Matt Taibbi is one of the more remarkable political journalists/columnists working today. His latest column on McCain in Rolling Stone is scathing.
Just a taste:
The remarkable metamorphoses this year of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain would be puzzling and inexplicable were it not for a basic truism of the political-hate game. The reasons McCain and Clinton were villains of the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity crowd in the first place had nothing to do with their policy positions or votes in the Senate or anything like that. Their real crimes were their arrogant insistence on exercising their intellectual independence, as well as their stubborn refusal to indulge in drooling-caveman demagoguery. The instant both of them crossed into the hater column and began feverishly jacking off the toothless racists of the Deep South with broadsides against the America-hating socialist menace Obama, all was instantly forgiven.
Only a few months ago, I was constantly running into Republicans at McCain events who had profound concerns about the Arizona senator’s “liberal” record. But these days I’m hard-pressed to find anyone on the trail who even remembers that McCain once supported Roe v. Wade, and opposed the Bush tax cuts, and compared the tortures at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to the techniques of the Spanish Inquisition, and even heretically claimed that Mexican immigrants were “God’s children too.” When I ask Mary Morvant, a pro-life Christian, why she’s supporting McCain given his record on abortion, she gives a typical answer: “I’m much more concerned about Obama.”
McCain enters the general election in the form of a man who has jettisoned the last traces of his dangerous unorthodoxy just in time to be plausible in the role of the torchbearing leader of the anti-Obama mob, waving the flag and chanting, “One of us! One of us!” all the way through to November. He now favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he’s unblinkingly pro-life every time he remembers to mention abortion, and he’s given up bitching about torture. With his newfound opposition to his own attempts to reform immigration policy and campaign finance, McCain is perhaps the first candidate in history to stump against two bills bearing his own name.
PTN says
And senator Obama has never changed positions on anything has he.FISA,D.C. gun ban,public financing…I think it will be interesting to see what he says on Iraq after his visit.I’ve stated before I do not care for McCain but flip flops go both ways in this race as far as I can tell.I’ve also stated barring unforseen circumstances Obama should win.If he can’t beat McCain especially this year than there’s no hope for electing a democratic president in the near future.
Time had a good piece on McCain and immigration,truth is no one not border security people or LA RAZA knows McCains position he’s so wishy washy.I however believe McCain holds the same position he’s always held on the subject.He’s simply trying to have it both ways.
I don’t listen to Limbaugh but I do watch Hannity on Tv to say he deals in drooling cavemen demagoguery I don’t think so.To me he simply presents a position and Colmes and other democrats on the show present theirs.
I mean if you’re going to say Hannity deals in demagoguery on issues just what do you call what Olberman does?Insightful thought?
As far as the political hate game both sides play that pretty well.
I’m not a McCain supporter rather a person in the middle,a conservative democrat who will call out either campaign or candidate at anytime on there flip flops.
Doug says
As long as we’re agreed that McCain isn’t a straight-talking maverick, that’s enough for me.
Buzzcut says
What does “straight talking maverick” mean, exactly?
I think it means EXACTLY what McCain is: you ask him a question, he gives you a straight answer, an answer that has very little to do with the straight answer he gave to the last guy with the very same question, to which McCain gave the EXACT opposite answer.
He changes his mind a lot. He told Hannity that ammnesty was off the table, but now it’s back on.
PTN says
No arguments from me on that.McCain is not a straight talking Maverick,that’s what the media who adored him for some time called him,he flipped on the Bush tax cuts,torture,drilling…and as some articles and democratic surrogates have stated he’s flipped on immigration this however I take exception to because I keep close tabs on this issue and McCain has the same position he always has had on the issue he’s simply trying to have it both ways so as to try and capture a small slice of the Hispanic vote and not have too many defections from his base and other border security people.
I think his stance on immigration is a huge negative in that candidates who try to have it both ways on a issue usually end up pleasing no one.Look at Obama he’s clear on his position he may throw some lip service to border security but he’s clear on where he stands on immigration and although I disagree with the position it’s a FAR better position to have in a campaign than McCain who is trying to have it both ways.Far more Obama voters than McCain voter care about the issue.Illegal immigration was the number two issue in the republican primary.
McCain is simply trying to muddy up the water on the issue like he did in the primary.The issues a loser for him and not Obama.There are conservative democrats and rural democratic voters who would vote on the immigration issue alone if McCain was a border security hawk but he’s not so like myself I look at other issues like healthcare,taxes,trade etc and Obama beats McCain on those issues hands down.
It simply amazes me how McCain is still tarveling to places like Youngstown Ohio trying to sell free trade and NAFTA to people who have lost their jobs to such trade agreements.Talk about clueless.I hope Obama is not going to back off his trade stance in a article in Fortune Magazine he stated that some of his rhetoric on trade might have been overheated or something like that.Free trade is fine however the Bush adm recent trade deals have been one sided.China screws us every chance they get!
PTN says
I’m actually for more drilling if there was any chance at all gas prices could be reduced.Gas prices are hurting everyone I know.
PTN says
Sorry I ment to say in my post 4 above that FAR MORE MCCAIN VOTERS THAN OBAMA VOTERS CARE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND WOULD VOTE ON THE ISSUE ALONE in my opinion.
T says
Most of McCain’s statements are straight talk. I know that because he says, “Here’s some straight talk for you”, before a lot of the things he says. It’s kind of his version of “Do you smell what the Rock is cookin’?”, and has about as much substance.
Jason says
PTN, when we have drilled everywhere, then what are we going to do about gas prices? Burning more oil faster and cheaper will only make the day we run out that much harder.
PTN says
Respectfully Jason it depends on how much the oil reserves of new fields discovered would provide.If domestic production could produce enough oil reserves to keep us going for twenty years or so and lower prices then this would be a good thing.All the while alternative energy programs could begin to be developed and implemented.Lower income people especially, and even not so low income folks that have long commutes are spending a good portion of their pay checks on gas which is creating hadships in some famlies I am sure.
The drill more argument is really a non argument.All available off shore drilling exploration ships are currently leased for the next five years so it doesn’t matter and ANWR is off limits and would be many years before oil could be produced even if it were not.
Conservation won’t lower prices since no way will China and India conserve anything let alone oil.
I’m no market expert but even Obama says the speculators with regard to oil in the commodity market need to be reigned in and some loop hole closed in that regard. I heard the senator mentioning this the other day.
Jason says
That isn’t fair to say that India and China do not conserve. They have been working on many of the technologies that you’re hoping will be there.
Also, if our poor can’t pay for gas, how can India’s poor? Average income is around $6,000 a year.
Why will alternative energy programs be here in 20 years? Market demand? If gas becomes less expensive, then there will be less market demand. It isn’t like our government is pouring cash into this like it was the next Apollo program! We can’t even force the auto makers to raise their MPG!
We are going to have to deal with far more expensive gas than $4 before alternatives exist. We can’t hold everyone’s hand on the true cost of oil anymore.