David Broder, today, in the Washington Post:
McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes. His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura.
Hmmm. I wonder why. Could it have anything to do with the way that the media covers McCain, as well as the way they "cover" his almost constant flip flops and statements of belief that directly contradict his earlier statements of belief?
Here's a leading liberal commentator (EJ Dionne), although he supports Obama and points out what he disagrees with McCain on, starting off a column with: "Liberals who have sung the praises of John McCain in the past confront a fascinating test of consistency, integrity and political commitment ....I should know, since I'm one of them."
Here's a hard core active Democrat (and front pager on the Daily Kos site) -- in addition to implying that if something is more than five days old, it has little meaning, as if it was never written -- completely misconstruing every single thing I wrote about how Dionne's statement falsely candies up to this erroneous image, as well as this overly preferential treatment of McCain by the press. (For more on Dionne, see here, and here. Also see the book "Free Ride," by Paul Waldman and David Brock, which further lays out this preferential treatment of McCain by the press.)
From an email I sent to the Washington Post "Factchecker," regarding a June 11 column:
Your pinocchio standards states that two pinocchios are for "significant omissions or exaggerations..." "Significant factual errors" [receive "three pinnochios"]...
Carly Fiorina, appointed by the RNC as surrogate for the McCaign campaign and head fundraiser, and who is traveling around speaking on behalf of the campaign with its blessing and endorsement, surely is part of the "McCain camp" ...
Fact: Fiorina stated, according to your article, that "Barack Obama has not proposed 'a single tax cut,' and wants to 'raise every tax in the book.'"
Fact: In the same June 11 edition of the Washington Post, in an article that continues on the very same page as the Fact Checker, it is noted that Obama is calling for "tax cuts" for middle-income Americans. You also note this in your article as well...Thus, by your own standards, the McCain campaign gets at least three pinocchios on this issue. You gave it two.
The online version of the column has since been somewhat changed. But the article still reads "McCain's speech to the Small Business Summit yesterday leaves the impression that Obama favors raising taxes on all Americans," when it more than leaves the impression.
McCain stated, "Americans of every background would see their taxes rise." Technically, this may not be a lie, if one wants to creatively argue that terminating the Bush Administration drop in the capital gains tax would affect at least one American of "every background." But as I also noted, if we are going by technicalities, since McCain was clearly speaking to Obama's call to allow the "temporary" Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire by (also somewhat misleadingly) calling this the "largest tax increase in history," then he is not referring to capital gains taxes, and it technically does not represent a "tax increase." (As well as can not, by definition, apply to "Americans of every background.") So either McCain's statement that "Americans of every background would see their taxes rise" is a lie, but for a technicality, or his call that it would be the largest tax increase since WWII is a lie, technically speaking.
The Factchecker, which did not initially, now makes a needed reference to the idea that Bush's tax cuts are set to expire, but otherwise still treats McCain with kid gloves.
McCain also, apparently, jokingly (or not) refers to the media as "his base," and perhaps four star barbecues at his sprawling Arizona ranch are part of the reason why? (Contrast this with reported dissatisfaction, according to the Huffington Post, of the press with the Obama Campaign.) Could this have anything to do, Mr. Broder, with why his "shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura"? Or what is, precisely, the reason for this overt favoritism towards McCain in light of the factual record?
Let's take a look more precisely at what Broder nicely terms "shifts," rather than the almost satirical pattern of outright flip flops and blatant inconsistencies that they really are: McCain was strongly opposed to continuing the Bush Administration's federal debt exploding tax cuts, yet now both fully supports them, and routinely mocks Obama for calling for them to expire as planned. That is, he is now not just disagreeing, but mocking his own former position, and (see the fact checker analysis above) misleading the country on the issue as well.
Speaking of tax policy, the press used to jump all over Bill Clinton's apparent "parsing," yet seems to give McCain a pass for the same tendency. (Just as, apparently, the same media which often, and somwhat ridiculously, asked if Hillary Clinton was "too angry" to be President, seems to have ignored the far more noteworthy McCain temper issue.) As others have pointed out, McCain stated on ABC that he would not raise taxes under any circumstances, but two weeks later, utilizing language which would make almost any lawyer proud,"clarified" that by explaining that he was not in fact making a pledge to not raise taxes, just that "he could not envision any circumstances" under which he would. (One of the sites that made this point, has also compiled an almost stunningly long list of significant McCain flip flops and inconsistencies.)
Continuing this blatant pattern, McCain was opposed to the Administration's clandestine policy in direct contravention of FISA in 2005, and as recently as December, 2007, appeared to still hold this view. Yet his official campaign position now lauds the administration's unconstitutional actions taken in the wake of September 11, in direct contravention of FISA and the USA Patriot act, passed after September 11, updating FISA pursuant to the administrations requests. [With respect to the December,'07 Boston Globe questionnaire in the link above under the word "appeared," McCain has either completely shifted his position, or was being wholly disengenuous on the issue by his use of the statement, "there are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications," in that FISA clearly applies regarding the overseas/U.S. or U.S./overseas communications which were exclusively at issue in the first place. That is, FISA itself specifically defines covered communications as those "sent by or intended to be received by [U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens] in the U.S." (at 50 U.S.C (1801)(f)(1), (1801)(i)) therein) -- the exact types of "overseas" communications at issue in the first place. (Otherwise there would not have been a FISA issue, as FISA does not, nor has this been at issue, cover communications not emanating from or going to the U.S. and involving U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens.)]
Perhaps even more untenably, McCain has repeatedly claimed that he is a proponent of addressing the climate change challenge that we face, and has emphasized how he has called for carbon reductions of up to 60 percent by the year 2050. Yet, complex sink issues aside, carbon emissions come from one thing; namely, taking carbon built up over millions of years, and in a geologic time frame, essentially releasing it almost instanteously into the atmosphere. While we currently import 60 percent of our oil, all of the oil in Anwar and offshore combined only amounts to a couple percent of all the oil we currently use, if that, and will take close to a decade or more before we see almost any of it if we expand drilling, precisely when we need to be using less oil to keep from increasing our carbon emissions -- let alone cutting them by 60 percent. Yet McCain, oddly enough, fully supports expanding offshore drilling for oil, in a position which, juxtaposed next to his repeated claims for significant carbon cuts, is nonsensical. (Oil is used based upon supply and cost, so increasing availability by a minscule fraction of an amount will not reduce imports, but lessen market incentive to utilize less and move toward alternative energy even in a very compressed time frame, let alone over a decade or more.)
McCain is now a big supporter of staying in Iraq indefinitely, but in 2005, McCain stated "I not only think we could get along without [making Iraq home to a U.S. garrison], but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence." Apparently, not any more.
In a February interview with Larry King (who also used the sycophantic term "straight talk express"), McCain stated; "who can address the economic challenges we face?...I'd like to convince people, because of my extensive background on the economy and knowledge." But in 2005, McCain, who was, at least in 2005, "going to be honest," at that time stated, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about..... I still need to be educated."
If in fact he was thus "educated" between November, 2005, and February, 2008, McCain, in December 2007, offers an explanation of how this might have occurred: "'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. [But]'I've got Greenspan's book.'"
So now that he favors tax cuts that he previously voted against because they were, in his words, "way too tilted to the rich" (but not too tilted to the rich, or federal debt exploding enough to refrain from attacking Obama for presently having this same view which the "old" John McCain once held), it's because, joking or not, he now has Greenspan's book.
I know that McCain was likely trying to make light of this same lack of economic knowledge in December, 2007, which he then flip flopped and with a "straight face" claimed the opposite on in February, 2008, but perhaps McCain should have actually read the book that he cited as support for his "evolution." Greenspan, alas, essentially supports Obama view -- the same one that McCain disparages, and in that book, severely castigates what he calls the Bush Administration's fiscal irresponsibility for continuing these same tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the face of budget deficits, the exact same "irresponsible" view that the new McCain now supports, and wants to even more irresponsibly continue.
Thus, to recap, the book that McCain says has transformed him from knowing little on economics, when he was against these top heavy tax cuts, to now (as of February, 2008) "having extensive background on the econony and knowledge," and supporting these same top heavy tax cuts, is a book (not to mention one written by perhaps the most preeminent Federal Reserve Chair in our nation's history, and diehard laissez faire Republican), castigating those same tax cuts that McCain with his new knowledge now wholeheartedly supports, as wildly reckless and fiscally irresponsible.
On lesser note, McCain of late has also mocked Obama as running for Jimmy Carter's "second term." But in a June, 1999 Interview with the Hill newspaper, McCain reportedly appeared to both defend and perhaps even praise Carter.
McCain has also repeatedly slammed Obama for stating that he is trying to run for Bush's third term, but as Glenn Greenwald pointed out in a recent column, McCain, in 2005 on NBC's "Meet The Press," stated that "on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. "
The extreme nature of McCain's inconsistencies and rampant flip flops are well captured by this short comment (click on it) to Greenwald's Salon column, in a point apparently lost on a media that has an ongoing love affair with John McCain, just like, to a lesser extent, they did with George Bush. And James Rubin, an international affairs professor who interviewed McCain in 2006, pointing out what he calls "the height of hypocrisy" in smearing Obama as someone who wants to "talk to" terrorists, makes an eerily similar point on McCain: "Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election."
It appears that the media is rooting for the Old John McCain to win as well. The problem is, they are still covering the old John McCain -- a person who, if the new John McCain is to be believed, no longer exists. And if the new John McCain is not to be believed, it is perhaps time to also remind the press, that it is the new John McCain -- this same person who is not to be believed -- who is running for President of the United States of America.
....
David Broder's rather disparaging Washington Post article, cited at the outset, was entitled "Getting to know Barack Obama." Perhaps, instead of being dazzled by all those pork slab barbecues at lazy, sprawling ranches, it should have been entitled, "Getting to know John McCain." Because the media, clearly, doesn't.