried-
I notice that nobody has been able to find any issues on which McCain has broken with Bush. THERE'S a shocker.
Looks the same to me...
they remember the Bush smear on McCain in 2000
Really? I brought up Bush's smearing of McCain in 2000 at a dinner party a few weeks ago among middle-class, educated Republicans. They had no idea what I was talking about... Republican voters, generally speaking, wear blinders...
Republican voters, generally speaking, wear blinders...
Either that, or they suffer from long-term memory loss.
Irony,
That supposed smear (which one?) is only remembered by those on the left.
I read it. I noticed it was written in 2004.
Nobody knows who did the push polling or how extensive it was. It could have been Democrats trying to influence the front runner. Who knows? Not being in South Carolina, I never heard any scuttlebut except McCain's campaign and those on the left at MMFA complaining about it.
Did that push poll and some professor's email account for the Bush victory or were there other factors? I never heard. All I know is that Bush won the nomination. Rove has repeatedly been accused of the being the instigator but I've never seen any proof.
Since then a whole mythology has risen up around Rove by the left on this site in part, because of this unsubstantiated claim that Rove masterminded McCains defeat by this anonymous push-poll.
I guess you'll have to come up with something more recent and more documented than an article from a campaigner who after losing the nomination wrote a cya opinion piece.
I agree with AA, we have to give Karl Rove the benefit of the doubt here. I mean, it's not like he's done anything else that could be perceived as dirty, sleazy, or deceitful. He never even sent anyone to jail who didn't absolutely deserve it, and he certainly never betrayed our country by releasing classified information!
I'm just glad that Karl Rove is not working for the McCain campaign in any capacity, official or unofficial, and that's why we're seeing such a respectful and polite campaign from the McCain side.
That supposed smear (which one?) is only remembered by those on the left.
Yeah, AA, such a minor "smear". It only cost McCain South Carolina, and in effect, the nomination, setting the stage for the first 4 years of W.
But you're correct (finally) in one thing- it is only remembered by the left because gutter politics is an accepted fact of life in the GOP. I bet Gramps even went over to Bush at one point and said "Wow, George, that was a really good trick of polling people about my supposed black baby. Hopefully I can come up with something as good as that one!"
In fact unless an official report agrees with their own bastardized perversion of their perception of what for them passes as the truth, they'll never believe it.
It's like someone planted a chip in their heads and all the truth they need is on that chip. It's read-only memory, so it will never change.
I'm planning on having one put in too. Listening to lying Republicans, going all the way back to Nixon, has really worn me down.
Samrt Americans are voting Obama. Unless their VERY RICH. Otherwise McCain votre are gullible dupes who have been fooled by his (false) image and his gimmicky VP nod. (She's a joke. I don't care what you say - SHE'S. A. JOKE.) And once again they will vote against their interest because they'd rather be told comfortably familiar lies than face an uncomfortable, unfamiliar reality. (The reality that the Republican's are dishonest hypocrtis who screw the working class, TAKE AWAY our freedoms and pursue disastrous poilicies for the country to pursue their opwn interests. That's been the reality for almost 2 decades now, although the media does a good job repeating the Republican's Orwellian messeges and false promises and mis-information and confusing people ebough to keep voting for the wrong guy.
IF they were held to the facts, the Republican party would go the way opf the whigs. It's infomration control and propaganda alone that keeps them afloat. They've convinced people of their 'inherent goodness' and of the Democrat's 'inherent badness', not by policy or results, but by propaganda and press influence.
America, sadly, has shown themselves to largely NOT be SMART enough to "see through it."
The only play in the Democratic ticket playbook is to tie McCain to Bush. They have made no secret of this. Of course the Republicans would downplay Bush so as not to give the Democrats this line of attack.
Not being a McCain fan myself, I have grudgingly accepted the fact that his candidacy, (especially with the pure political genius selection of Palin), is the perfect GOP candidate to run in this election. There is enough difference between McCain and Bush to make the Democratic playbook ineffectual.
(It would be interesting to see how many times Bush was mentioned in conjunction with McCain at the Democratic Party Convention. )
There is enough difference between McCain and Bush to make the Democratic playbook ineffectual.
As someone posted today on the CNN Political Ticker, the only difference between Cheney and Palin is lipstick. The only difference between Bush and McCain is sunscreen.
"I wonder which one will serve if he's elected"
You really have to wonder? McCain 2008, of course. Now that they have him leashed do you REALLY think they'll let him go?
There's a whole lot of difference between McCain 2000 and McCain 2008.
I figure the difference is about eight years' worth of degenerated brain cells......
Irony,
All I know is that McCain will surprise us.
"but after Bush I don't like surprises"
I guess I have a different take on it, since nothing Bush has ever done came as ANY surprise to me whatsoever. I'd like a few GOOD surprises, to be honest.
All I know is that McCain will surprise us.
Gramps McCain surprises ME each day he doesn't die. He's already survived longer than both my parents.
My sincere condolences.
My condolences to the entire country if Gramps is able to pull this thing off. We're doomed if he does.
How so?
Do you honestly think this country can survive four more years of Bush-style mismanagement?
The answer is definitely not. Electing Liar McCain-Liar Palin will lead to the systematic destruction of the U.S. at so many levels, in so many ways.
A Liar McCain-Liar Palin mis-administration wil lead to the following acts of desctruction:
1. Accelerated economic recession, leading to a monumental economic depression
2. Perpetual war-mongering that will further damage our military
3. Increases on federal neo-con corruption throughout the federal government
4. Corporations having power over people
5. The prospects of having all progress in women's rights halted by Liar Palin, and Liar Palin will also seek to reinstate or rebuild racial segregation, among other things.
He may revert back to the 2000 McCain when in office. But if he has to win by lying and smearing, I don't want him as our president no matter who he really is.
WZ
You really never have anything positive to say. In fact your insult from earlier today was flagged and taken down for the slur you used. You really are a joke.
WZ
You really never have anything positive to say. In fact your insult from earlier today was flagged and taken down for the slur you used. You really are a joke.
Oh, what am I supposed to do now, POV Go "Boo, hoo, hoo - no one likes me" and go away, never to return? Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, I consider people like Thomas Sowell and Condoleeza Rice to be sell-outs, and I stand by my previous statement.
You're the real joke here, POV.
AA,
Could you point out the policy differences between McCain and Bush and then explain these statements by McCain if they are so different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc
Also, why was the pick of Palin genius? Because she is effectively lying every time she opens her mouth about earmarks? Because she is a woman? I realize she has energized the base, but whatever happened to being at least close to honest. Bridge to Nowhere? Why did she keep the money if she said "thanks, but no thanks?"
Also, why was the pick of Palin genius?
Because "we're not supposed to lick on her, because she's a girl".....
Fried,
I have seen enough comments here these past two weeks accusing Palin of lying that were not accurate that I have decided to let a few more days pass and letting those false claims bury themselves before commenting on any of them. if you want to blindly accept every "charge" that the left is trumping up about Palin, go ahead. I'm going to wait and see what sticks before spending time on it.
I do believe the money allocated to the Bridge to Nowhere was used diverted to a variety of other State projects. You are free to form your own opinion.
McCain has differed from Bush on a number of occasions. Below are a few that come to mind:
McCain called for the increase in troops long before Bush's surge.
McCain disagreed with Bush on Rumsfield
Joining the 'gang of 14'
McCain Feingold
McCain Kennedy
Opposed drilling in Anwar
Opposed subsidizing ethanol
Opposed nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
Supports regulation of tobacco products
Supports Kyoto Accords
Um, AA, using the money for other state projects was still keeping a huge federal earmark. When she said "thanks, but no thanks" she left out the part where she kept the money. Factcheck.org has many, many more:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
Which of those lines are "trumped up?" Was McCain lying when he called out her earmarks a while back? Show me where the left is lying on the earmark issue, AA.
McCain has differed from Bush on a number of occasions. Below are a few that come to mind:
McCain called for the increase in troops long before Bush's surge. (Very true)
McCain disagreed with Bush on Rumsfield (but didn't call for his firing as he so often claims)
Joining the 'gang of 14' (to get compromise on Bush's judges, not very far away from Bush)
McCain Feingold (in word different than Bush, in practice, maybe not: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/21/mccain_blows_by_public_spendin_1.html)
McCain Kennedy: (McCain has said he would not support this bill)
Opposed drilling in Anwar (true)
Opposed subsidizing ethanol (maybe, maybe not http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/12/512797.aspx)
Opposed nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (true)
Supports regulation of tobacco products (true)
Supports Kyoto Accords (true)
There are a few different areas, but 90% speaks for itself. Good list though.
Fried,
I wonder if one did a study what percentage Obama or Biden would come out with agreeing on Bush? Without analyzing the statistics, my gut feeling is that most bills are bipartisan budget stuff, non-binding resolutions, etc. that really do not mean much. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and Biden approached 50% or more.
The 90% agreement is a good political attempt at associating McCain to Bush, but I wonder if it will stick. Of course I am partisan, but it does not bother me.
Mags,
If you take out the bipartisan stuff, which I think is mostly what is voted on, you get a clearer picture of who is most liberal and who is most aligned to Bush. I have studied the claim that Obama is the most liberal Senator and have found that credible. I have not studied the 90% claim regarding McCain. Knowing how the game is played, I would like to see how that statistic was computed.
Have you or anyone else seen how they came up with this number? If so, please link. If not, does not that make you wonder?
"I have studied the claim that Obama is the most liberal Senator and have found that credible." - AnotherAmerican
AA, could your please give us some insight into your studies? What were your resources? If you can provide specifics and/or links that would be most helpful. After all, the future of our country is at stake.
AA, it came from McCain's own mouth for one, and Congressional Quarterly:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html
Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time.
Mags,
My feeling is that what you've heard so far has been slanted so much as to make you believe she is lying.
I was watching Olbermann last night and he was showing clips of Palin speaking at her church asking for prayers for our soldiers and for the pipeline. Maybe it is just me, but I could not follow Olbermann's analysis of this. Somehow Olbermann was trying to say that Palin said God was on our side and from there later that Palin was lying.
Buchanan later on Maddows ripped into Olbermann for making false charges and character assasination.
I am simply going to wait. We have plenty of time to discuss. I'm sure MMFA will bring up these issues if it feels it will help it's agenda.
AA is waiting a few days before commenting on these things he's already called "false claims".
Translation: Rush hasn't told him why they're false claims yet. Patience, Barney needs time for his "studies".
McCain has differed from Bush on a number of occasions. Below are a few that come to mind:
McCain called for the increase in troops long before Bush's surge.
15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.
16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.
17. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
And a few direct quotes just in case...
McCain disagreed with Bush on Rumsfield
14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
McCain Feingold
62. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
63. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
64. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
65. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.
McCain Kennedy
54. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.
55. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
56. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”
Opposed drilling in Anwar
48. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.
Opposed subsidizing ethanol
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects," he said in an August speech in Grinnell, Iowa, as reported by the Associated Press.
"Well, at least now we know he's serious about running for president," quips Brown University presidential politics expert Darrell West, upon being told of McCain's ethanol about-face.
Opposed nationalizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
47. McCain was against massive government bailouts of “big banks” that “act irresponsibly.” He then announced his support for a massive government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Supports regulation of tobacco products
26. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
Supports Kyoto Accords
50. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
52. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
53. McCain was for national auto emissions standards before he was against them.
So AA, that leaves:
Joining the 'gang of 14'.
Of course it is AA, this is more political agenda activism at work. This monolithic "press" that Boehlert speaks of is painted with such a broadbrush, so as to deflect being pinned down. The "press" is all over the map, from network, to cable, to newspapers, to magazines, to the internet - to use the word is purposely vague.
It's Obama's job to link Bush to McCain, not the press'.
...the pure political genius selection of Palin (AA)
By "Political Genius", I'm assuming you mean a ham-fisted gimmick to get the lowest rung of the base excited. I think the calculated move may work in appealing to the wingnut fringe, but isn't it a little embarrassing to be talking about how well a trick worked when you're one of the crowd falling for it?
(especially with the pure political genius selection of Palin
Can you seriously say that she is qualified to sit behind the desk in the oval office should Gramps kick the bucket? It's all politics to you and it's quite sickening.
So you are admitting that you are just another rightwing hack who just doesn't want to give up political power, even after 8 yrs executive and 12 years legislative republican domination that has brought our country to ruin?
OK, I get it.
Even their RNC acceptance speeches were similar:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/06/daily-show-2008-mccain-2000-bush/
Probably never. The reason I heard from nearly every media source out there was because of Bush's incredible unpopularity. No whitewashing, no spinning, no pimping for McCain or the Republicans, just the truth.
The press by and large reported it accurately.
It wasn't hard to figure why Bush was essentially MIA...
And yet we've never gotten a full explanation of why Bush went AWOL from his National Guard unit right around the same time they started mandatory random drug testing.....
Boehlert, you messed this one up bad.
It's HARRY Houdini, NOT Henry. Jeesh.
The rest of your article, all good of course.
Great piece here by Boehlert...
The corporate press knew they had to get rid of Bush and Cheney in order for Grampy to have a chance. Mission accomplished.
McCain gave a contentless speech which was more like an episode of Biography, and the corporate press went gaga.
Polls say Sen. George McCain got a good bounce and the race is now tied.
Mission Accomplice.
Here’s the list.
National Security Policy
1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.
3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.
6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.
Foreign Policy
7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it. Now, he’s for it again.
8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.
Military Policy
14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.
16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.
17. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
18. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.
19. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
20. McCain staunchly opposed Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timetable, and even blasted Mitt Romney for having referenced the word during the GOP primaries. In July, after Iraqi officials endorsed Obama’s policy, McCain said a 16-month calendar sounds like “a pretty good timetable.”
Domestic Policy
21. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
22. On Social Security, McCain said he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Soon after, asked about a possible increase in the payroll tax, McCain said there’s “nothing that’s off the table.”
23. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
24. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
25. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
26. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
27. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
28. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
29. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
30. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
31. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
32. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
33. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.
34. And on gay adoption, McCain initially said he’d rather let orphans go without families, then his campaign reversed course, and soon after, McCain reversed back.
35. In the Senate, McCain opposed a variety of measures on equal pay for women, and endorsed the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision. In July, however, McCain said, “I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work. That … is my record and you can count on it.”
36. McCain was against fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act before he was for it.
37. McCain was for affirmative action before he was against it.
38. McCain said the Colorado River compact will “obviously” need to be “renegotiated.” Six days later, McCain said, “Let me be clear that I do not advocate renegotiation of the compact.”
Economic Policy
39. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.
40. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.
41. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.
42. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
43. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
44. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
45. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.
46. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.
47. McCain was against massive government bailouts of “big banks” that “act irresponsibly.” He then announced his support for a massive government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Energy Policy
48. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.
49. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
50. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
51. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.
52. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
53. McCain was for national auto emissions standards before he was against them.
Immigration Policy
54. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.
55. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
56. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”
Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law
57. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
58. McCain’s position was that the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
59. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
60. In June, McCain rejected the idea of a trial for Osama bin Laden, and thought Obama’s reference to Nuremberg was a misread of history. A month later, McCain argued the exact opposite position.
61. In June, McCain described the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush was “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” In August, he reversed course.
Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform
62. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
63. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
64. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
65. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.
Politics and Associations
66. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)
67. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
68. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
69. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
70. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
71. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
72. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
73. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
74. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.
75. McCain was for presidential candidates giving speeches in foreign countries before he was against it.
76. McCain has been both for and against considering a pro-choice running mate for the Republican presidential ticket.
If and when you learn of a reversal that has not yet made the list, I hope you’ll let me know.
Digg It!
Search
Other Political Sites
More Steve Benen
© 2008 Carpetbagger Media LLC · Powered by WordPress · Developed by Blogging Expertise