The Flip-Flop Obsession

Show me where McCain supported the GI Bill, Michael. In fact, he railed against it and then didn't show up to vote either for or against.

WHERE did he support the bill? After it passed doesn't count.

I'm not sure what's more disconcerting--McCain's continued changing of his positions or his confusion on foreign policy issues. Somalia? Sudan? Al Qaeda? Iran? Shi'ite? Sunni? The guy just can't keep any of it straight.

You're right that Obama has shamefully begun to "change his mind" on certain issues (FISA immunity).

But I find it disingenuous that all of a sudden flip flopping is a major issue that needs to be discussed.

Why wasn't flip flopping an issue when it was just McCain changing his mind on many, many issues on a near daily basis?

Is it because if McCain does it, he's a maverick, but if Obama does it, it's a campaign issue?

Mike, I don't think you take you take your job, or at least your profession, seriously. Do you think we're idiots who don't see that you're in the tank? Do you think that your incompetance in covering this election won't haunt you for the rest of your career? Because it will. There are too many people reading this right now who will hold you accountable for your sauce n' sprinkles perfidy. I promise.

not everything that can be called a flip-flop is a mark of shame

I think this is a direct measure of exactly how much damage Karl Rove has done to our political process. I certainly agree with the thrust of this post but the bottom line is that Rove created the weapon and it should be utterly unsurprising that both candidates are choosing to use it. It's also unsurprising that both candidates are triangulating trying to gain the greatest amount of approval by appealing to diverse factions that don't necessarily agree with each other.

In both cases, the Candidates have core positions which represent what they would do if there weren't any political consideration in place. In that case, Obama is considerably more center than he was portrayed in the primary and McCain is considerably more to the right than the public face he has been allowed to present.

By the way, I know I don't hesitate to give you grief over many of your posts, so I'll make it a point to reiterate, that I think you hit an important truth on this one....

It matters that you stand idly by while your guy and his minions exaggerate or flat-out misstate Obama's position statements, and accuse him of a dishonest nature because of THEIR deceptive versions of his positions.

Only when McCain's endless list of reversals clash irremediably with his piety and "maverickiness" do you notice, and then by attempting to negate them through the old "everybody does it" and "nothing to see here; move along" dodges.

"decided to support the G.I. Bill"
By "support" do you mean not filibuster the popular bill?

Worse than flip-flopping is the flat out denial of truth.McCain coming back from Iraq and saying you could walk around in the markets safely with no escort, even though he had 3 helicopters and 100 troops with him and was wearing a flak jacket shows a fundamental intellectual dishonesty that is shameful.

The false equivalance angle is one of the dumbest, phoniest conceits of our modern Beltway media.

It's only an "obsession" if Obama does it. If McMaverick does it, he's a "war hero!" the media cries and they won't question him. McMaverick mixed up Sudan & Somalia (eye roll)--does this guy even know the name of his kids?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mccain-confuses-sudan-and-somalia/

So McCain was the candidate that rejected his own stance on public financing after taking the high ground through the entire primary campaign? So McCain is the candidate that decided after the Surpreme Court's decison that guns were O.K. in D.C. after speaking loudly in favor for it? So McCain is the candidate that after the beginning of his campaign wanted a ban on same-sex marriage decided that he was going to support an amendment to allow it? So McCain is the candidate that vowed not to take money from lobbyists but decided that 537 contributions and ethanol fronters running his campaign was O.K.? So McCain was the candidate vehemently against free trade, but then recently rejected his own campaign rhetoric since free trade is good for the economy? So McCain is the candidate that wanted immediate withdrawal from Iraq, followed by careful withdrawal, followed by timed withdrawal, followed by consideration, followed by withdrawal after consideration? So McCain is the candidate that earmarked tax breaks for folks under $75,000, but sharply changed to $250,000 after the PA primary, back to $75,000, then to $250,000, then to $200,000 in his most recent proposal? So McCain is the candidate that wants to get rid of tax breaks on big oil but voted for the Cheney legislation to allow it? So McCain is the candidate that decided this week that he was going to be a Christian conservative and continue Bush' faith based initiatives?

Oh wait...that wasn't McCain...that was the other candidate...what's his name? Obama?? Riiiighhht....

Michael, this is an excellent diary.

And by the way, it would be nice to see a diary about the NRA's $40 million attack-ad plan against Obama. There was a reason why Obama wisely flip flopped on campaign finance reform.

Merely accusing a politician of "flip-flopping" is meaningless in my book. People can and do and should change their minds about issues all the time. The fact that I've changed my mind about many things over the course of the last ten years is a sign that I'm open to reassessing my beliefs in the light of new evidence—a very good thing.

Now, there is such a thing as changing one's views solely for the sake of pandering to a particular constituency. McCain's embrace of social conservatives and Obama's backtracking on the FISA issue both come to mind.

One of the things voters have to do is assess why a politician is changing his or her views. Is it because he or she has genuinely reached a different conclusion about policy? Or is it because he or she wants to increase support with a particular group of voters?

Pink Elephant: For your edification per http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html.

The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops.

* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

* McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:

* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.

* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.

* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.

* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

* 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 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* 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.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Confronted with the inconsistencies in McCain’s record in March, the senator’s aides told the New York Times that the senator “has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.” That’s a perfectly sensible spin — when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it’s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician’s position has “evolved.”

But in McCain’s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded “flip-flop” is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.

The problem is McCain has a decades-long record of flip-flopping and he is a poor messenger to deliver that charge against Obama. Not that it will stop him, of course.

So McCain was the candidate that rejected his own stance on public financing after taking the high ground through the entire primary campaign?

yes...Come to mention it......

Gee, Michael, where did that funny little "flip-flop" meme come from, anyway? Let me think .... Wow, could it be that you morons in the press were so eager to repeat every talking point churned out by the Frank Luntz School Of Republispeak that you actually *adopted the phrase subconsciously"??? Is it even possible???

Geeez. I am SO sick of you people.

Yeah, it's true that what this is really about is the degree to which a candidate will engage in political expediency. And, even though the way it was narrated was false, it was certainly true that Kerry cast his vote out of political expediency. He'd voted against the first Gulf War, which had a greater degree of justification (I opposed it, as well), but he didn't think he could run for president with a nay.

The thing is that every frickin' thing McCain does, even claiming to having supported a GI Bill he opposed, seems to come from political expediency. Except his commitment to continue, and amplify, Bush's warmongering. Obama's much more traditional in this regard, avoiding clear statements of position on politically difficult issues, like NAFTA, and, IMO, simply lying about how he will deal with Iraq.

But the two are not equivalent. McCain attains a level of incoherence that's unmatched in post-war presidential history.

avoiding clear statements of position on politically difficult issues....

This in itself is a major talent. It does require a wide vocabulary and a firm understanding of nuance. No wonder people call him an elitist!

MS:

This is a good post and a good start. I hope you will follow up on this and write on the entire narrative of trivialization of the presidential campaign: the dirty tricks, the gotcha politics, the stimulating of hot button issues, and the tendency of voters to regard the process as a carnival and a source of amusement rather than a matter of vital importance.

Somewhere in TX - thank you for your informative post...however, most of it is BS. I could spend the time picking out the obvious...but there are just so many there and I don't have the time. I'm not sure if there is a garbage republican website that stands equivalent to the liberal carpetbagger report...but would you like me to search for the website that contains 1,000 Obama flips and post it for your viewing pleasure? Or would you rather be an adult?

Press in 2004: "Haha, flip-flopping is so stupid, who would be dumb enough to believe such a thing."

*spends the entire campaign season covering every nuance of it obsessively*

Press in November of 2004: "Why did people fall for it? I just don't understand!"

---

The rest of this thread is going to be the usual back and forth/echo chamber, so I'm going to pose a question to people here.

For those of you who voted for Bush in 2004 (there has to be a couple of you), how do you defend your decision? (Or for that matter, sleep at night)

MS, good post.

jayackroyd, well said.

I find the process of denial fascinating. It reminds me of the story of the elephant in the room.....

You know, if some of the journalists out there would've explained to the public why Kerry voted for one bill and not the other, maybe that charge would not have held up.

But this would require the reporters to do their jobs and inform the public, instead of just taking down talking points from both sides.

Please inform us, use this platform to teach us, not to give us stupid trivial horserace BS.

Shorter CJR: The Press is a Coterie of Unscrupulous Idiots

“Attacking” McCain’s Military Record
What Wesley Clark really said; how the press missed it

By Zachary Roth
Mon 30 Jun 2008 03:54 PM

So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark. Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall."

When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

But many in the press have been unable to. ABC News political director Rick Klein led the outrage, writing in a blog post on ABCNews.com:

"Find me a single Democrat who thinks it’s good politics to call into question the military credentials of a man who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner of war."

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.

To be fair, Klein does get to that, eventually. Later in the post, he writes:

"Clark’s comments seem to miss a vital point about the McCain campaign: Yes, his military service is part of his stock campaign biography, but McCain is not running on that record nearly as much as he’s running on his service in Congress.

Clark is right that “getting shot down” isn’t a qualification to be president, but McCain isn’t saying that it is."

Ads like this just slipped through, I guess. Even if McCain weren’t running on his military record, it’s undoubtedly something that could convince many voters, rightly or wrongly, that he has the experience to be commander in chief. Why should it be out of bounds for Democrats to argue that McCain’s particular military experience has done little to prepare him for the decisions he’ll have to make as president?

Klein wasn’t alone, of course. NBC’s First Read, written by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro, noted that “American politics can’t quite get beyond this question: Just how big a military hero were you?” before summarizing Clark’s comments—as if Clark was questioning McCain’s claim to military heroism, rather than pointing out that that heroism isn’t a qualification for president. Like Klein, the NBC team couldn’t resist playing political consultants, pronouncing that Clark’s comments “weren’t helpful at all to the Obama campaign,” without bothering to consider whether Clark’s argument might make sense.

Gerald Seib and Sara Murray of The Wall Street Journal arguably do even worse. They write: “The one certainty of the 2008 campaign, it might have seemed, was that Sen. John McCain would be acknowledged all around as a war hero for his service in Vietnam—but apparently not.” Did Seib and Murray even read what Clark said? Where did Clark say anything about McCain not being a war hero?

And in a piece headlined “Clark Hits McCain’s Military Credentials”, Josh Kraushaar of The Politico says that Clark “invoked McCain’s military service against him….” Huh? By this bizarre standard, if Clark were to point out that my record of writing for Columbia Journalism Review is not a qualification to be president, he would have invoked my writing for CJR against me.

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/attacking_mccains_military_rec.php

Phil Gramm.

...

Just didn't want us to break 'Scherer's Rules of Blog Etiquette’ and forget to mention Phil Gramm at least once.

Pink Elephant, why is it BS? Because it's true? Being an adult is accepting that the truth hurts sometimes. If you're looking for a 'garbage Republican web site', why don't you go to foxnews.com? I'm sure you'll feel right at home there.

Now I have to go fill up my car with $4.09/gallon gas, buy increasingly expensive groceries & reap all the other benefits of this great Bush administration (of which I don't care to have 4 more years of).

"You know, if some of the journalists out there would've explained to the public why Kerry voted for one bill and not the other, maybe that charge would not have held up.

But this would require the reporters to do their jobs and inform the public, instead of just taking down talking points from both sides.

Please inform us, use this platform to teach us, not to give us stupid trivial horserace BS."

---

No, you see journalists are supposed to be objective, if they were anything less than objective then they would be falling short of the high standard of integrity that journalism requires, and furthermore..

*BREAKING NEWS: DOG STUCK IN A TREE*

Why the Dog Stuck in a Tree is Immigrants' Fault - Lou Dobbs

Dogs Wouldn't Get Stuck in Trees is We Had Offshore Drilling - Glenn Beck

Here is a 500 Word Article About Why I Am Above the Fray on Doggate - Joe Klein

Bears repeating.

He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

Willful misinterpretation, or just plain doofus dumbasses? That's the real question.

Ah, James, that is the question.

Mersault, that was spitmaking funny.

Anyone else notice MS's strong resemblance to Fredo Corleone?

http://www.here-now.org/content/2003/09/02/0902fredo100.jpg

I kind of like "Fredo" as his new nickname.

Anything new on the rumor that they are outsourcing MS's job to Bangalore where they are going to simply (just as poorly) retype and condense McCain campaign press releases?

Ooops, something else McCain flips on.

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid56917.asp

McCain Officially Endorses California Marriage Ban
The Log Cabin Republicans have confirmed that Sen. John McCain has switched from holding a neutral position on California's anti-gay marriage measure to supporting it.

This post is prima facie evidence that Michael Scherer's role at Swampland is to make Joe Klein look like a real journalist by comparison...

The main problem with McCain is that he switches his positions so often and so quickly that I genuinely don't know what he stands for (other than that he wants to be president). It's impossible to predict what a McCain presidency would be like.

The term 'flip-flopping' certainly applies to what he's been doing. I don't believe his positons have been 'evolving'. Even 'punctuated' evolution takes some time.

what this is really about is the degree to which a candidate will engage in political expediency.

That nails it. We knew we didn't have the old John McCain (of journalists' lore anyway) when he went to Liberty University and schmoozed Falwell, or when he bought George Bush's non-reality-based tax cuts. OTOH, McCain was the Neocons' candidate of choice back in 2000, preferred by the Rumsfeld/Kristol militarist daydreamer contingent.

The only thing he has going for him is pretty much campaign finance and climate change (he simply admits it exists--the adequacy of the response he recommends is another matter). He's aligned himself with his party ideologues in every other way.

Jake:

I think you've found the answer! To risk overextending the metaphor, MS finds it unacceptable for anyone to talk to Moe McCain disrespectfully.

PS: Hope your nose is healing.

Someone is a little testy after getting pwnd on the GI Bill.

McCain Campaign Accuses Obama Camp Of Coordinating With Webb To Attack McCain

By Greg Sargent - July 1, 2008, 2:01PM

Now the McCain campaign is accusing the Obama campaign of coordinating with Jim Webb to "attack" McCain's war service.

On MSNBC last night, Webb told McCain that he should "calm down" with the use of his military service in the campaign, adding that it was time to "get the politics out of the military."

Now the McCain campaign is responding to Webb, arguing that Webb's comments prove that Obama "can't control his surrogate operation." McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers sends us this:

"If you didn't think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain's credentials before, it's clear now that it is. Barack Obama's surrogates are telling the McCain campaign to "calm down" about attacks on his military record? Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark's attacks are John McCain's fault? It's absurd. If Barack Obama can't control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?"

The truth is that there's zero evidence that there's any coordination going on or that the Obama campaign wants this conversation to be taking place. Not that this matters: The McCain campaign is very determinedly pointing to anything it can -- Webb's comments included -- to drive the message that Obama is demeaning McCain's military service.

But no one -- not Obama, not Clark, not Webb -- has done this. No one.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_campaign_accuses_obama_1.php

So, why did it take you four years to write this column?

Fredo/MS: "I can handle things, I'm smaaart, not like every commenter says. Not dumb, I'm smaaart, and I want respect!""

Sy:
Yeah, Webb was pissed last night(though he took the high road on KO you could see it in his face). McCain really is flailing like a beached whale on this one.

The press is still suffering convenient amnesia from 2000 and 2004. I remember the panels afterwards, where they promise never ever to do it again.

The whole McCain war record thing amuses me. Gore's record in Vietnam could be challenged. Kerry's record challenged. McCain no.

Kerning of letters in documents aside, as far as I know there still is not one person in Alabama who remembers serving with George W. Bush.

Would a democratic politician really get away with going AWOL from the military like Bush did? Any honest person knows the answer to that question.

McCain's trying to attack Jim Webb now? Sounds to me like he needs a little cheese to go with all of his whine.

Steve in Sacto writes:

"This post is prima facie evidence that Michael Scherer's role at Swampland is to make Joe Klein look like a real journalist by comparison..."

I'm not so sure. If I understand Mr. Scherer's thinking here, he's struggling with the concept of how to report on the competing "flip flop" charges. Included here is a near admission that as a group, the press did a poor job of separating fact from fiction during the last election. It's a start. For a reporter to say this or that attack is a lie is nearly impossible. Most of these attacks have a grain of truth even if most of it bullsh*t. I think sometimes Time Magazine forgets who they are and why people still subscribe to it.
In an effort to compete with 24/7 cable news and the nanosecond response time that comes with the internet, Time, and others like it forget who they are. They can provide detailed, well researched and accurate long form journalism that gets at the truth of these matters. Cable news doesn't do it and blogs are not very good at research and accuracy. Maybe they think there isn't an audience for it. They're wrong. There is a hunger for truthful, accurate, well documented research that offers voters a conclusive picture on where each candidate stands on the important issues and where each candidate is being less than truthful. We don't see a lot of this type of campaign coverage. Mostly we see what the Note used to call "big casino" reporting. The gossipy, inside baseball reporting on what each camp says about the other and who's winning the style war. We are coming to the end of an eight year nightmare of a presidency. A presidency made possible by the focus on image over substance. Journalists, I think even Mr. Scherer will admit, did not cover themselves in glory in recording the Bush presidency. Maybe it's not too late to learn.

On where does McCain support the G.I. bill, y'all are right that he didn't vote on it. But he has started to support it rhetorically. See Jay's post from yesterday, which I linked to in the post:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/gi_bill_becomes_law.html

Evidently, the McCain internal polling must be showing that his constant flip-flops are hurting his campaign, so Mr. Scherer dutifully writes this post pushing back against the entire Rove-originated campaign tactic.

Just like the baldfaced lie about McCain's supposed support for the new GI Bill or the all-over-the-media baldfaced lie about what General Clark repeated from Bob Schieffer, I don't think it's gonna work.

But reading Mr. Scherer is actually becoming more and more interesting - if I'm ever wondering what the McCain camp's daily plans are about media, one only needs to come to Swampland and read Mr. Scherer's columns What McCain wants said and what Mr. Scherer actually says are well nigh identical!

He didn't co-sponsor it, he didn't support it in committee, he criticized it relentlessly, he didn't (rhetorically) support it on the Senate Floor and he didn't even bother to vote on it. Only after it passed has he rhetorically "supported" it. It is a baldfaced lie to say that McCain supported the GI Bill - he didn't.

Mr. Scherer is a baldfaced liar and he knows it.

On where does McCain support the G.I. bill, y'all are right that he didn't vote on it. But he has started to support it rhetorically.

Bush too. That's the frickin' point. "Rhetorically supporting" a bill you voted against is more concisely described as "lying."

On the historical context of the flip-flop charge:

I remember it being a big part of the 1992 Bush/Quayle campaign, with Quayle using it particularly aggressively during his pathetic attempt to play attack dog on Al Gore in the VP debate.

But back then, the endlessly repeated soundbite was "WAFFLING."

What puzzles me, though, is that if reporters like Mr. Scherer see this type of framing as more often than not propagandistic BS coming from either campaign, then just don't stenographically repeat the frame. Put relevant facts and decisions into your OWN independent journalistic frame.

Simple as that.

The Bottom Dweller's post about flip flopping is evidence of the McCain's campaign fear of the flip flopping charge...cue up the music, the Beaver and his posse have arrived!

So you were against writing about flip flopping before you were for it...this column is 4 years too late.

And, you know, it really should be a big problem, all this making flippy-floppy, for a guy who claims "Straight Talk" as a central trait.

"But he has started to support it rhetorically."

He criticized it, didn't vote for it, but once passed, he now "supports it rhetorically".

That's called leadership, biatches. Big up yourself. Respek.

Somewhere in Texas,

I read the laundry list of McCain flip flops. I am sure somewhere there is an equally detailed list of Obama contradictions but that's not the point. The devil is in the details. Why did McCain or Obama support this or that and why do they not support it now? That is the question that really matters. Who cares if a candidate changed their mind on an issue? We all change our minds about a variety of things everyday. What's important is the context. Was is a re-examination of the issue? Did they change their vote to preserve party unity? Did they chance their position because of new information?

As long as your pointing to the JNS post, its worth pointing out that this is a factual error:

The bill was attached to the $850 billion war supplemental that allocates and additional $650 billion for the war in Iraq and $200 billion for Afghanistan.

The supplimental was for 163 Billion bringing the totals over the last five years to the above figures. Those aren't "and additional" or for that matter "an additional" figures.

Also it would appear that McCain's only contribuition to the bill was to cite his being on the losing side as evidence of his ability to work across the aisle.

Pretty damn cynical if you ask me.

MS:

"On where does McCain support the G.I. bill, y'all are right that he didn't vote on it. But he has started to support it rhetorically"

Rhetorically, Bush is a uniter, not a Divider. He also wanted to restore honor and dignity to the office of the President.

hahahahaha

No, Nick, there is no such list. McCain has lurched all over the policy map trying to get into the White House. There's never been a candidate so "flexible."

So now the press has decided that McCain supported the GI Bill? Even though he criticized Obama for supporting it?

Good freaking grief. MS is a hack.

Michael Scherer wrote:"On where does McCain support the G.I. bill, y'all are right that he didn't vote on it. But he has started to support it rhetorically".

Ok, Michael, it appears that we need a refresher on what McCain actually did. Yes, it's true that Bush and McCain are now trying to jump in front of the parade, but lets look at what McCain actually said:

Saying he takes "a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans," McCain said Webb's bill would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services."

"In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family," McCain said at a Memorial Day event in Albuquerque.

"They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."
-from http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/mccain/

Michael, please try to explain what part of the 'transferability of tuition' amendment (that McCain now claims allows him to support the bill) addresses these criticisms of his. Yes, he's changed his rhetoric, but what he's saying now doesn't square with what he was saying only a few weeks ago.

Dear MS...

Sorry to digress, but did you, a Time writer, just type "y'all"?

Hugs and Kisses,

The Bunny

McCain basically flip flopped on all the issues that the press loved about him in 2000. He decided to run to the left of Bush in the primary and get independent support in open primaries.

Bush and Rove swiftboated McCain in South Carolina and he went down to defeat.

McCain learned his lesson, sucked up to Falwell, embraced the Bush tax cuts, but the journalists who love McCain are suffering from cognitive dissonance. He really "doesn't mean it" when he's saying these things now.

It's the equivalent of a spouse who has been cheated on denying the evidence in front of them. Their lover is faithful facts be damned.

Rhetorically, my a$$.

That's pretty bad, Scherer. I am sure you are embarrassed to have been exposed for your laziness, taking a Bush talking point from yesterdays presser, which was a bald-faced lie, as we all know.

Glad we have real journos like Dan Froomkin,
who writes today
///
Steve Benen blogs: "Bush praised five senators this morning for their leadership. One (McCain) fought against the bill and then didn't bother to vote on it. Two (Graham and Burr) fought against the bill and voted against it. Chuck Hagel was an original sponsor of the bill, the president ignored him altogether."
///

But, Michael, I bet you get one of "the good seats" on the new ’straight talk’ airplane. And sprinkles on your donuts, too!!!!!

ny nick, the context for Senator McCain's gargantuan number of flip-flops would indeed be helpful. But that's not Mr. Scherer's mission today - the mission was to hit back against the flip-flop meme because McCain's numerous notorious flip-flops on issues large and small is hurting his campaign.

Why did he flip on tax cuts during a time of war? Why did he flop on granting additional leases for more OCS drilling? Why did he (at least according to Mr. Scherer) flip on the GI Bill? Why did he flop on the Confederate battle flag?

Actual reporters could provide detail and context to his plethora of flip-flops, but that is not today's point - today's mission is to push back against the entire meme and alter the plain meaning of "flip-flop" into "thoughtfully changed his mind."

McCain said his opposition to the bill was the right rather than the politically expedient position, suggesting Obama was on the wrong side of the measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Lawmakers blocked a more limited version that McCain supported.

"I am running for the office of commander in chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. And this is why I am committed to our bill, despite the support Senator Webb's bill has received," McCain said. "It would be easier, much easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation."

However, McCain said he opposed Webb's measure because it would give everyone the same benefit regardless of how many times they enlist. He said he feared that would depress reenlistments by those wanting to attend college after only a few years in uniform. Rather, McCain said the bill he favored would have increased scholarships based on length of service.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/27/politics/main4127728.shtml?source=related_story

"On where does McCain support the G.I. bill, y'all are right that he didn't vote on it. But he has started to support it rhetorically. See Jay's post from yesterday, which I linked to in the post:"

The best you could do is link to a Swampland Post?!?!?!

The Emperor Has No Clothes.

From Drudge's blog but ...

Webb: Bush "blew It" On GI Bill
By Daniel W. Reilly

(The Politico) Despite a brief outbreak of bipartisan comity on Monday morning, as President Bush signed a war funding bill, it was back to business as usual later in the day, as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said Bush “made a real bad mistake” in initially opposing an expansion of veterans’ education benefits included in the package.

Webb, the driving force behind the update to the Montgomery GI Bill, said both President Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain never “really got on board” with the effort and only embraced the measure after it was clear there was overwhelming support for it in Congress.

In a ceremony at the White House Monday morning, Bush thanked Webb, McCain and other lawmakers who “worked hard” for the GI Bill expansion. However, McCain did not initially support Webb’s bill and pushed an alternative measure crafted with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

Interviewed on MSNBC’s “Countdown,” Webb said Bush missed a golden opportunity to prove his military bona fides.

“I think George W. Bush made a real bad mistake in terms of our trying to show full respect for military service. I think he blew it,” Webb said on Monday night.

Webb also noted that Bush failed to thank Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam veteran who also worked hard on the bill, but has fallen out of favor at the White House after comments critical of the Iraq war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4225025.shtml

Chrah-ahst, "bypartisan comity": maybe the press should wake up, wipe off the eye-snot, and start accepting the fact that this fabled, world-saving comity is NOT the default state of political relations.

Don't these people ever get tired of their own conventional wisdom?

(I know: "No.")

New blog post

McCain's subtext is that he wants to inoculate himself against criticism of his militarism. He knows his military service isn't being attacked. He wants to create the illusion that he is.

It's a species of culture warring, a la Nixonland.

And the press goes along gleefully, as usual.

"It's a species of culture warring, a la Nixonland."

I think it's also a game of honor, to wit:

1. The McCain campaign/mainstream press perceive Clark as having insulted their boy.
2. They throw down the gauge, gin up the faux outrage, and see if Obama will either stand as Clark's second or cave and submit to their bullying and hissy fits.

Obama and his surrogates keep losing this battle as long as they keep accepting all the fake outrage underlying all these so-called journalists' questions about whether he stands by Clark's "attack."

By not questioning their premises and allowing themselves to be intimidated by the press, they look weak, submissive, and unconfident. Good strategy!

Almost as good as Kerry and Durbin apologizing for the willful misinterpretations of their remarks about the military. Way to look strong!

Flipping and flopping can be bad. It can be good. It depends on whether someone flips into your camp or flops out of it. This whole purity of positions is nonsense. American politics is the art of compromise and adaptation to the popular will. Yes, there are some absolutes but too many policy positions are miscontrued as something more -- good or evil. Our politicians seldom deal in such absolutes.

Is the GI Bill a good idea? Probably. Is it a moral imperative? No. Then again, it is closer to such a thing than probably 2/3 of the government programs. Did McCain and Bush screw up on this one. Politically, they did.

Obama should pick Webb as his Veep. I've thought that for a while.

McCain's argument was "defensible" in a way.

He wanted benefits mostly going to those who served 12 plus years in service to encourage people to serve longer.

He theorized correctly that many people would serve one hitch, get out and go to college instead of staying in. He's right. I did that myself with the GI bill and Army college fund.

The problem of course is that McCain's plan was really unworkable. If you have done over 10 years in the service, chances are that you are a lifer. So, most of the people eligible for McCain's benefits would not use them (if at all) until they were over 38 years old.

Some veterans do go to college after retiring. Many though go for another government job (post office for example), do another 20 years and retire on a double pension.

McCain's plan was not a very decent benefit. If somebody has signed up, served 4 years active, with the possibility of being recalled for the next 4 years after that, it's not unreasonable to give them a good education benefit. McCain specifically wanted to exclude these people.

He opposed Webb's plan on those grounds and he should be intellectually honest enough to take the hit on that, and defend his objection.

"On where does McCain support the G.I. bill, y'all are right that he didn't vote on it. But he has started to support it rhetorically. See Jay's post from yesterday, which I linked to in the post:"

What? Was this even Michael posting this.

If it was,

McCain never supported the Webb GI bill Michael. He actively opposed and did every thing he could to see it derailed he even refused to meet with Webb on it. He actively supported a weaker version of another bill that was drafted by his campaign supporters who happen to be senators. Now he came up with the standard excuses: I'm still studying it, I'm concerning about retention and costs and then finally I want to see transfer of benefits in the bill. But these where all smoke screens and members of the military knew it. Why don't you ask them?

Now he is rhetorically supporting the bill? WTF good is that. Last time I checked the troops can use "rhetoric support" for college tution.

but too many policy positions are miscontrued as something more -- good or evil

I'm not sure how to break this to you but many policy positions ARE good vs evil.

Invading a country based on false pretenses, decapitating the existing government on behalf of an exile group led by a known crook for instance and then subjecting those citizens who object to torture and sexual humiliation...

Call it what you want, but 'good' is not an option.

GySgt213, I'm not arguing with you. But the point is that McCain seems to have changed his position on it.

But the point is that McCain seems to have changed his position on it.

Perhaps we can use that as starting point for whether something qualifies as a 'flip-flop'

Do the candidates actions as expressed in floor debate and votes match his rhetoric on the trail as expressed in sound-bites and conference calls?

Careful analysis will then allow you to differentiate apparent flip-flops from those instances where the Candidate holds two differing positions simultaneously.

You mind find it to be an enlightening exercise....

Michael, so is McCain's change of position a bonafide flip flop or just a true change of heart?

And one wonders (well, I do) how the MSM would have treated HRC if she had been against a bill and then decided to support it after it was passed and was perceived as being popular.

Sorry, Michael, but you're giving McCain a free pass on the GI Bill.

Paul Dirks, the problem with your formulation is that floor votes are often misleading, for the reasons I mentioned. Votes usually take into account lots of different things: Help New Orleans AND increase taxes, or Send Money for troops AND condemn Iran as a danger to the world. Also there are often lots of votes on the same issue. So, for example, you could have ten votes on renewable energy and Senator X could vote against one, because he does not like that much money for wind power, or it is paired with an abortion issue, or whatever. This does not automatically mean that Senator X is against renewable energy.

As for giving a pass or not, here are some possible explanations for McCain's change of heart:

1. He is politically expedient, and does not want to be tagged as someone who wants to deny benefits to troops.
2. He opposed Webb's specific G.I. plan, but thinks some imperfect G.I. bill is better than no bill.
3. He was just following Bush, because he did not want to line up against the White House. So when Bush dropped the veto threat, he changed his mind.

There are other possibilities too.

Brooklyngirl, the very worst McCain flip-flop was on the moral absolute of torture. He rhetorically stated that he opposed torture as an instrument of U.S. policy, he preened around about it for months, but then, he was the primary force behind passage of the Military Commissions Act, which not only unconstitutionally attempted to eliminate the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus, but also immunized all prior torturers and specifically allowed torture to continue to be conducted by non-military U.S. agencies and instrumentalities.

Moreover, after committing one of the biggest flip-flops in American history on an issue which vitally affects America's reputation - torture - McCain has continued to preen around as an opponent of torture. Just like he now lies about his "support" for the new GI Bill, he lies about his torture flip-flops.

The immunization of the torturers is perhaps the worst - we now will probably never know exactly what was done and by who in America's name. And all the torturers and torture-authorizers will get off scot free. Thanks to McCain.

"As for giving a pass or not, here are some possible explanations for McCain's change of heart:"

You forgot:

4. McCain is not a big of a supporter of the military most syccophants think he is, but he'll be damned if he lets someone call him on it;

5. McCain would rather been seen sitting a few seats away from Bush on the bus, then cuddled up with him under it; or

6. Fredo, like McCain, is predisposed to say anything right now that is politically expedient and make the other guy look like a big meanie.

Paul Dirks, the problem with your formulation is that floor votes are often misleading, for the reasons I mentioned...

Which is, of course how McCain can continue to be against torture, even though he voted to allow the CIA to continue the practice.

I'm aware that floor votes can be a misleading indicator, but I also know the you're aware of that as well.

If a vote doesn't match up due to procedural considerations, it's usually not hard to find out why AND explain it to the public. It's rather what we wish journalists would do much more of.....

I'm not an expert in the hierarchy of virtues associated with acts of inconsistency or flip-flopping. But my guess is flip flopping on principles, is higher in the hierarchy of vices, than simply switching tactics for the same set of principles. I like Michael’s idea that there is a hierarchy of flip-flopping sin, but there are only two examples, provided. I would like to see both McCain's and Obama's flip flops fully analyzed, adding a greater negative value when a principle is swapped for the opposite, than when one agrees to try a new tactic. At the end of that, we can stack up the numbers and see who the greatest flip flopper, McCain or Obama is, rather than assuming they are equal, as the media always does.

Why don't you guys do a story on the circus that is McCain's favored Veep candidate: Bobby "Exorcist" Jindal? He's really been a rolling freakshow lately, but I guess it's not as juicy as just playing second/third/fourth fiddle to Politico or Drudge.

According to the dictates of Scherer's Law of Maximum Hackery, first there must be a controversy involving a Democrat who, say, spoke to a ghost using a medium. Towards the end of the controversy, which would have been covered ad nauseum at this point, the subject of Jindal's claims of exorcising a demon from a young woman, AND curing her cancer will come up. It is at this point that the media will pull back for a little self reflection....is it really the media's job to enforce religion and what is and what isn't acceptable? No, of course not they'll opine, then they'll get right back to the issues most important to this election, namely, John McCain's brave, brave service.

In addition to all the above, flip flops make journalists look good. They are basic equipment in the gotcha tool kit.

Jay Rosen (http://www.pressthink.org)

Jayackroyd,

"No, Nick, there is no such list."

Oh, I think there is.

http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/06/collection-of-obama-flip-flops.html

Interesting contention Michael, but kind of missing the larger point.

Every politician is entitled to change their views. Hey if it's dry today, I will decide not to carry an umbrella. If it's raining tomorrow, I will change my position vis-a-vis the umbrella controversy.

But here's the rub. When Obama changes position, it's a disavowal of every principle he's ever held dear. When McCain changes position, well, silence.

One example. Obama changed his mind on public financing. Result: huge roars of disbelief from the press corp. Broken promises. 'Chicago style' politics. Despicable. Unconscionable.

Meanwhile, McCain had just done exactly the same thing. More than that, he'd gotten bank loans on the strength of his impending public funding to keep his campaign solvent. More than that, he opted out of public funding without seeking a formal approval for the change from the Federal Electoral Commission. More than that, he'd availed of having his name automatically put on all ballots on all states, instead of having to go through a nomination process for each state - something that saved him $2-3m.

And from the fearless tigers in the press corp? Not a whisper. Too busy jostling for position on McCain's new plane I assume.

I'm not obsessed with flip-flops. But I am obsessed by journalists without balance, without integrity and without backbone.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter

May you have no idea about what I give you ,but it will help you a lot indeed.What you just do is to look througnt them!FLV to MP3AVI to FLV MacWMV to FLV MacMPEG/MP4/MPG to FLV MacASF to FLVDivx to FLvFLV to Ipod FLV to PSP FLV to Zune FLV to 3GP