Newsweek: McCain flip-flops a "pro" with "values voters," but Romney reversals a "con"
SUMMARY: In an article offering a "'values voter' tally" of "the pros and cons of top GOP hopefuls" in the 2008 presidential campaign, Newsweek touted McCain's reversal on the Christian right -- first condemning Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" then trying to "make amends" -- as a "pro" for him among "values voters," while Romney's "alleged flip-flops" on same-sex marriage and abortion rights "could really hurt" him among "[e]vangelicals."
In the February 26 edition of Newsweek magazine, White House correspondent Holly Bailey offered a " 'values voter' tally" of "the pros and cons of top GOP hopefuls" in the 2008 presidential campaign. The article listed one of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "pros" as: "After condemning Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as 'agents of intolerance' during his 2000 run, McCain has tried to make amends with the Christian right." However, the same article's profile of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney listed among Romney's "cons": "Evangelicals are skeptical of Romney's Mormon faith, but it's his alleged flip-flops that could really hurt. In his 1994 Senate and 2002 gubernatorial bids, Romney supported abortion rights and gay rights, positions he reversed as he prepared for a White House run."
Newsweek offered no explanation for reaching a different conclusion as to the effect on "values voters" of McCain's flip-flop on the Christian right versus that of Romney's "alleged flip-flops" on same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
Nor did the article note McCain's flip-flops and self-contradictions on abortion, one of the very factors Newsweek said could doom Romney with the Republican base. Claiming that another positive factor for McCain is his hiring of "a former Bush adviser, David Rexrode, to tout his conservative credentials, particularly his anti-abortion stance," Newsweek did not mention McCain's varying positions on the issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. As Media Matters for America noted, in 1999, McCain claimed that he would both support overturning and not support overturning Roe v. Wade and, in 2005, he claimed that he agreed "to some degree" that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. McCain also issued a statement in 2006 indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except in those situations in which the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted: "But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."
From Bailey's Newsweek article:
THE RECONCILER: John McCain
PROS: After condemning Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 run, McCain has tried to make amends with the Christian right. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University last year and has consulted with noted evangelicals, including megachurch Pastor John Hagee in Texas. (This week Falwell will host a "meet and greet" at the National Religious Broadcasters convention on McCain's behalf.) He's even hired a former Bush adviser, David Rexrode, to tout his conservative credentials, particularly his anti-abortion stance.
CONS: Evangelicals are suspicious. They question McCain's opposition to a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (McCain opposes gay marriage, but says the issue should be regulated by the states.) They haven't forgiven him for blocking the "nuclear option" in the Senate that would have forced an up or down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees. Last month Focus on the Family founder James Dobson vowed he would not vote for McCain "under any circumstances."
THE MORMON: Mitt Romney
PROS: Romney is against abortion and opposes same-sex marriage, and he's been aggressive in courting the Christian right. He's consulted with Falwell and Franklin Graham and is scheduled to deliver the graduation address at Robertson's Regent University this spring.
CONS: Evangelicals are skeptical of Romney's Mormon faith, but it's his alleged flip-flops that could really hurt. In his 1994 Senate and 2002 gubernatorial bids, Romney supported abortion rights and gay rights, positions he reversed as he prepared for a White House run. Last week Sam Brownback's campaign questioned his credibility.
Republicans are so 5 minutes ago...... Why even report this crap.
Well all I can say is that I am not suprised, I do not fault Newsweek for this, because I think it is true. Republicans will view Romneys change as a "con" and not think twice about McCains "flip flop". That is the way Republicans are. Regardless I think both McCain and Romney are creepy.
I do not like either as well. There is only one person I care for at this moment, AND IT MIGHT SHOCK SOME OF YOU.
Thanks Evil, I think you're great too!
smart A$$
I hope you have gotten hooked on the thrill of GRAVELOCITY!
Huzzah! I've been missing the Gravelocity. But don't turn it into a joke, Rusty.You may want to temper your enthusiasm with a little GRAVELITAS.
Kucinich is the man.
Yep, I have to agree. He is the only candidate with views remotely similar to my own, plus... four words: First Lady Elisabeth Harper.
Oh yeah, she is a definite plus.
Ah! Enlighten us, Evillib. Which bomb-throwing, gay-bashing, Muslim-hater would you vote for?
Didn't Savage throw his fedora in the ring?
No he just put a poll on his website. Unfortunately, he hasn't officially announced yet.
I am begging the GOP to run Savage. With his attendants keeping the butterfly nets and white coats handy. Put rightwing insanity front and center.
He knows he won't win. His whole point is that in the democratic primaries far left candidates (kucinich, sharpton, nader) are allowed to debate the mainstream candidates thus shifting the mainstream candidates further left to garner support from the fringe candidates' voter base. This is what he feels he can do to the rhino republicans we have running in the primaries
Thats fine, its still gives the insanity factor lots of ink.
It would still be interesting
No, not Savage. I have already stated even if he was to run, i would never vote for him. I like to listen to him. But he remonds me of "V for Vendeta" (sp?) So, take your bigggggggggot thoughts of me and go to He!!!!!!!!!!
LOL, that was pretty good EL
i was reading the archive of the savage posting and you told evillib to "stop crying like a little girl" (or sniveling i forget which). that is pretty sexist and anti-feminist. do little girls cry more than little boys and is comparing someone to a little girl more of an insult to you than comparing him to a little boy? please explain mr liberal
Speaking of Dr. Weiner, an Iranian man brutally killed three people with a hammer the other day. The media is barely mentioning the Iranian man's religion, if they mention it at all. Why doesn't the media want us to know the man's religion? Is Dr. Weiner suitably outraged at this cover-up by the PC liberal media?
The explanation is quite simple. Lucky for you. When satirically carping at a rightwinger, playing to the accepted cultural stereotypes is not only acceptable its often the only mode of communication they understand.
Yeah, Solon's our pit bull. You guys come over here and play your usual games, and he takes a chunk out of your ass.
LOLOL... thanks Solon.
easy, romney's flip flops are going to be too simple to swiftboat. mccain has a bit more leeway with voters and only said those things in passing, not while he was trying to get elected governor.
romney fails.
The article also did not note Brownback's flip-flop on abortion. Make a note of it, MMFA!
(Also, FOX News gave a detailed report on McCain's abortion reversal last night. Just an aside.)
Why do the “values voters” have such values? I’m talking about the values that make them more likely to vote for a politician who will work tirelessly to completely outlaw gay marriage and abortion, yet will not give any of their time or attention to healthcare, education, energy costs, or the plight of American jobs.
I am generalizing, but why does it seem that the voters of Dumb****istan are willing to be subjected to skyrocketing medical care costs, crowded classrooms, taking it in the *** at the pump and the meter, and their jobs being exported overseas, just as long as gays are not allowed to marry, abortion is outlawed regardless of circumstance, and public schools are mandated to teach what belongs in the church?
Because, apparently, when all these people go to bible school, the page is missing that says "Judge not, lest ye' be judged." They all forget that part.
That's a good question. I don't believe, however, that any of the "values voters" will have as much impact this time around as they have had in the past. It's all about Iraq now...
Their generation has the best chance of actually passing this crap, forcing their "morals" on the rest of us.
PETE592---
There are 2 main reasons why Americans vote for charlatans who are bad for the country and for themselves.
A/ --- They are not voting FOR the Republican, but against the Democrat who they are phobic of. They see themselves as the real Americans and the Democratic party as the party of the immigrant, the interloper, the Catholic, the Jew, and Black. (This sense of community which engenders peer pressure to conform to the group, is more likely to occur strongest in the more isolated areas--- rural, small town.)
B/ --- There are a large number of jobs which are only given to those who vote in Republican primaries.
I've always thought of myself as a values voter. I just have different values.
Solon, those are the "wrong" values.You don't get to decide.
You mean I am NOT the decider?
Not even close.Consult your nearest T-Warrior for the correct values.
When is being a American Fundie consideration for being a "values" voter?
Politicians are all the same. No one on either side of the aisle cares about anything but their own poll numbers. These guys are both pathetic individuals. It just goes to show that the only candidates I can see that are true to their beliefs is Obama and Guliani. Mcain and Romney are obviously full of crap. Hillary has changed her positions on policy almost as often as her husband changes sex partners. It's just two parties playing each other against the middle.
Thats not quite true. While I am willing to admit it is true most of the time there are a few politicians who are real public servants and believe what they say, that have true integrity. The problem is for the most part THOSE politicians dont get to the head of the line. They are marginalized. They do exist
Hillary looks like she'll get to the head of the game. No one's flipped more than her.
I am not entirely convinced that politicians who "stick to their guns" are better for the country. I mean, what has a foolish consistency gotten us but stuck in Iraq with a gigantic public debt?
We elect representatives, not dictators.
But to be a leader you need to be able to pick your stance and stick to it. Waking up everyday and changing based on the polls gets us nowhere. In hindsight the war in Iraq was not a good idea but pretty much EVERYONE including almost all the dems thought there were nukes in Iraq. The problem is, now that we're there if we leave in our absence genocide will fill the void
But to be a leader you need to be able to pick your stance and stick to it.- savagerocks
No, that's being a zombie. Being a leader requires thinking, and changing your stance according to changing circumstances.
"pretty much EVERYONE including almost all the dems thought there were nukes in Iraq."- savagerocks
No, a lot of us were willing to continue inspections, and many were basing their opinions on manipulated intelligence.Politicians, even some of the better ones, were swayed by polls showing a large number of scared Americans, towards invading Iraq. The influence of polls did a lot more to help the war scammers than change course.
The problem is, now that we're there if we leave in our absence genocide will fill the void- savagerocks
Sorry, Nostradamus. can't give you that one, just a guess on your part
Not surprisingly, I pretty much disagree with everything you wrote.
pretty much EVERYONE including almost all the dems thought there were nukes in Iraq
Almost no one actually believed that. Bush pretended it was so to justify his war of choice, the Dems pretended to believe him so they could look big and tough, but the people who actually make it their business to know such things felt he had been disarmed since the Gulf War.
But to be a leader you need to be able to pick your stance and stick to it. Waking up everyday and changing based on the polls gets us nowhere.
No, as a leader you have to be flexible and react to a changing world, not stay stuck in pre-judgments. That is exactly what getsus nowhere, or stuck in Iraq.
Let's leave aside the silliness of "waking up everyday and changing with the polls." No one really does that. Every politician looks at polls, every one.
The problem is, now that we're there if we leave in our absence genocide will fill the void
You have to back that up somehow. I see no evidence that the US military is preventing violence in Iraq. I see lots of evidence of us making it worse.
Off-topic, I know, but there's nothing else going on here today...
Hey Val, we got some synchronicity going.I can't resist the slam dunks either. ;0D
yeah -- that was more like tee-ball...
100,000+ dead Iraqi civillians since the invasion isn't genocide?
It is good that you are concerned about the people of Iraq, it shows you have empathy. What is the best way to help Iraq heal?
Leave it to the Iraquis?
Rocks,
I ask again, if everybody KNEW that Saddam had nukes and was willing to use them, HOW can you send in ground troops to get them...Wouldn't we bomb them?? NO, our President knew they didn't exist, unless he is totally nutty enough to send in the Infantry. So, is he a nut or did the nukes exist?
I have no use for a politician who, as Stephen Colbert says, believes the same thing on Wednesday, he believed on Monday, no matter WHAT happens of Tuesday. And no there were few people with any sanity that believed Iraq had nukes. I didnt even believe there were chemical and bioweapons, but THOSE were possible nukes werent even a slight possibility. No one whose job it is to know took that seriously and if you were paying attention that was clear.
I agree Solon. I never believed there where Nukes, or usable Bio weapons. It just did not make sense to me to invade the country. Now the removal of Sadam is not a bad thing. However, as Noam Chomsky once said in a speach, "no better way to remove a leader than from within." Now, as I understand. Sadam held the country in fear by using bio weapons. if he was to admit to Bush he did not have any, the country MAY have retaliated. Thus, removing him from within. But Bush could not wait for the inspectors to finalize their findings, it would blow his master plan. No one in their right mind should back Bush on that BS.
However, with that said. I feel it is a little late to mend wounds with the terrorists from other countries. We will be fighting terrorism forever in some degree,. more than the last century brought us.
Wow, great analysis. I would add that Iraq was eyeing Iran as another country they wanted to believe they had WMDs. Good post EL, I think the left and right have a consensus about fighting terrorism and the only difference has to do with the tactics
I agree 100% The point is to BE right not to attempt to maintain the illusion you WERE right.
"It just goes to show that the only candidates I can see that are true to their beliefs is Obama and Guliani. "
You're giving Rudy way too much credit. He is aready flip-flopping of abortion. I just waiting for him to join the NRA.
As far as I've heard he hasn't flipped on abortion. I still wouldn't vote for him anyway. My point is, however, even if I don't agree with him, the candidate I think has the most integrity in his beliefs is Obama
According to El Rushbo, Obama can't even decide what race he is.
It's funny you mention that because there are some african- american people that are claiming he's not "black" enough
Who said that? Please post links.
Maybe it was Alan Keyes.
The nearest I can see is that Obama isn't doing as well as Hillary in the polls of black voters. Therefore (as the "logic" goes), blacks don't think Obama is "black enough".
Purely insulting logic.
To Alan Keyes credit, he seems to at least attack the strawman notion Obama isn't "black enough" . Most of the stories I have seen describe what they believe most black people believe. No writer I have seen claims the stupid idea for himself/herself, though.
I would like to see someone who actually believes it is true that Obama isn't "black enough". I haven't seen any evidence of that.
This looks like a whispering campaign more than anything.
"Not Black Enough?" Who really cares if he is or not. Does that mean he has to speak Ebonics to be black enough? Color and Sex is no matter to me. Honestly, I feel he is one of the few running with SOME integrity. We just do not know enough about him yet to draw serious conclusions.
The "some say" trope is so comical. "Some" people believe the moon is made of cheese. "Some" believe Bigfoot does their laundry.
If you read the stories, that is all anything is based on.
It looks as though that dubious conclusion is based solely on Obama's polling poorly (compared to Clinton) amongst black people. No particular person is cited as having the opinion that they are choosing Hillary because Obama isn't "black enough".
As if that is the only possible reason black people might prefer Hillary or any other candidate. By that reasoning, Hillary is "more black" than Obama. Ridiculous.
"Some people" believe Bill O'Reilly doesn't lie. Go figure.
"It's funny you mention that because there are some african- american people that are claiming he's not "black" enough"
Ahh, Fox "News" question of the day....Some say...
Please name one credible Black person that say Obama is not "black" enough.
"As far as I'v heard he hasn't flipped on abortion." - Savagerocks
Well, technically you're right. Rudy hasn't officially embraced the right to life movement. He hasn't denounced abortion as murder. He hasn't directly called for overturning Roe.
What he has done, however, is pledge to continue nominating so-called 'strict constructionists' to the Supreme Court. The result would, of course, be the overturning of Roe. He's simply using weasel words to signal to the religious right his intention to deliver unto them the power to strip American women of their reproductive rights... all the while reassuring those in the center & on the left that he is still in their corner. He has sold his political ass to the far right while continuing to posture himself as a moderate.
In other words, don't put too much faith in Rudy as a man of convictions. He's a hack. A clever hack, mind you, but atill just a hack.
That is so FLIP-FLOP.......where is Hannity when we need him ? the man so lost his wheels on the Straight Talk Express bus, the axle came off with it and now a flip-flop for perceived political gain. And this guy is the best the GOP can offer ?
Hannity's a republican party hack. So is Rush. The "dems bad republicans good" doesn't apply anymore. People like Hannity constantly down the dems when the reps are almost identical in their inconsistancy. He's a joke
" where is Habbity when we need him " was meant as a sarcastic remark reflecting his acid commentary is never pointed at republicans when they say stupid things and my sarcasm at this " fair and balaced ' theory.
SO, it's not NEWSWEEK's job to just INFORM us, it's their job to tell us which flip-flops matter and which do not, which LIES will cause dire problems for one liar, and which LIE will be forgiven for whatever reason.
It's not the NEWS that is important, it is entirely the SPIN and BIAS that our media deigns to place on IDENTICAL situations, as they apply to different people: that is, the ones annointed by the ruling class (McCain, Bush), and those who are virtual enemies of the state (Romney, Hillary, anyone who runs against McCain, any Democrats).
And you know, they STILL cling to that "Liberal Media Bias" garbage?
While it's nice of MMFA to look out for Romney and point out that McCain even gets a pass from the media [in this case Newsweek] over other Republicans... I'm still not sure why MMFA is highlighting this. Or why they care. Now if it were McCain vs a Democrat I'd understand....
Media Matters cares because this is a good example of the media "preferring" one candidate over another, and using the power of the spin accordingly.
Whether McCain or Romney gets the nomination, it's important to begin highlighting now the humiliating flip-flops that these two Cons have committed.
Keep up a steady drumbeat, and this is the best chance that the flip-flops will find their way into the voter's minds.
Of course the main stream media "prefers" McCain. He's one of them.
"Them?"
Sorry..."You."
"You?"
In a sick yet refreshing way, it almost doesn't matter what the media says about any of the current crop of cowardly, reprobational Republicans because the Pugs are in deep doo-doo with the American voters. Let's face it, America hates these creepy, icky, flip-flopping parasites.
Nice work by Media Matters...
McCain is really an embarrassment with his flip-flopping and pandering. Is there not possibly an element of senility here?
The right-wing media (such as Newsweek) is desperately trying to cover his tracks.
John "Keating 5" McCain should give it up and face the fact that he'll never be president. It's time that he leave politics and retire to a rocking chair where he can druel his Hanoi Hilton stories to the other "residents."