from cnn.com:

If John McCain doesn’t stop changing his position on the issues, he threatens to make John Kerry look like an amateur.

In order for McCain to win in November, he has to appeal to both the traditional Republican base and to independents. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post says it’s a delicate dance, and if McCain’s not careful “he’s liable to break a hip.” Of course any doctor will tell you a broken hip can be very difficult to recover from.

On Iraq, the economy, guns and God, McCain is to the right. On immigration, campaign finance reform and global warming, he’s to the left. It’s all very reminiscent of John Kerry back in 2004.

McCain went after Barack Obama yesterday, for proposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies. A month ago McCain said he was willing to consider a windfall tax on the oil companies.

What about offshore drilling? During his last presidential run, McCain was against it. Now he’s for it, saying the states should decide if they want to drill for oil off the coast. This could cost him big time in states like California and Florida which are extremely environmentally conscious.

Then there are the Bush tax cuts. McCain was against them – twice – but now he’s for them.

McCain has also called for the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay to be closed down and torture banned. But last week he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling that detainees there should have access to U.S. courts – calling it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”


so is McCain the ultimate position changer? is he just so old he forgets his position on issues? is he just really open-minded?

That article is obviously biased. I don't see any problem with McCain having his own views and being somewhat bipartisan as long as he is open about it with the voters, which he is. They know where he stands, and these days people vote for the candidate more than the party so why criticise the guy for having his own opinions?

As for changing his mind on issues, for one thing the issues mentioned aren't the same, just in the same category e.g. defence. And if new information and research comes to light on an issue then it ought to be re-evaluated. That sounds like a good thing to me.

This is a problem. I own a patent on my flip flop machine, and I bet I don't see one f'ing cent.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I think that there are a number of clear issues (off-shore drilling, Bush's tax cuts, oil windfall taxes) where he has clearly flip-flopped. In the case of the windfall tax, he definitely flip-flopped just to take a swipe at Obama (egregious imo).

Personally, I dont mind flip-flopping much if you did it because new info came to light (like say Kerry voting for the Iraq War before he knew the intelligence was faulty). I agree 100% that it is perfectly ok for McCain to be to the right on some issues and to the left on others. That is a plus to me. A lot of the other things in this article are big minuses in terms of my opinion of McCain.

Also, McCain calling the recent Guantanamo Supreme Court Decision "one of the worst decisions in history" is disgusting/pandering of the highest order. There have been so many shameful decisions (letting gov't inter the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, the Dred Scott decision and many others) that his hyperbole on this decision is a huge turn off to me.

The article is stupid because we have no idea if, like you said, he changed his mind on things because of new information or if he's just wishy washy and saying things to appeal to the people to which he's speaking at the time.


I'm more inclined to think he's wishy washy and saying whatever is good at the time he's saying it rather than actually telling us his real thoughts on the issue (he is a politician after all). That's not to say that Obama wouldn't do the same thing because he probably does to some extent. It seems weird that McCain apparently is doing this a lot though.

I seem to remember reading an article about that, and it was clear that the quote you mentioned was taken out of context. McCain was a PoW as I am sure you know, I am confident that he is passionate about human rights.

By the way, I like Obama for president, I'm not republican by any stretch of the imagination. But as a politics student I try to look at them neutrally and that's why I seem to be defending McCain strongly in this thread.

you are mixing quotes (I think). the quote that was taken out of context was the one about "its not too important when the soldiers come home".

this quote about the supreme court was NOT taken out of context. and i dont assume anyone is one party or another just because they engage in discussion. most of the points you have made are valid....but this article while biased makes important points. And flip flopping is like death in our current political climate (rightly or wrongly)

Which is it? Rightly? or Wrongly?

Pick a side and stick to it man!

damn you! touche, sir.

i will go with wrongly. there are worse things than changing your mind on something.

I don't see why having an evolving political platform and having an open mind is considered such an ill. I don't know why making your mind up early, and sticking to that position in the face of all evidence or opposition is considered such a virtue. You know who didn't flip flop ever? Joesph McCarthy.

Jeezuz...that makes twice...in a day.

Agree 100%

Every politician says what the "Blue Plate" special of the day is to appease the largest number of voters.
It happens all the time.
Hillary votes for the war... later she's against it.

I really think people believe the President actually has more power than he really does also.
Straying from the topic.... shutting up now.

just to be clear....I said this flip-flopping would hurt him politically....I never said I think it is such a big deal.

I never understood why Kerry got slammed for being open-minded. But that is the reality.

give the dude a break he is like 90 you know

True dat... he probably doesn't remember what he had for breakfast...much less his stand on foreign trade or abortion.

What I really want to know is if he is for goodness or badness. Hmm? Hmm?

ummmm..../post

Because he said: "I voted for it, before I voted against it" Showing that he 'changed his mind' three times and was trying to take credit for being right the first time.


I agree it's one thing to say "I am changing my mind because I have new facts" etc., it's another to change for obvious political expediance.


Bush seems to hold to his convictions ( which I guess is the spin way of saying he won't change his mind, or it's a virtue, I guess it's perspective)
The war in Iraq isn't really something Bush could change his mind on though, once we got in, we got stuck in till the end. I'm sure there are very few people that are glad we went in, now that we see the results, but the dems get to pretend they were against it now when they voted to go in. Once she got pregnant, it's too late to worry about the sex.

As far as McCain, it's kind of obvious he has to try to get some support from the base republicans that don't like his stance on many issues, so he has to pull back on the 'moderate' stances on issues that he can.

A lot of what he used to say I think he said to be 'heard above the noise' You toe the party line you don't get much press time. He's wanted the pres slot for quite some time.

I would vote for him, with little happiness, but I am stuck voting Obama.

Cause I suck at golf.

I have to give you credit.. my post was an extremely veiled and subtle dig at bush.. I don't mention him, and I don't even allude to any of his decisions, but you still were able to see where I was going with my post . I have to give you credit for an excellent read.

I've heard that the whole "voted before/against it" kerry thing was just an out of context snippet. either way, kudos to the right for successfully painting that picture.

I'm voting johnny m this time around. this is one issue I feel he is unlikely to flip-flop on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqR7zis99I

But do you know who else didn't flip flop? Jesus. Think about it.

he's dead, he's alive, he's god, he's man.. I'd say he was the first flip flopper.

Plus -- judging by Church-produced cartoons I watched as a child -- he wore flip-flops.

How about a Fresca?

This is where they lost credibility with me. The people in those states aren't environmentally conscious, they are environmentally *selfish*. Their attitude is "I got mine, now the rest of you stop wrecking my bit of nature" -- ignoring their own impact. They are NIMBYs, not environmentalists. There is a difference.

in fairness, their overall point....that this could cost him in CAli and Florida.... is true. just the way the describe Floridians and Californians is suspect.

and as someone who lives in Miami.....it is not possible to find a group of more stupid, selfish and lazy people than Floridians. As much as I love things about being here, my wife and I are looking to bolt as soon as I finish up law school. Everything about the general pop in Miami drives me up the wall.

This is a terrible year to be a republican. Only democrats are running for office. (including McCain of course)


Where are all the conservative republicans? The "republicans" totally screwed up in 2000-2004. They could have done the right thing and they screwed us. sigh.



There won't be another republican president now until probably around 2020. FU morons!

At least you recognize that this is all of conservatives own making. You had your shot really from 2000-2006 to run the country any way you wanted-----and you blew it on all counts. Conservatives managed to make Democrats look like spend-thrifts....all while setting new bars for corruption (and # of congressman who have homosexual scandals).

Not to mention if you take the normal political hot buttons---economy/budget deficits, foreign policy, national security/military, health care, education, social security, immigration, etc......you would be very very very hard pressed to find one (ONE!!!!) where we are better off now than we were in 2000.

That is a failure on a Hindenburgian level. I agree completely with Rupert Murdoch that the GOP is going to get annihilated this fall. Obama wins a tight race and the Democrats substantially increase their majorities in both houses.

Also, let the record show that the Democrats have done nothing good of their own to deserve this windall....they have just proven (at the moment) to be the lesser of two evils.

This is hyperbole. The bar for corruption was set so high, long, long ago, that no party can really make it go to new levels. They did set a new bars for imbalance of executive power and authority and disregard of constitutional law, however.

fair enough. you understood what I was saying.....and in a lot of ways I consider the executive power grab to be a form of corruption. I still agree with your point.

I really like you.


you seem nice as well.

I knew you were trying to mislead me with the subtle Junior Senator from Kansas undertones, but I didn't bite.

wasn't mcCarthy from minnesota? lemme wiki real fast..


Nope, he was from Wisconson.. I'm not sure whom you're talking about from Kansas, the only senator I've ever known from Kansas was bob dole.

Sam brownback? I think I Got leveled.

Many of those sound bites are out of context, I agree.
But it's kind of hard to try to say that the words coming out of his mouth were taken out of context. It wasn't a mulitple meaning sentence.

But whether he said it that way or not, you got to give him credit for blowing an easy win election. An unpopular president, unpopular war, bad economy, hatred for our country across the globe, maybe the universe...and Kerry tanked it.

Bob Dole wasn't the junior senator...


You trying to throw me off your subtle jabs at Rush Limbaugh now?

Can't argue with that, a huge choke.

That was funny.


However...I'm not known here for having a good sense of what is funny and what isn't so it may not be.




Made me laugh though.

yeah, a friend of mine who worked on the hill during that time saw a transcript of whatever it was kerry was blabbering about. we could never find a source for it, though. agree wholeheartedly on kerry being a terrible, terrible candidate.

Mccain HAS to win this election.

God help america if barrack Hussein obama wins. The politically correct dont know what there playing with.

truer words were never spoken. if I was Kerry, I would be a bit embarrassed. The worst part is he lost that election because he was a pussy. If he had stood up to the swift boat stuff and went after Bush more he probably would have won.

fwiw, this country would be a lot better off if republicans were actual republicans again. More Chuck Hagels, less Mitch McConnells. Thats a party I could get behind (45% of the time).

While this may be true or may not be (how in the world can we know for sure if we are more or less secure?), the majority of these are not basically unchanged no matter who the president is or congress is. The Democrats controlled congress for what... 40+ years in row? Why didn't they do anything, especially when they had a democrat president those years? If you youtube the vice presidential debate between Al Gore and Dan Quayle from 1992 it's some HIGH comedy... and it's not because Quayle is an idiot. (because he's not) Al Gore is talking about universal health care, bringing America together, the environment, etc etc etc. Well? They had 8 years, and didn't do anything that he talked about. I guess the democrats wanted to run on those same issues in 2000 2004 2008? I'm not trying to rip on Democrats, only to point out that nobody ever doesn't anything. Congress is the key. We need to have term limits on these idiots.

In fairness, Gore and Clinton spent the entire 2nd half of their presidency (which is when you are supposed to accomplish your tougher goals because you dont have to worry about re-election anymore) defending against the Lewinsky stuff. And thats Clinton's fault for being just a shade above a sexual predator.

Just as Bush would have loved to do some "legacy" stuff in his 2nd term but he cant because....well.....everyone hates him so much that he torpedoed the party and ensured that nothing he wants to do will get done.

I agree the Congress never accomplishes anything....but I guess my overriding point is that Democrats mostly do nothing while neo-conservatives made things worse. Neither option is appealing but I will take no effect over bad effect.

And as flawed as Clinton was, he balanced the budget which makes a country healthy financially. Reasonable people can disagree over the merits of trying to spread democracy in the middle east (not that that was there original goal in Iraq, sigh) but I dont think anyone is happy about how much the war is costing. It is killing our economy by making our deficits skyrocket. Of course, thats what happens when you are the first country in the history of the ****ING world to go to war and lower taxes at the same time. Support the troops, my ass. Sun Tzu is spinning in his grave.

Oh, and term limits for congressman is a great idea. Just so you know we agree on a few things.

people are so superstitious. People blame the rain on the president and congress.

the offshore drilling issue is a bit different when oil is $40/bb vs $140/bb. If his position didnt change hed be an idiot.

His opposition to the Bush tax cuts in May 2001, before 9/11, was probably wrong. Opposing them in todays economy would be asinine.

Windfall profits I'll have to research more to see what he really said about them.

call me asinine then. I think it is a huge fallacy to think wide spread tax cuts automatically help the economy. certainly stupid when we are fighting two wars. especially tax cuts for the uber rich. i dont think it is a coincidence that the economy has tanked with these "amazing" tax cuts in place. (of course the way they let corporations regulate themselves doesnt help....oversight of the mortgage industry please?)

most of what I have read about offshore drilling states that it would take years and years for it to have ANY effect on our gas prices and even then it would be a nominal effect. not sure it makes one idiot to value the environment over more drilling for little result. focusing on alternative sources and imposing gas mileage minimums on car companies seems wiser to me.

you seem pretty sure that the Bush Administration has a lot of things right when the evidence is to the contrary.

Well you are simply wrong about tax cuts, thats been proven in every tax cut including Kennedy's and Clinton's.

If we had started drilling years ago, not abandoned nuclear power and built refineries when it was obvious that the ME could hold our economy hostage we wouldnt be in the mess we're in now, but its never too late to start. "Nominal effect" is horse manure Democrat talking points. ANWR alone would offset 10% of our imports from SA, which would have a huge impact on actual supply and perhaps more importantly the speculation that is driving a lot of the increase in crude prices.

The Bush Administration has been right far more often than wrong. Right on tax cuts, right on Iraq, right on Afghanistan, no attacks here since 9/11, steering the economy through the Clinton recession and 9/11. Wrong on prescription drugs and too little leadership on energy. The negative environmental impact of offshore drilling, shale recovery and ANWR and MMGW are hippie nonsense that is far outweighed by economic survival. If BHO wins you will see what recessions are all about.

Which is precisely why we wanted to open up the ANWR during the clinton years. So by the time we really needed it (like now), we'd already be well on our way.

Dems other rebuttal to drilling is that oil companies currently have 68 million acres of land under lease, not being drilled on or explored. Dems say we should go after that instead. Just stupid.

Do you understand that if we would have started drilling in ANWR back then, we would be starting to see the effects now? And you're still against drilling?

You need to be more precise. Are you against drilling because of the environmental impact, or are you against it because of the timetable involved between now and when we see a difference at the pump?