4 March 2008
News and Comments – 03/04/08
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: What's News .
Mail this post
23 Comments so far...
Jesse Says:
4 March 2008 at 1:01 am.
I’m sure Benedict Arnold had more in common with patriots than most of the English but I bet they trusted him less. After reading the thread about backing McCain, I decided to put this whole thing up:
McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list
Just to follow-up briefly on Michael’s guest-post from yesterday, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) new-found opposition to Roe v. Wade is rather remarkable, even for him.
In 1999, McCain was in New Hampshire, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a moderate. He proclaimed himself a pro-life candidate, but told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Yesterday, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?
MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.
The old McCain didn’t want an amendment and didn’t want Roe overturned. The new McCain completely disagrees with the old McCain.
It’s worth noting that politicians’ opinions on abortion can, and often do, “evolve” over time. Dick Gephardt and Al Gore, for example, both opposed abortion rights before eventually becoming pro-choice. With this in mind, McCain’s unexpected shift may simply reflect yet another pol whose thinking has changed over time.
Or, far more likely, McCain is once again abandoning any pretense of consistency and integrity, and is now willing to say literally anything to win.
Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* 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.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.
* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.
* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
It’s not exactly a newsflash that McCain is veering ridiculously to the right in a rather shameless attempt to reinvent himself, but Dems should take advantage of the situation and help establish the narrative now. Despite his rather embarrassing record of late, we still have major media figures telling the public that “no one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything.”
Now is the time to begin characterizing McCain — accurately — as a man with no principle beliefs. Dems should not only criticize McCain’s constantly evolving opinions on nearly everything, they should openly mock him for it now, so that the storyline becomes second nature (like the GOP did with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore).
The nation is seeing McCain 2.0, and we like the old one better.
Mac Says:
4 March 2008 at 9:31 am.
He said Mitt flopped on every issue but it looks like he’s the king. How could anyone trust this man?
Cameron Says:
4 March 2008 at 9:36 am.
Takes a lot of courage for these scientists to stand up against the status quo.
Global Warming Skeptics Insist Humans Not at Fault
Monckton, along with other high-profile global warming skeptics such as University of Virginia professor emeritus S. Fred Singer and Virginia state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, are gathered in New York this week for a conference aimed at challenging the idea that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank funded by energy and health-care corporations as well as conservative foundations and individuals, the 2 1/2 -day session poses a stark contrast to the near-unanimous chorus of concern expressed by top U.S. politicians and most of the scientific mainstream.
Both the Republicans and Democrats are poised to nominate presidential candidates this year who back a mandatory federal cap on greenhouse gases. After years of voicing doubt, President Bush has said repeatedly that he is convinced that humans are contributing to Earth’s warming and that the nation needs to break its dependency on fossil fuels.
Cameron Says:
4 March 2008 at 9:38 am.
Russian Election Lacked ‘Freedom,’ Monitor Says
MOSCOW, March 3 — The head of the only major Western monitoring group that sent a team to Russia to observe Sunday’s presidential election severely criticized the process Monday, drawing a furious rebuttal from the country’s Central Election Commission.
Officials in Washington and Western European capitals, meanwhile, expressed muted disappointment with the conduct of the vote as well as hope that the new presidency would bring a shift in ideas and better relations with their governments.
“We think there is not freedom in this election,” said Andreas Gross of the Western monitoring group, after Dmitry Medvedev, President Vladimir Putin’s handpicked successor, scored an officially tabulated win of more than 70 percent of the vote.
Cavetrollhead Says:
4 March 2008 at 5:45 pm.
Great article Cameron- the global warming one. This global warming hoax (that man is the cause, that it is a bad thing) is a pet peeve of mine.
Cavetrollhead Says:
4 March 2008 at 8:01 pm.
Looks like Hillary is gonna win Ohio. No one has called it yet, which makes me think that the media is pulling for Obama. If they call Ohio, it will give Clinton Momentum.
Cavetrollhead Says:
4 March 2008 at 8:10 pm.
McCain secured the nomination tonight. Got the delegates.
Cavetrollhead Says:
4 March 2008 at 8:23 pm.
Hillary is running stronger than expected in Texas according to exit polls.
Wow can you imagine if she wins Texas and Ohio. It will be a far different race tomorrow. I personally think that will be great since I am scared of Obama. But Hillary’s negatives are so high, it might bode well for McCain. I am a Hillary man. Ha ha, NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY THAT!!!!!!!! Is it a full moon tonight.
Cavetrollhead Says:
4 March 2008 at 8:51 pm.
Wow they are still not calling Ohio with Clinton up almost 20% with almost 20% reporting. They do this when they don’t want to create momentum for the winner. This helps Obama in Texas. He will probably win there.
Jesse Says:
4 March 2008 at 8:58 pm.
I have never counted Hillary out. The Clinton machine is just so powerful. I hate that machine but I think she would be better than Obama. She may talk a good game but she is status quo. Not that that is good but she isn’t a total radical like Obama.
E.E. Says:
4 March 2008 at 9:05 pm.
Okay now that Idol is over I can check the situation. Phew, glad Huckabee can finally go home. It was kind of tedious. I kind of wonder if they will hold off the big guns against McCain until after the convention this summer to make sure he remains in? Who knows.
Cavetrollhead Says:
4 March 2008 at 9:09 pm.
That is right Jesse. That is where I am on that. She is the lesser of evils at this point and we can live with her a lot better than with McCain because she can’t destroy the conservative power base. McCain can.
T. Fan Says:
4 March 2008 at 9:37 pm.
Ohio looks like it will go to Clinton, 56% to 42%. Texas is a dead heat so far. Wow, intense.
Right with you guys Jesse and Cave.
Cameron Says:
4 March 2008 at 10:09 pm.
Now it is 50% Clinton to 48 in Texas. I also read about voting irregularities in Ohio. You guys have me all paranoid about voting fraud now.
Cameron Says:
4 March 2008 at 10:46 pm.
Huckabee is out
IRVING, Texas – Mike Huckabee bowed to reality Tuesday and out of the Republican presidential race. “We kept the faith,” he told his end-of-the-road rally Tuesday after John McCain clinched the nomination. “I’d rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place.”
The genial conservative went out as he had campaigned all along, with a quip: “It’s time for us to hit the reset button.”
Huckabee won the leadoff Iowa caucuses, making him a sudden but short-lived sensation, and then seven other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana and Kansas. Meantime, McCain piled up big victories on his way to winning the prize on Tuesday night.
The writing was on the wall for weeks, but the former Arkansas governor hung on until McCain secured the necessary delegates.
Joy Bischoff Says:
4 March 2008 at 11:58 pm.
Hillary took both Ohio and Texas. I agree that you can never count out a Clinton. Their resources run deep in many ways. Strange days.
Cavetrollhead Says:
5 March 2008 at 12:01 am.
I think that is the best news this election cycle. I can live with Hillary but I think if Obama wins, I may have to plug my nose and root for McCain. It will be a tough call in that case.
Go Hill-Billy!
Cavetrollhead Says:
5 March 2008 at 12:08 am.
BTW did anyone notice what percentage of returns were in before they called it for Clinton in Ohio? I am Very curious.
Cavetrollhead Says:
5 March 2008 at 12:17 am.
Something I haven’t heard talked about is how the commitment from Super Delegates might be reinforced for Clinton after tonights results.
This could create a cycle of momentum for her:
Super delegates firm up her –> the people see this as momentum –> the people support her more –>the super delegates feel more comfortable supporting her. (You know momentum is a pitiful replacement for thought but it is a reality)
I see “Change” a commin.
Cavetrollhead Says:
5 March 2008 at 12:24 am.
Hey Cameron, and everyone else.
About voting fraud;
I am very sad by the prospect. I can’t quite express my sadness. However, I am not sure it has really been an issue. I just wish that those in the know would address our concerns.
I am still stuck on the California primaries. 1. how the exit polls disagreed SO MUCH with the tally. 2. How the returns showed Romney down 20% with 35% returns in, and then the final results showed him ‘only’ down by 8. If someone could just explain this to me I would feel so much better. Since nobody on this site has said to me, “Yea Cave, that seems impossible!” or “yea that is hard to believe!” I am the only one here sweating it. Maybe you all can give some plausible explanations. Please! I am nuts about it!
Hank Says:
5 March 2008 at 12:45 am.
I think everyone else is in bed. And darn it, I can’t answer your question except to say that a lot of us thought that there was way too much going on for something not to be going on. But voter fraud has been around since before my day and I’m getting older.
Cavetrollhead Says:
5 March 2008 at 1:03 am.
Well thanks anyway Hank. Have a good night. Maybe i should repost this question on tomorrow’s daily comments.
Cavetrollhead Says:
5 March 2008 at 1:05 am.
I like the way you put that. Too much going on for something not to be going on. I think that is what I am feeling. Just if someone could scratch that itch on my poor brain, and tell me how and why everything was on the up and up. . . .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
