Overlooking shifts and flip-flops, Des Moines Register endorsed McCain for "st[icking] to his beliefs" on tax cuts and immigration
SUMMARY: The Des Moines Register's endorsement of Sen. John McCain praised him for "taking stands based on principle, not party dogma," citing his positions on immigration reform and President Bush's tax cuts, among others. However, as noted in several reports, McCain has shifted his position on immigration reform and actually reversed his position on the tax cuts.
In a December 15 endorsement of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his party's presidential nomination, the Des Moines Register editorial board praised McCain for "taking stands based on principle, not party dogma" and asserted that "[t]ime after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public." As examples, the Register cited McCain's positions on immigration reform and President Bush's tax cuts, among others. However, as several reports have noted, McCain has shifted his position on immigration reform and actually reversed his position on the tax cuts.
The Register wrote:
Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.
In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform -- while watching his poll standings plunge. Some other Republican candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity. McCain has worked on the issue for seven years and sponsored bills to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.
As Media Matters for America noted, a February 27, 2006, Washington Times article reported that McCain said of Bush's 2001 tax-cut package, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." In 2003, he voted against legislation to accelerate tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut dividends and capital-gains taxes. Yet in 2006, McCain voted for the bill extending the 2003 tax cuts. When asked during the April 2, 2006, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press why he changed his mind on Bush's tax cuts, McCain replied: "I do not believe in tax increases. ... The tax cuts are now there, and voting to revoke them would have been to -- not to extend them would have meant a tax increase." Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, reportedly said at the time: "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy that he's flopped."
Furthermore, contrary to the Register's suggestion that McCain's position on comprehensive immigration reform is an example of how McCain has "stuck to his beliefs," McCain has shifted his stance, now calling for border security first before the creation of a guest-worker program or a path to citizenship.
A November 4 Associated Press article (retrieved from the Nexis news database) noted that McCain told reporters that he "understand[s] why you would call it a, quote, shift":
John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.
Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.
"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain's GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it.
McCain, who has led on the issue in the Senate with Democrat Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, got a wake-up call of sorts in June when Congress again failed to enact a broad immigration proposal that he championed and that split the country.
The measure also exposed deep divisions within the Republican Party, and McCain's high-profile support for it hurt him politically. During debate on the issue as spring turned into summer, the Arizona senator saw his poll numbers in some early primary states slip and his fundraising wane.
Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes.
McCain said he listened to what the public was saying when the legislation failed and responded accordingly.
"I said, OK. We'll secure the borders, but after we secure the borders, we'll have a temporary worker program, we'll have to address the 12 million people here illegally, and I think the best way is the proposal that we had," McCain said.
"It's not a switch in position. I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first," he added.
During the December 12 Republican presidential debate in Johnston, Iowa, moderator and Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn referred to McCain's so-called "maverick" status, asking McCain: "Senator McCain, your reputation as a maverick has put you at odds with your own party leadership from time to time. Give us an example of a time you wished you had compromised to get something done instead of holding firm on your ideals." McCain responded: "I cannot think of a time, and I hope that I could never think of a time, because I came to Washington because I had a set of principles and ideals." As Media Matters noted, Washburn's question echoed media figures' frequent description of McCain as a "maverick," despite the various instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment on issues large and small.
Other coverage of endorsements of McCain continued to advance the notion that McCain is a "maverick." On the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough assessed the endorsements McCain received from the Register and The Boston Globe, asserting that "both of those papers said in their endorsements, 'Eh, you know, we don't really support all of his positions.' Which, of course, they would say that about every Republican." In response, co-host Mika Brzezinski stated: "But the fact that he sticks to his guns, I think, is what people really like about him." Scarborough echoed Brzezinski's comment, repeating: "Yeah, but the fact that he sticks to his guns." In addition, as Media Matters noted, during the December 17 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Tamron Hall said of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "[H]e's been called, certainly, a maverick, but can he now be called the new comeback kid?" Hall then returned to the "maverick" label, asserting that "McCain now has the support from another maverick in his bid for president," referring to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) endorsement of McCain.
From the December 15 Des Moines Register editorial, headlined "Republican endorsement editorial: Why McCain":
The one-time playboy emerged from prison a changed, more serious man. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and the Senate in 1986, he has built an unconventional political career by taking stands based on principle, not party dogma, and frequently pursuing bipartisanship.
His first term was touched by scandal when the Senate rebuked him for meeting with savings-and-loan regulators on behalf of campaign donor Charles Keating Jr., who was later imprisoned. That ordeal steered him into championing government transparency and battling alongside Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold for the campaign-finance-reform bill that bears their names.
Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa. He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A year ago, in the face of growing criticism, he staunchly supported President Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.
In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform -- while watching his poll standings plunge. Some other Republican candidates refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat caused by human activity. McCain has worked on the issue for seven years and sponsored bills to limit greenhouse-gas emissions.
McCain would enter the White House with deep knowledge of national-security and foreign-policy issues. He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one. He's also a fierce defender of civil liberties. As a survivor of torture, he has stood resolutely against it. He pledges to start rebuilding America's image abroad by closing the Guantanamo prison and beginning judicial proceedings for detainees.
McCain has his flaws, too, of course. He can be hot-tempered, a trait that's not helpful in conducting diplomacy. At 71, his age is a concern. The editorial board disagrees with him on a host of issues, especially his opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. McCain foresees a "long, hard and difficult" deployment of troops in Iraq. The Register's board has called for withdrawal as soon as it's safely possible.
But with McCain, Americans would know what they're getting. He doesn't parse words. And on tough calls, he usually lands on the side of goodness -- of compassion for illegal immigrants, of concern for the environment for future generations.
From the December 17 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: And Pat Buchanan said, in effect, The Des Moines Register took a pass on the --
WILLIE GEIST (contributor): Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: -- Republican side because he said that he couldn't win. But it's very interesting that John McCain got the endorsement from The Des Moines Register, got the endorsement from The Boston Globe, but both of those papers said in their endorsements, "Eh, you know, we don't really support all of his positions." Which, of course, they would say that about every Republican.
BRZEZINSKI: But the fact he sticks to his guns --
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, but the fact that he sticks to his guns --
BRZEZINSKI: -- I think is what people really like about him.
Bingo on the tax cuts being sustained, in part, with his vote. He backed away from his earlier immigrant bills position, don't know if that fits the classic definition of a flip/flop.
I put securing our borders in a set which includes victory in Iraq. Such simple and few words can twist a country into an emotional pretzel. The physical effects can stagger. Unintended unfortunate effects, legion in number. Com'on Lemings! Lets give it a good one for the old gene pool!
Of the current GOP candidates, he comes the closest to acceptable for me at this point. This is not saying much though, anyone getting Grover Dude's thanks, is a a no go for me.
His state, Arizona, has the greatest influx of illegal immigrants. When asked about that, he dodges and weaves and rerephrases the question. It is easy to stick to beliefs. It is a lot harder to stick to action.
hey, that isn't fair, mccain did stick to his guns, at least for this week. next week, it'll be a different set of guns.
sheesh, you guys expect a lot, with the whole "consistency" thing!
He's be in the lead if it weren't for his stupidity with Illegal Aliens and McCain Feingold.
The lead to what? To see which Democrat is going to slaughter him in the general election. McCaine can barely stay awake half of the time. He's an honorable veteran but a dishonest politician that needs to retire.
McCain would slaughter Clinton in a general election. There is no doubt in my mind that the independent vote (which decides elections) would go to him. I disagree with your opinion on this. As a life long Democrat I would vote for him before Hillary.
I too won't vote for Hillary. I really don't want another 4-8 years of Bushinton.
CD, why can't you write a coherent sentence on here? I've seen your blog, and you know how to write.
I just don't get this rampant anti-syntax movement.
I wonder whether MM is concerned about the Register's failure to appropriately emphasize the shifts and flip-flops by Clinton; or are liberal "flip-flops" conveniently taken for granted on this site? The war, immigation, free-trade . . .. She's been on the right, the left, and towards the middle on all of these issues, seeimingly shifting with the political tide. That politicians change their minds is not altogether bad; it sometimes reflects that they are amenable to change and appropriately willing to advocate the views of their constituents, often at the expense of their personal views (i.e. McCain on immigration).
However, in relation to the simple-minded article above, Clinton's shifts in policy have been much more actute and transparent than McCain's. On the more significant issues enveloping this campaign, McCain has been laudably steadfast in his views. His views on immigration are border security first, but still amnesty for the illegal immigrants already here. His views on the war have remained unchanged. He's hardly a religious fanatic. He's been unyielding on the issue of water-boarding. He's an outspoken adovacte of climate control and finding solutions to global warming. Many of these (and more) positions have long been in stark contrast with those of the conservative base.
The same cannot be said for the other candidate endorsed by the Register, Clinton, who's only concern seems to be winning this popularity contest at any expense. She's taken so many sides on the major issues that by now it is exceedingly difficult to discern exactly where she stands. But I'm sure MM has a dictionary full of excuses and apologies for their candidate
"I wonder whether MM is concerned about the Register's failure to appropriately emphasize the shifts and flip-flops by Clintons"
Yet one more poster who hasn't read the mission statement. Of course they're not interested. This site does not clain to be free of bias. It tracks conservative mis-info only. You want to track liberal mis-info, go start a site.
You're correct.
So the next time a liberal comes here and states the liberal media is a myth, and instead it's dominated by corporate conservative Republicans, you will also let them know that based on the thread topics on this website, that point of view is completely biased.
Oh, please.
This site makes no claim of being fair-and-balanced. It's a liberal site. Fair enough.
But most media outlets try to claim legitimcay by claiming they are not biased. Right-wing outlets try to disclaim their own (even greater) bias by saying the rest of the media must all be liberal.
That IS a myth.
Regardless of MMFA's own bias, they have provided countless examples of conservative bias in both main-stream and right-wing media based on FACTS. DOCUMENTED, INDISPUTABLE FACTS.
Most of the right-wing responses fall under three categories.
1) Claims that MMFA is cutting it too fine, reporting on small details that don't really qualify as mis-info. Now sometimes, I'll even share that viewpoint, but even then it's still just AN OPINION, not a fact.
2) Claims that MMFA is biased (duh!) and is misrepresenting the issue. This is always BS, because MMFA doesn't opine on the issues. They attack the right-wing's use of DEMONSTRABLE LIES in order to support their argument. So again - WHO'S really misrepreenting the issue?
3) A repetition of exactly the same kinds of lies, distortion, invective, rumor, propaganda, etc... that MMFA has very thoroghly and carefully debunked.
So basically you're just back the right-wing nonsense position of " all things liberal=bad" thus MMFA must be wrong. That's about as good as Ann Coulter manages, and her book sales have fallen recently. (Evidence that not all American's are as dumb as the right-wing thinks.)
One small but important correction: MMFA gives examples of conservative misinformation not conservative bias.
Nice semantics. That this site reports exclusively on conservative media "misinformation" implies that there is not just as much liberal media "misinformation," which of course is false. It seems that MM is designed to perpetuate the coveted victim status that liberals hold so dearly. Everywhere you turn, the right wing vultures like the Register are out to misrepresent . . .
I don't think it's semantics, I think there is a clear distinction between conservative misinformation and conservative bias.
I do agree with you that by detailing only one side, MMFA presents a false picture of what a news program or radio shows overall tone might be. But that's what partisans do.
But aren't you saying that MM is guilty of the same practice that it seeks to expose? By presenting only conservative "misinformation," it is, as you say, presenting a false picture. From my view, MM therefore is guilty of spreading liberal "misinformation."
I have accused MMFA in the past of being misleading in their analysis. That's probably why most people who post on here don't agree with me.
I'm part of the small minority of more conservative posters who uses this forum to debate the issues with those that don't agree with my views. It's a very enjoyable and informative undertaking.
I agree. I've been messing around on here for about two weeks. I consider myself an independent, but I'm definitely more conservative than most of the folks on here. I, too, enjoy the back and forth though, and enjoy reading most of the comments posted on here while I'm at work. As I'm sure you are aware, though, some of the commentators are ridiculously deranged, and do nothing but take up space with telling the more conservative-minded folks how dumb and moronic they are. Unless I want to laugh at their anger, I don't respond. But, still, they oftentimes tend to ruin the "debates."
It is presenting FACTS to dispute LIES told by conservatives. How the heck does that distort anything?
No, as noted, the whole framework of MM is to present conservative media "misrepresentation" only, thereby deliberatly creating an impression to the reader that the entire media is biased towards conservatives. These "threads" are replete with comments indicating the reader's belief in this fallacy.
MM isn't stupid. They realize that feeding their flock only their non-objective view of the media will further perpetuate the victim-status that the far-left touts as a justification for all of its policy objectives, from welfare, to abortion, to affirmative action . ... That is their unwritten, but nonetheless conspicuous, objective.
Good catch. MISINFORMATION, not BIAS. You are corect.
I have read the mission statement and my comment was rhetorical. But don't you think that it's a bit ironic for MM to lambast the purported lack of coverage of conservative flip-flops, while it incessantly defends liberal flip-flops that are just as transparent, and which are covered by some media outlets?
I mean, had the Register highlighted all of Clinton's flip-flops, MM almost certainly would have run an article critizing the Register for its bias in running such a story. Hypocrisy like this seems inconsistent with the goal of holding the media to its job of objective, truthful reporting.
Viewed in an objective context, the story, if there is one, should be that the Register failed to report the flip-flops of both the candidates whom they endorsed. No conservative bias was displayed, just poor journalism. However, through MM's selective and distorted coverage of the media, it envisions bias where none exists
Well said.
The point is why does this website care at all who the Des Moines Register endorses on the Republican side? Like there would be one better than another?
Newspapers endorse candidates all the time, for MMFA to pick this one apart is a head-scratcher.
Saying McCain "stuck to his guns" is a lie or, at best, a gross exagerration with several exceptions to the assertion conveniently forgotten. THAT'S WHY MMFA "picked this one apart."
If [the paper] endoresed McCain becase "he finally changed his mind and came around to our side" (or some such thing) then I don't think MMFA would have bothered. (There would be no lie there!)
McCain 2007 is a pathetic sell-out. McCain 2000 is apparently the guy they're endorsing. I wish that guy was running, but he's long gone.
'McCain 2007 is a pathetic sellout. McCain 2000 is apparently the guy their endorsing"
That is so true. McCain 2000 would be shoe in. I would submit that McCain 2000 would be a viable third party candidate who would have been able to take the majority of the coveted independent vote. I still think if nominated he would beat Hillary by simply taking the independent vote in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, perhaps Pennsylvania, and definitely the entire south. Democrats had better hope the GOP nominates Huckabee or Romney. Someone with an independent flavor is going to kill Clinton in the general election.
What are you talking about? MMFA doesn't defend anyone! If a conservative diseminates misinformation, MMFA calls the out on it and proves their point with facts, data and referecnes. If a conservative (or just a reporter) tries this on a liberal MMFA comments on it if (1) the accusation is based in falsehoods and (2) if their is sufficient hypocrasy or double-standard on the part of the conservatives. But again - there's no DEFENSE. Just a reminder (and proof) that the other guy (the conservative) is lying or being hypocritical.
sorry - that should be (1) OR (2). (Not "and".)
No, respectfully, I just think your viewpoint is clouded. The media errors in its coverage all the time, sometimes misrepresenting the left and sometimes misrepresenting the right. Of course there are those who admittedly display bias for one side or the other, and instances of such bias is easily discernible.
But, MM takes reporting, such as the instant case from the Register, and through its one-sided articles claims bias where there is none. Another example is the article on Matthews and eunichs. I can't stand Matthews and think he's a fool, but in my opinion he's no conservative talking-head. He routinely goes after the current administration and had a fetish with dumb stories like Larry Craig. He makes ridiculous statements all the time, but the insinuation spread on this site that he's some kind of republican spokesman simply is false. For each misguided statement he's made about liberals, he's made one about conservatives. Much of the media is like him. Not biased one way or the other, just guilty of sensationalism
THEY ARE NOT CLAIMING BIAS! If some paper wants to endorse McCain then so be it! But to call him a "strit talker" or a "maverick" or say he "sticks to his guns" is simply FALSE! Just ask any of his former (EY 2000) supporters why the couldn't care less about him in 2008! That's the point here! He is getting credit that he deserved EIGHT YEARS AGO, but clearly does not deserve now. And that opinion is supported by examples of McCain's actions that are contrary to the image they are trying to present.
It might be biased, but it's still legit. (And it may be an opinion, but it's suppoerted by facts.)
As noted in my previous comments, whether MM cries bias or not is of no consequence. The issue is whether, by presenting only one side of media "misinformation," MM is guilty of the same practice that it seeks to expose. In my view, MM's reporting is itself a prime example of media misrepresentation. As I suggested earlier, their one-sided reporting perpetuates the myth that the media leans conservative. And it also advances a distorted view of media coverage.
"MM's reporting is itself a prime example of media misrepresentation."
- Show, please, where MM's reporting "misrepresents" what is said in the press or on radio or TV. All MM does is post clips and transcripts - factual evidence, mind you - of what was printed and broadcast. Where is the "distortion" you claim? One might quarrel, as some here do, with the choice of incidents MM analyzes, but I cannot see why you should be so indignant that a liberal watchdog would pay close attention to conservative voices in the media. BTW, I'm not a bird in anyone's "flock".
By presenting ONLY conservative "misinformation," regardless of whether accurately presented, but ignoring liberal media "misinformation," MM itself is guilty of misrepresenting the media's coverage of politics.
This site paints a false portrait that the media is intent on misinforming the public with a skewed, conservative viewpoint. That is not the case, and attrubuting to the media a willingness to impart only conservative "misinformation" is misinformation in and of itself.
And that, sir, is circular logic born out of circular thinking.
You have yet to cite or show any example of the "liberal misinformation" you decry. Does it exist, or not? And if it does, can you illustrate it? You call corporate conservative bias in the mainstream media a "myth". I call liberal bias in the mainstream media a "myth", and I do so on the basis of demonstrable fact: Rush Limbaugh has been promoting that myth for at least twenty years, and he has been so persistent at it that a great many people, having heard it repeated so often, have come to believe it.
The people who run MM don't lie and they don't distort what the lazy reporters and the corporate conservative punditocracy say; they don't need to do that, you see. Yes, they have a liberal bias, but they aren't hypocrites like CNN and ("fair and balanced") Fox News, and they don't promote mythology to support their stance. They simply offer facts.
You've expressed your opinions. Where are your facts?
Just a quick response before this article gets too dated.
For starters, you can't possibly be serious in insinuating that there's not media misinformation on both sides to some degree.
Assuming that you don't live in a fantasy-land, and agree that there is media misinformation disseminated regarding both ends of the spectrum, the assertion that MM may accurately cut-and-paste comments (although typically out of context) has no bearing on what I stated clearly above.
The point, which is not at all circular, is that by selectively quoting only conservative media misinformation, MM itself misinforms because it creates the impression that the media only misinforms the public in favor of conservatives. Please tell me you're not that blind so as to believe that myth.
Thus, MM pretends that that media is out to misinform the public in favor of the conservative viewpoint, and thereby misrepresents the manner in which the media covers politics.
By definition, that's not circular logic at all. What's circular is declaring someone's statement is circular without backing it up.
Furthermore, I love how your comment expresses nothing but your own opinion, yet you hypocritically demand that I cite facts in support of my own.
Below is the only "fact" that you cite in support of your misguided opinion:
I call liberal bias in the mainstream media a "myth", and I do so on the basis of demonstrable fact: Rush Limbaugh has been promoting that myth for at least twenty years, and he has been so persistent at it that a great many people, having heard it repeated so often, have come to believe it.
Right, that conclusive, demonstrable fact really proves your opinion. Give me a break.
I assure you that I don't live in "fantasy-land", and I do not insinuate that there's no such thing as media misinformation on the liberal as well as the conservative ends of the spectrum. Indeed, it does exist "on both sides to some degree." It's the "some degree" where we disagree. I think there's a great deal more of it on the right. You have yet to supply a concrete example if it on the left, other than your carping about MM and the obligation to be "fair and balanced" under which you imagine that it should be operating. Go try selling that to Fox News.
You accuse MM of quoting only selective examples of conservative misinformation "out of context", as though that were a dirty trick calculated to distort what the conservative commentators have written and said. Get real! Would you expect MM to publish complete verbatim transcripts? BTW, one of Bill O'Reilly's favorite dodges, when he's caught making up "facts" to fit his opinions, is that he's being "quoted out of context".
I assure you that I'm not blind. I don't need to hang on MM's analysis to detect conservative misinformation in the popular media. I see it daily; it exists; it's no "myth". Do you read the New York Post? The Washington Times? The Wall Street Journal? Investors Business Daily? Or, for that matter, The Washington Post? Pick any editorial from the first four, along with almost any op-ed commentary they publish, and tell me again how blind I am. As for the WAPO, examine their stable of reporters and op-ed pundits and what they routinely have to say about the "horse-race" aspects of the political scene as opposed to any substantive discussion of the issues. Then tell me you don't see what I see.
Hypocrite though I may be, there are some facts to support my opinion that the "liberal media" meme is based on a myth, whereas the idea that there is widespread conservative bias in the mainstream media is not. I apologize for merely citing publications rather than specific examples extracted from them, but to do that I'd need a whole website - and we already have one, right here.
"Misguided" though my opinion may be, at least I can make some reasoned argument to support it, rather than making snarky personal digs at you. Still waiting for your facts. But I can see that we probably won't get beyond going around in circles anytime soon. So, might as well put it to rest.
I call liberal bias in the mainstream media a "myth", and I do so on the basis of demonstrable fact: Rush Limbaugh has been promoting that myth for at least twenty years, and he has been so persistent at it that a great many people, having heard it repeated so often, have come to believe it.
"Right, that conclusive, demonstrable fact really proves your opinion. Give me a break."
- Right, here's your break: Congratulations on seeing the light!
Hey, I still disagree with you, but your response truly is very well written and well reasoned. If interested, see my response later, when I have more time.
The sad this is that if McCain had "stuck to his guns" he'd have a lot more of the centrist, independant, undecided vote. But he sold out in order to court the radical base, and his strategy to get the nom basically cost him his general electability. And it didn't even really suiceed in getting him the base! I really wanted this guy to be president back in 2000. Now I just want him to go away.