In a January 30 news analysis of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) victory over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the January 29 Florida Republican presidential primary, New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney wrote that “Mr. Romney's evolution over the years on issues like abortion, gay rights and immigration has given Mr. McCain, of Arizona, an opportunity to paint him as an opportunist.” Nagourney later asserted that while McCain “presents himself as a man of principle -- 'Let me give you some straight talk,' he often says -- who is willing to suffer the political consequences for breaking with party orthodoxy,” Romney “is in line with all the proper positions for a Republican conservative, but he underwent a series of transformations to get there, leaving him vulnerable to the charges of inconsistency Mr. McCain has hurled.” Yet on at least two of the issues Nagourney mentioned, immigration and abortion, McCain too has displayed “evolution” and “inconsistency,” a fact nowhere to be found in the Times report.

Regarding the issue of illegal immigration, while McCain previously supported comprehensive immigration reform, he is now calling for border security before the creation of a guest-worker program or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, as Media Matters for America has noted. The change represents a complete reversal on his part on the issue of whether border security can be disaggregated from comprehensive immigration reform and addressed first. Indeed, a November 4, 2007, Associated Press report quoted McCain telling reporters that “I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift,” and that “I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders.”

Likewise, McCain has made inconsistent remarks regarding abortion, as Media Matters has documented. In an August 25, 1999, article headlined “McCain's Abortion Stance Is Angering Both Sides; Right calls it a flip-flop -- left questions his sincerity,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

McCain has been the focus of conservative wrath following comments made to The Chronicle's editorial board last week about overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

“I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” McCain told The Chronicle then. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations.”

But on Sunday, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, McCain said he favors the ultimate repeal of Roe vs. Wade, “but we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be (undergoing) illegal and dangerous operations.”

On Monday, McCain's campaign released a clarification: “I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal. . . . But that . . . must take place in conjunction with a sustained effort to reduce the number of abortions performed in America.

”I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro-choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions," McCain pledged.

But in a letter to National Right to Life Committee president Wanda Franz, McCain wrote, “I share our common goal of reducing the staggering number of abortions currently performed in this country and overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision. I truly hope this clarifies any ambiguity on my position.”

Those statements kicked up severe criticism from some Republicans that McCain, considered a plain-spoken maverick, appeared to be trying to please both sides on an issue that has been at the top of the political radar in California in recent elections. “It's very hard to finesse the issue of abortion, and Senator McCain is finding that,” said Jeff Bell, senior political consultant for rival GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer. “He's got a problem. He has a down-the-line pro-life voting record in (Congress). ... To say you're going to work with both sides is easier said than done.”

Bauer called McCain's statements “unintelligible,” and a spokeswoman for the Steve Forbes campaign accused the Arizona senator of “stuttering and stammering” on the issue.

Columnist George Will was even more blistering: “How can McCain square what he told The Chronicle with the answer 'yes' that he gave last year in response to the question, Do you support the complete reversal of Roe vs. Wade?' Or with this, from February 25 and July 22, 1998: 'I am a lifelong, ardent supporter of unborn children's right to life.' ”

In 2006, McCain also issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he “would have signed” a controversial bill outlawing all abortions in the state except when 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 the January 30 New York Times news analysis titled “McCain's Victory in a Party-Only Primary Raises the Hurdles for Romney”:

For much of the year, the party's conservative base has exhibited deep unease about the ideological credentials of Mr. McCain, given his championing in the Senate of campaign finance regulation, his advocacy of granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and his support for steps to address global warming. A critical question now is whether social and economic conservatives and the Republican Party establishment will put aside their qualms and back Mr. McCain or come together to try to stop him.

His opponents include a powerful cross-section of conservative leaders, including Grover G. Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, and the talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. But he has gradually won increased support from prominent elected Republicans; in Florida, he won the endorsements of Gov. Charlie Crist and Senator Mel Martinez, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. And Mr. Romney's evolution over the years on issues like abortion, gay rights and immigration has given Mr. McCain, of Arizona, an opportunity to paint him as an opportunist, a label that could limit Mr. Romney's ability to energize conservatives on his behalf.

[...]

The differences between these two presidential contenders -- their backgrounds, their campaign styles and their resources -- could hardly be more stark.

Mr. McCain is the candidate of national security, building on his military background, his support for the war in Iraq and the success President Bush had running for re-election on the same theme in 2004. Mr. Romney is trying to keep the focus closer to home, saying that the economy is the issue of greatest concern to voters and that dealing with that problem is “in his DNA.”

“A McCain candidacy is very different than a Romney candidacy,” said Fergus Cullen, the Republican chairman in New Hampshire. “You start with McCain's credibility on military matters. It is unimpeachable, and gives him the moral authority and experience that Romney doesn't have. Romney's private sector success is something that no one else in the field has.”

Mr. McCain is the familiar, white-haired picture of Washington and the Senate. Mr. Romney is the intense-talking executive turned governor who is running against Washington. Mr. McCain presents himself as a man of principle -- “Let me give you some straight talk,” he often says -- who is willing to suffer the political consequences for breaking with party orthodoxy.

Mr. Romney is in line with all the proper positions for a Republican conservative, but he underwent a series of transformations to get there, leaving him vulnerable to the charges of inconsistency Mr. McCain has hurled.

Mr. Romney's aides said they thought Mr. McCain had been heading for defeat until he rolled out those two last-minute endorsements, from Mr. Crist and Mr. Martinez, an enormously popular Cuban-American who campaigned with Mr. McCain in Latino parts of the state.

But in this first test before an audience of Republican voters -- the very audience Mr. Romney said he had been waiting for -- it was Mr. McCain, long the errant child of the Republican Party, who won. What is more, he alone among the presidential candidates in both parties can claim three victories.