Wash. Post claimed McCain "diverged from conservatives" on immigration, taxes, without noting his flip-flops
SUMMARY: In an article on Sen. John McCain's efforts "to rally conservatives to his candidacy," The Washington Post asserted that McCain "has diverged from conservatives on several issues, including campaign finance legislation, immigration policy and President Bush's tax cuts." But, unlike a previous Post article that documented McCain's "flip-flops" on taxes and immigration, this one did not mention that McCain has changed his positions on those two issues to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party.
In a February 9 article on Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) efforts "to rally conservatives to his candidacy," Washington Post staff writer Juliet Eilperin asserted that McCain "has diverged from conservatives on several issues, including campaign finance legislation, immigration policy and President Bush's tax cuts." Yet Eilperin failed to note that on two of the issues she cited -- taxes and immigration -- McCain has changed his positions to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party. Indeed, Eilperin's colleague, Washington Post staff writer Michael Dobbs, documented several of McCain's "flip-flops," including on taxes and immigration in a February 5 Post article, which was paired with a sidebar.
In May 2001, McCain voted against the final version of Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax-cut package. In a floor statement explaining his opposition, McCain said that while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," he could not "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 most need tax relief." In 2003, McCain voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut dividends and capital-gains taxes. In 2006, however, he 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 had changed his position, 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."
A press release on McCain's campaign website asserts, "John McCain will make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent, keeping income tax rates at their current level."
Regarding immigration, McCain has reversed his position on a key element of the immigration debate. During the congressional wrangling over immigration reform in 2006 and 2007, he called for comprehensive reform that addressed the creation of a guest-worker program, a path to citizenship, and border security. He argued at the time that border security would be ineffective "no matter how formidable the barriers" without the establishment of a "temporary worker program." However, McCain now says border security must be addressed before other reforms can be made. A November 4, 2007, Associated Press article about McCain's change in position on immigration quoted him saying: "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift. ... I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
Further, McCain has made inconsistent statements on whether he would support his own immigration bill. During CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain asserted that he "would not" support his own comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor, despite having stated on the January 27 edition of Meet the Press that he would sign that very legislation into law if he were elected president. In a February 5 column, nationally syndicated conservative columnist Mona Charen noted McCain's changes on immigration and wrote that "his own flip-flops leave him with a huge H (for hypocrite) on his forehead when he singes Mr. [Mitt] Romney for opportunism."
From Eilperin's February 9 Washington Post article:
With his top rival out of the race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sought to rally conservatives to his candidacy Friday on a cross-country campaign trip that included stops in Virginia, Kansas and Washington state.
A day after former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney abandoned his bid for the GOP nomination, McCain told a crowd in Wichita that while "primaries are tough ... we also understand once the dust settles, we come together, because we all know what will happen to America if the wrong party wins in November."
Promising that he would engage in "a spirited debate" with whomever the Democrats nominate, the senator promised to adhere to his party's values. "I am proud to carry the banner of a conservative Republican, with a record of conservative voting," he said.
McCain also said that he plans to meet with Romney, whom he fought openly with during the campaign, so they can work on "uniting the party and move on to victory in November."
While the senator tried to appeal to conservatives on the stump, his top advisers were trying to set up meetings with some of the nation's more influential evangelical ministers, including Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," and Joel Osteen, to find common ground. The effort has been spearheaded by Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), who endorsed McCain after dropping his own presidential bid in November.
When asked about that effort, McCain said, "I'll be glad and willing to meet with anyone who wants to meet with me." He added that there is no formalized strategy to reach out to religious leaders.
McCain has diverged from conservatives on several issues, including campaign finance legislation, immigration policy and President Bush's tax cuts. McCain has consistently voted against abortion but has argued against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is a state issue.
From Dobbs' February 5 article:
McCain has altered his position on such issues as taxes, immigration, the religious right, Roe v. Wade and ethanol. McCain has moved toward mainstream Republican positions on all these issues, including an embrace of the Ronald Reagan philosophy that tax cuts always lead to higher government revenue.
The senator has sought to disguise his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts by arguing that the main reason he opposed them was that they were not accompanied by cuts in government spending. This was not the explanation he gave at the time, however. In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not "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 most need tax relief."
From the sidebar accompanying Dobbs' February 5 article:
Top McCain Flip-Flops
1. Taxes. John McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against President Bush's tax cuts of 2001, saying that he could not support cuts that benefited the rich rather than the middle class. He now favors making the tax cuts permanent.
2. The religious right. During the 2000 presidential campaign, he attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." He withdrew that remark in a 2006 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that the Christian right has a "major role to play in the Republican Party."
3. Immigration. Last year, he sponsored a bill that would combine a temporary-worker program and a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants while also increasing border security. He now emphasizes securing the borders first.















As I said on a similar thread, McCain will always "adjust," or "backtrack," or "accomodate," or "evolve" his positions on key issues- he will NEVER, according to the media, FLIP-FLOP.
No matter how many right turns this guy takes, no matter how many times he FLIP-FLOPS, you can get that he will NEVER be called a "Flip Flopper." That word is reserved for non-Mavericks and non-Straight Talkers who do exactly what McCain does.
Thats our John (An Islamofascist in every pot)MaCain.
I missed your post thrusday Mary. As far as my normalcy goes, its questionable. One of my words to live by, stolen from the Bonzo Dog Band. "I don't plan to be normally called normal and I intend to be a freak for the rest of my life. And I shall baffle you with rinocerouses in the kitchen, and sets and quotations from "Now we are Six" from the mouth piece of Lord Snutty's Giant Poisoned Electric Head. So there!"
When is Oregon going to weight in with a primary, or other?
mccain is not proposing a flat out 50 cent raise in taxes on gasoline, as far as i know. he is cosponsoring a bill that would put a cap on greenhouse gases and any company that went above those limits would have to pay for that. it's to encourage energy conservation. [something that never gets discussed in the immigration issue, how do we make progress on this issue with a population increasing by over 3 million a year.]
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA0NDgzNjBlYTQ3YWZlZDFlYWZiOTFhNTRlZTM5YzU=
My president says he is a true conservative.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Who do you think you are questioning my president?
RH,
Please don't lecture us when you are going to vote for the man. If he's not a conservative and he's a big taxer, don't vote for him. Remember how the Bushies said that oil would be lower priced because of this war? I assume these guys took into account future demand by emerging countries, right?
Here's a few for you, RH: We don't know if McCain is a conservative or a RINO. He has flip-flopped on: 1) The Religious Right, 2)Ethanol, 3) Bush's tax plan (he flat-out lied last week about this), 4) He flipped on his statements on Rumsfeld 5) abortion, 6) Charles Wyly and dirty campaigning, 7) Campaign finance reform, 8) his own immigration bill, 9) he succumbed to what the White House wanted on torture after speaking out against it, 9) the Confederate flag in the South (not a huge issue to me, but to some)
He also called the CPAC attendees, "Washington Insiders" last year. This year, he pandered. He said he did not agree with Cheney on Iraq, now he does.
Which McCain is the real McCain?
Consistent? Really?
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html
1) Abortion, 2) Torture, 3) Tax cuts (did you enjoy his lie on that one?) 4) Immigration, 5) Rumsfeld, 6) Ethanol, 7) the Confederate Flag, 8) The Religious Right (agents of intolerance?) 9) Norquist, 10) check the list for the rest.
Or just ask your boy Rush.
RH,
Did you check the articles linked on the blog?
How does Grover Norquist strike you:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/11/214905.shtml
How about the youtube video so you can hear the words from him yourself:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=3&entry_id=13035
How about CNN?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm
Ethanol in his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT3q3PVZ_ck
Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jul_Aia50Qo
Abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Trbaufpok8&feature=related
Gay marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
Immigration: http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=203730
Lobbyists: http://hill6.thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-does-about-face-on-grassroots-reform-bill-2007-01-18.html
National Review : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/01/opinion/main3664351.shtml
Campaign finance reform: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17037299/
Do those work?
RH,
I appreciate your candor. Can you compile a list of Hillary flip-flops that even come close to McCain's? Thanks in advance.
I'm not going to take the time to find links but right now I can think of:
1. Iraq
2. NAFTA
3. Driver's Licenses for illegals
4. Gays serving openly in the military
5. Iran
There's probably more but that's a good start.
RH,
You have a very interesting conscience. I thought you liked the Iraq War.
RH,
I hope you vote for a candidate who you think will get the troops home then.
But didn't you hear George Will a few months ago, responding to exactly that question concerning gas prices? He told us that gasoline was actually cheaper NOW than it was in......1976. The relevance of the comment totally escapes me, but George Will is a Very Smart Man, so the problem in comprehension must be OURS, not HIS.
Personally, if I had been sitting next to Will when he made that comment, I would have asked him if gasoline was cheaper now than when Bush became President after promising to "jawbone" his Middle Eastern Masters to get them to pump more oil. After all, isn't it slightly more to the point to ask if gasoline is cheaper now than it was in 2000, rather than in 1976?
And along the same lines, while the economic problems connected to Reaganomics/Trickle down/Voodoo were all attributed to Carter, notice that RINOhunter is at the Vanguard, already blaming the coming situation on either a Dem, or a RINO.
The cons do know how to pass the ol' buck.
I wasn't aware that he was into Jazz.
"My question would be, if oil companies are forced to make such high prices due to overhead costs, then why are they making record profits"
Because people haven't cut back in their consumption, that's why. We still drive just as much as we ever did. If people would simply cut back they would force oil companies to lower prices in order to increase demand. But of course prices aren't going to go down when we still use as much gas as ever before.
So what tax hikes don't you support?- RINO Hunter
I'm not really hot on the ones that are designed to have the middle class support the breaks on those who are much more well off than the middle class. But you wouldn't know about those from listening to Rush, as he's told you that the ultra-rich pay all of the taxes and the other 90% of the country just sits around freeloading.
"About 15% of the tax cut went to the bottom 60% of the people"
Which is a higher percentage than they actually pay in taxes to begin with. Thanks for proving my point.
"A tax package could have been made that spread the actual benfits more fairly instead those who already HAVE the most GOT even more"
Right. Then the top 50% could pay 98% of the taxes instead of 96% of the taxes. Good idea.
"Let those who can AFFORD to kick in a little more do so"
But again, the top 1% pays about 43% of the overall taxes right now, so what percent of the overall taxes do you actually want them to pay? 60%? 70%? 80%?
"The debt has SOARED"
Which is why we need to balance the budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes. Raising taxes only hurts the economy and ends up decreasing the amount of revenue coming into the government. And you may actually agree with me in a couple areas in which I believe we should cut spending. I believe we should get rid of all corporate welfare and start closing down many of our military bases around the world which would save us billions of dollars.
Gotta love that the Republicans, the "small government guys" have grown the government far bigger than any other administration and spent more money than anyone, and yet they cheer Bush and chant "4 more years" at CPAC and supposedly hate McCain for the same things.
Bush liked McCain's immigration bill and he's cheered. McCain brings up immigration and he's booed.
And RH, before you say he's liberal, spending money doesn't make you liberal, its WHERE and HOW you spend the money that makes you conservative or liberal.
Yes, Bush isn't a liberal, but he's not a true conservative either. He's basically a big government neo-con, and so is McCain. McCain wants big government here at home and endless war abroad. So yes, Bush made the government bigger and turned his back on true conservative principles. We all know that. That doesn't make true conservatism any less legitimate.
"The bad news is that conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works."
"Conservatism has had its day since Raygun and the 80s and it has not only not worked it has PROVEN it doesnt work it has been a disaster"
Conservatism worked very well in the 80's when the economy was booming and everybody was happy, but since then true conservatism hasn't been practiced. What we have today is simply big government neo-conservatism, which isn't the same as true conservatism or nearly as effective.
RH,
You REALLY need to get to law school quickly. Your "originalist" argument is wearing thin. Many of the situations that come before the Court these days were not even in the realm of possibility when the Constitution was written.
If you make the Originalist argument, what do you think of the coercion of the Southern States into signing anti-slavery amendments? They hardly had a role in any Constitutional convention.
If Justices are your only criteria, I suppose that's fine, but by your votes you support endless war, nation building, huge debt, state-sponsored religious spending ("Faith Based Initiatives") violations of the 4th Amendment (with the FISA), depriving some citizens of a speedy trial, the rights of Cheney to say he is not a part of the Executive Branch. How many of those things are Constitutional?
The President has absolutely no control over what gas prices are. ... The only way the President can affect gas prices is by increasing or lowering the gas tax. (Rinohuter)
You should try saying these things out loud before posting. You do realize you tried to pre-emptively blame the imminent recession on the next President's raising gas prices vis à vis whatever tax he/she imposes?
While others appreciate your arguing yourself into the ground, it still takes time to point out to you how you have beaten yourself.
The free market controls fewer and fewer industries as the years go by. Oil is obviously not one of them, as demand hasn't shifted between now and 2000, and supply is and was whatever the oil companies want it to be.
Capitalism depends on healthy competition and having full information available to consumers. Republicans hate both those things.
I find it humorous that most of these comments relate to gas prices and taxes, when the most important issue that faces the U.S. today is illegal immigration. The almost-instantaneous absorption of 20M felons will destroy this Country, and you all whine about gas prices!?!?
Most of the fools who support McCain say that they do so because he will be " good on National Security." WIDE-OPEN BORDERS and AMNESTY simply do not comport with a "Strong National Defence!"
Don't worry comrades. I sent the folks at MMFA a few emails explaining how the very suggestion that a Maverick "flip-flops" is akin to an oxymoron. I'm sure they've been inundated with similar emails admonishing them about the ghastly articles they've been posting about the Mav. Hopefully our letter campaign will work!!
Thomp, all kidding aside, what do you think of the Mav's latest decision to go to CPAC this year after calling the attendees "Washington Insiders" last year?
The really pathetic thing is, CPAC will have no problem with McCain totally ignoring them- when not insulting them- for years, as long as he shows up when he desperately needs their help, and kisses their ring (and ass.)
Because that's all the members of CPAC really want- fealty. They embraced Mitt Romney, who was a liberal for his entire life before running for President. They'll embrace McCain when he sucks up to them, and never mind what he's said in the past- when he didn't need their help.
These people have no dignity and no real values, unless Power for Us is a "value."
Here's another reversal for McCain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/mccain-embraces-rove_n_85881.html