No More of the McSame!

Here is a very good article on the hypocrisy of John McCain on taxes… and where his tax cuts will really go.

Taxes, Integrity and Character
Posted on Jun 18, 2008

By Joe Conason

Once upon a time, there was a fiscally and socially responsible senator named John McCain. Despite his presidential ambitions, the Republican from Arizona spoke out against the economic royalism of his party’s leadership in the White House and Congress, and simply said no.

He rejected the Bush tax cuts in 2001 because they provided an unearned bonanza for America’s wealthiest citizens while giving a pittance to the middle class and nothing to the working poor. To him, as a long-standing enemy of waste and profligacy, these proposals were not only unfair but also unwise.

“I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief,” he said, joining courageously with Lincoln Chafee, then a senator from Rhode Island, as one of two Republicans who dared to cast such a crucial vote against president and party.

Now Chafee is no longer in the Senate, having lost reelection in 2006 after enduring a brutal primary challenge from the Republican right. And McCain, now driven by ambition rather than principle, has changed. He supports the tax cuts that his conscience once moved him to oppose—and indeed, he promises to deliver even more lucrative benefits to those who need relief least, at the expense of those who need it most.

Tax policy is rarely regarded as a character issue. It is possible to believe that rewarding the rich should be the main purpose of the tax code, and it is also possible to believe that taxation should advance rather than diminish equality—and it is possible for honorable people to argue either way. But in McCain’s case, the complete flip-flop and implausible explanation raise disturbing questions about his integrity. (That is particularly true of a candidate like McCain, who questioned the character of a primary opponent, Mitt Romney, for revamping his positions on abortion and other social issues.)

By the time McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 he had established a strong position against their regressive effects. That stance marked him as a true maverick in his own party and a straight talker who spoke for the national interest against his own personal interests. Running against George W. Bush in the 2000 GOP primary, he mocked the Texas governor’s “misplaced” bonanza for the affluent.

“Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need,” he said. Despite his wife’s inherited wealth, he criticized proposals to repeal the estate tax for the same reason, noting that such legislation “would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country.”

As the chance to run for president again drew closer, however, McCain shifted toward conservative orthodoxy. In 2005 he voted for cuts in capital gains taxes that he had previously opposed, and in 2006 voted for essentially the same estate-tax repeal he had once denounced. And today his economic platform extends to the Bush tax cuts and makes them still more regressive—and more expensive.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the McCain proposals would render almost one-quarter of their benefits to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers. Those are households with annual incomes over $2.8 million. Families in the lower 60 percent of the income scale would receive 8 percent of the McCain plan’s benefits. This scheme would result in the loss of at least $4 trillion in revenue over the coming decade, as our physical infrastructure crumbles.

Even more troubling than those numbers, however, is the contorted rhetoric that the Republican nominee-to-be has used to justify his policy reversal. Over the past several months, you see, he has discovered that he never really opposed the Bush tax cuts as unfair. He only opposed them because there weren’t enough spending cuts to balance the revenue reductions.

At the same time, however, he now insists that cutting taxes actually increases federal revenues—the discredited supply-side mumbo-jumbo that he must endorse to win over his party base. But if reducing taxes actually raises revenues, then why is he so worried about spending cuts?

Intellectual honesty was the currency of the straight talker, yet he has squandered that great asset by pandering to the most irresponsible ideologues. How he can bear to do this to himself is a mystery.

Funny stuff…

Senator McCain wants context? Keith Olbermann is happy to provide it.

Thank you, Keith.

Part One:

Part Two:

Not too important.

According to Senator John McCain, when we bring our troops home is “not too important.” Nice. Now, the entire context of the remark is that what is important is the number of casualties being suffered, and McCain cited our presence in Korea as the case in point.

Where do I begin to respond to such ignorance, callousness and arrogance?

First off, McIdiot, there is absolutely no comparison between Iraq and Korea, or Iraq and West Germany. Both Korea and Germany were cold war conflicts between nation-states; clearly identifiable adversaries. In the case of Korea, the combatants fought to a standstill and reached an armistice, one that is still in effect today. Exactly when did an armistice get implemented in Iraq?

In Iraq, Senator, we are faced with a civil war (please stop denying this) and we are faced with an Iraqi government that has made nearly zero progress in being able to govern and secure their own nation. At last count, only three of eighteen benchmarks have been met. The fact of the matter is that the Iraqis will not get serious about resolving their own differences and governing themselves when it is clear that we are leaving. Until then, they default to U.S. troops being bombed and shot at in the name of Iraqi freedom.

McCain wants us to believe that with his election some magical event will result in no more U.S. troops dying in Iraq while we continue a peaceful occupation. My God, isn’t this just “they will greet us as liberators” taken to post-invasion Iraq? Exactly how is this violence… in the middle of a frakking war zone… going to stop? Of course, McCain is silent on these specifics.

In fact, when asked about those specifics, McCain’s only response is to criticize Barack Obama and denounce any timetable for U.S. withdrawal. I think it is worth noting here that Iraq itself (through its legislators) has asked for a timetable. It is also worth noting that the same John McCain himself publicly stated a timetable, predicting that U.S. troops will be drawn down by January, 2013. Doesn’t this idiot even pay attention to what he has already said?

Second, I would like to see McCain say to the troops and their families that it isn’t important when our soldiers come home. What? I’m sure that the soldier on his third tour of duty wouldn’t quite agree. I’m also reasonably certain that the Marine who will never walk again might disagree with that, as I am sure that grieving families may not find McCain;s words very comforting.

McCain’s comment is deplorable. It is insensitive. Frankly, it is stupid. It demonstrates very clearly that Iraq and foreign policy are not John McCain’s strong points, Given that he already told us how little he knows about the economy, could someone please explain to me what this man’s qualifications are? It’s not a qualification that he outlasted other idiots.

Please keep staying stuff like this, John. That will be the best way to insure a Barack Obama presidency. In the meantime, Johnny gets another Momo… no doubt not the last that he will see in this campaign.

Part Two is tomorrow night… after Keith Olbermann’s promised Special Commentary.

Here is a great two-part check on McCain;s budget statements from Fact Check dot org. The articles also serve as a reminder as to the fiction of Supply Side (”Trickle Down”) economics.

The Budget According to McCain: Part I
May 13, 2008
Updated: May 16, 2008

Think it’s all about cutting earmarks? Think again.

Summary

McCain’s big promise is that he can balance the budget while extending Bush’s tax cuts and adding a few of his own. He likes to leave the impression that this can be done painlessly, for example, by eliminating “wasteful” spending in the form of “earmarks” that lawmakers like to tuck into spending bills to finance home-state projects. We found that not only is this theory full of holes, it’s not even McCain’s actual plan. In this story we examine the spending-cut side of McCain’s budget program. In Part II, we’ll look at what McCain has said about taxes.

McCain’s pronouncements on cutting spending, and even on the growth in the size of the federal government, are dubious at best:

* McCain seems to say that he can save $100 billion by cutting out earmarks. But budget experts say that cutting earmarks would actually save very little. And questioned more closely, McCain’s campaign now says that his planned savings have nothing to do with eliminating earmarks.

* With earmarks out as a potential source of savings, McCain hasn’t said what he’d cut out of the discretionary budget to get to $100 billion. He’s even indicated that defense spending might increase. If defense spending is off the table, saving $100 billion would require 18.5 percent across-the-board cuts in every other discretionary program, including things like elementary and secondary education, veterans’ health benefits and highway construction. The alternative would be severe cuts in a few programs, as yet unnamed.

* McCain says that “just in the last few years” the government has puffed up “by 40 percent, by trillions.” Actually, it has taken federal spending a decade to grow 40 percent, and even longer to grow by “trillions.” In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal spending is projected to come to $2.45 trillion in fiscal 2009, including $1.4 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, military spending and veterans programs. The last time the budget was “trillions” smaller was 1951.

Update, May 16: In our original article, we did not specify in the summary that the $2.45 trillion in federal spending is measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, with 2000 as a baseline. Also, we have changed the summary to reflect that the estimate is for fiscal year 2009, as we say in the Analysis section; the spending levels are still being developed by Congress.

Also, we should not have said that student loans were part of the discretionary budget, as we did originally. They are not. And we have changed the term “assistance to veterans” to be more specific, since some veterans programs are mandatory and some are discretionary.

Analysis

Beginning, appropriately enough, with an April 15 speech, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain began unveiling a series of economic proposals. He elaborated on his plan in an April 16 interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and again in an April 20 appearance on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” and has continued repeating many of his claims on the stump. In the first of our two-part article on McCain’s budget and tax proposals, we look at his plan to reduce government spending.

Full story here…

The Budget According to McCain: Part II
May 14, 2008

The new McCain loves tax cuts. But many of his claims about them are off.

Summary

In our last installment we looked at McCain’s pronouncements on spending cuts to help balance the budget. In Part II, we examine what he’s said on a subject that might be more pleasing to many Americans: lowering taxes. We found exaggerations and distortions here, as well.

* McCain says that eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax will save “more than 25 million middle-class families more than $2,000 every year.” But McCain’s “middle class” includes families making up to $200,000 per year, and the $2,000 figure is an average. Those earning more money will see the lion’s share of the savings. McCain also leaves out the fact that the proposal could cost as much as $1.6 trillion over 10 years.

* By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement “the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;” it would be the fifth largest. At a more basic level, it’s misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration – the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

* McCain also repeats the mantra that cutting the capital gains tax rate will increase government receipts. In fact, rate cuts produce a spike in revenue, but it’s only temporary. McCain also falsely claims that higher capital gains tax rates will affect 401(k) plans.

* McCain was the first to announce the now widely discredited proposal to suspend federal gas taxes. The proposal wouldn’t lower prices at the pump and would result in (effectively) an $8.5 billion windfall to oil companies.

Analysis

In an April 15 speech, McCain unveiled a set of proposals that he says would reduce spending, lower taxes and still leave the government with enough money to balance the budget. We’ve already tackled McCain’s pledge to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion. In this second part, we examine his plan to lower your taxes.

Alternative Middle-Class Cuts

McCain says his plan to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be a “middle-class tax cut.” That depends on what your definition of “middle class” is.

McCain (April 15): “I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut – a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s economic adviser, confirms that the senator is referring to taxpayers making up to $200,000 a year. According to projections by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), 26.6 million of those paying the tax in 2010 will make up to $200k, while 5.8 million will make more than that. TPC figures also show that the majority (64 percent, or 20.9 million) of AMT taxpayers in 2010 will earn more than $100,000 a year. The AMT was originally devised in 1969 after 155 taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 escaped paying any federal income taxes. But because the tax isn’t indexed to inflation, it has been affecting a greater percentage of taxpayers in most income classifications each year; that $200,000 threshold would be worth $1.2 million in today’s dollars. Bush’s tax cuts have caused the AMT to affect more people than it otherwise would: Taxpayers are subject to the AMT when the amount they owe under the “regular” tax system dips below the amount they would pay under the AMT, so cuts in the regular tax rate can actually increase the number of people who must pay the AMT. In fact, the estimated percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT will have more than doubled in 2010 because of the Bush tax cuts.

Holtz-Eakin also told FactCheck.org that the families to which McCain refers would save an average of $2,000 a year. That means some would save more and some would save less. Those in higher income groups pay much more of AMT taxes than do those with lower earnings, and they would reap more of the benefits of repealing the tax as well. About 90 percent of the tax benefits of doing away with the AMT in 2007, for instance, would have gone to households in the $100k and above group; 55 percent would have gone to households earning more than $200k. We’ve charted the Tax Policy Center’s data on who will pay the AMT in 2010 and how much of the AMT tax burden they’ll bear:

Full story here…

From Fact Check dot org:

Katrina Kerfuffle
June 5, 2008

McCain claims he “supported every investigation” into the government’s role regarding the hurricane, when in fact he twice voted against an independent commission.

Summary

McCain was asked by a New Orleans reporter why he voted twice against an independent commission to investigate the government’s failings before and after Hurricane Katrina, and he incorrectly stated that he had “voted for every investigation.”

McCain actually voted twice, in 2005 and 2006, to defeat a Democratic amendment that would have set up an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. At the time of the second vote, members of both parties were complaining that the White House was refusing requests by Senate investigators for information.

The McCain campaign accused the Obama campaign of “tired negative attacks” for pointing out and documenting McCain’s gaffe.

Analysis

A New Orleans television reporter asked John McCain at a June 4 town hall meeting in Louisiana why he had voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. McCain responded that he “supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy.” That’s not true.

McCain did, as the reporter said, twice vote against legislation that would have created an independent commission, much like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the government’s role in preparedness for and response to the hurricane. Here’s the exchange:

Reporter: Senator, Maya Rodriguez at the CBS station out of New Orleans. My understanding is you have voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans. And my question is, why have you voted against that?

McCain: I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground. I’ve met with the governor. I’m not familiar with exactly what you said, but I’ve been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city.

The reporter was referring to votes on an amendment offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 to set up an independent commission to look into the government’s actions regarding Katrina. The commission would have been made up of non-federal-government employees, appointed by the president and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. Republicans defeated both attempts, with yeas and nays cast completely along party lines.

Full story here…

From Fact Check dot org:

Soft on Iran
June 5, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama’s stand on naming Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.

Summary

John McCain is attacking Barack Obama’s opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which (among other things) called for labeling Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. McCain claims that Obama’s opposition means that he also opposed calling the IRGC terrorists. We find otherwise.

* Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

* The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted “saber-rattling.”

* McCain claims that Obama must oppose calling the IRGC a terrorist group because Obama’s Web site doesn’t say anything about the IRGC. McCain’s argument is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Analysis

For the past two weeks, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain and Democratic front-runner (and now presumptive nominee) Barack Obama have engaged in a war of words over their respective positions on Iran. In a June 2 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, McCain upped the ante, criticizing Obama’s failure to support an amendment that called for designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, a charge that McCain repeats on his Web site. It’s true that Obama opposed the amendment in question. But McCain is wrong to suggest that Obama’s opposition had anything to do with the IRGC’s designation. And McCain fails to mention that Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that would have named the IRGC a terrorist organization.

Full story here…

It’s not bad enough that John McCain willfully follows the President on Iraq. It’s not enough that he caved on the torturing of detainees. It’s not even enough the McCain acknowledges being clueless about the economy. Now, John McCain wants to continue the illegal surveillance activities that violate the civil liberties of American citizens. And once again, he has managed to flip-flop from a previously stated position.

I’ll say this for him… he’s consistent. Consistently bad.

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

Full story here…

This one should be as much fun as the first!

See how you do:

If you think eight years of George W. Bush have been bad, but want to believe that the next Republican nominee might be better, think again. In 2008, John McSame has voted with George W. Bush 100% of the time in the U.S. Senate, including his decision to not even show up to vote against expanded educational benefits for veterans.

That’s right, the worst President in the history of our nation has a loyal understudy.

John McSame
May 27, 2008 12:55 pm posted by Jason Rosenbaum

CQ’s Presidential Support studies try to determine how often a legislator votes in line with the President’s position:

CQ tries to determine what the president personally, as distinct from other administration officials, does and does not want in the way of legislative action. This is done by analyzing his messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents.

So, these studies only track votes when the President has an explicit, stated opinion on a bill.

According to CQ, Senator John McCain has voted with President Bush 100% of the time in 2008 and 95% of the time in 2007:

Full story here…

So this is the kind of thing that George W. Bush inspires. John McCain must think that after Dubya, anyone would be an improvement. In fact, he is betting on it. I can’t say he is banking on it, because by his own admission, which is all too often glossed over in the mainstream media, McCain is ignorant on economic matters.

Oh yeah, give us more of that.

And the other area where McSame will be just like Bush is in showing up for work. Dubya has been the absentee president, spending more time on vacation than any Commander in Chief. Similarly, John McCain has missed 56% of the Senate votes since January, 2007. That is more than any other Senator (by a lot) with the exception of one senator (Tim Johnson) who is recovering from a brain hemorrhage.

McCain: Most absentee ‘08 Senator

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), missing another major vote on the Iraq war today in favor of presidential campaigning, has pulled far ahead of his 2008 rivals in at least one category: absenteeism.

McCain, who missed today’s vote while campaigning in South Carolina as part of another re-launch of his White House bid, has gone two straight weeks without casting a single vote on the chamber floor. He’s missed 18 straight votes.

Over the last month, the Senate has held 33 votes. McCain, the onetime frontrunner for the Republican nomination, has been on hand for just seven of those votes.

Full story here…

Just a cute little graphic I happened to come across. It also happens to be true.

This is no slam against the French; just another glimpse into the real John McCain.

John McCain has derided other being being inconsistent, or being “flip-floppers.”

It’s funny that John should decide to cast that stone, given the glass case surrounding his own positions.

Below is a terrific article originally posted at The Carpet Bagger Report. Steve Benen does a great job of capturing a multitude of flip flops by our would-be president. So much for the “Straight Talk Express.”

McCain’s record includes ’some inconsistencies’
Posted March 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I’m delighted the NYT noticed.

Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the “Straight Talk Express” who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him.

For its part, the McCain campaign told the 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.

And if we’re playing by Republican rules, McCain’s “inconsistencies” should be a fairly serious problem.

With this in mind, for the first time in months, I thought now would be a good time to update the list of John McCain’s Biggest Flip-Flops. There have been some key additions since the last time I did this (in November).

* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain if he were 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’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.

* In February 2008, McCain abandoned his opposition to waterboarding.

* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.

* 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.

Now, it’s worth noting that there are worse qualities in a presidential candidate than changing one’s mind about a policy matter or two. McCain has been in Congress for decades; he’s bound to shift now and then on various controversies.

But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned practically every position he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops; it’s the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops.

An interesting piece on the fear-mongering of John McCain. Olbermann’s analysis? This was no slip of the tongue, but is a deliberate muddying of the water to play off of people’s fears. McCain would rather treat American voters as though they are dumb and can’t understand subtlety. While there is probably some truth to that the fact is, Mr. McSame, that those of us that are planning to keep you honest are not going to miss this type of double-speak. Most of us get the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia, and understand which side Iran would support. Frankly, the fact of the matter is that Iran really has very little to gain from increased instability in Iraq; they already stand to be the major beneficiaries of the American occupation, given that the Sunnis are now largely in control of Iraq. That’s right, our invasion ultimately strengthens their hand… and you want to stay longer.

I guess the flames of eternal war need some fanning.

Wait a minute, I thought foreign policy was this guy’s strength. Thank goodness his buddy Joe was there to bail him out.

McCain’s Militant Mixup
Posted on Mar 19, 2008

Presidential contender John McCain took a trip to the Middle East to showcase his foreign policy chops, so the opposition was particularly delighted that it was during such a demonstration that he committed this gaffe.

While attempting to explain Iran’s influence in neighboring Iraq, the would-be commander in chief repeatedly refers to Tehran’s support for al-Qaida. Iran is a Shiite country that has been accused of arming Shiite militants, and not the militantly Sunni al-Qaida.

Here are two great (and highly accurate) cartoons from journalist, writer and cartoonist Andrew Wahl, who has an excellent site at An Off The Wahl Perspective. It’s worth checking out. Andrew has graciously given me permission to post these here, and I will stay on the lookout for any other McCain cartoons that he produces.

Remember when John McCain went to Iraq and walked through an open air market bragging about how safe he was? Of course, he failed to mention that he had more security around him than most small nations have. Well, it’s amazing what a difference a year makes.

So, the McSurge is working, John?

One Year Later, Market Where McCain Strolled ‘Freely’ Is Controlled By Sadr, Too Unsafe For Americans To Visit»

On April 1, 2007, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) strolled through the open-air Shorja market in Baghdad in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq. In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market was proof that people could “walk freely” in parts of Baghdad.

What McCain failed to mention was that he was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” He also appeared to be wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

Since that trip, McCain has claimed that the situation in Iraq has improved even more. A few months ago, McCain claimed that “we’ve succeeded militarily” in Iraq. Things, of course, are going so well, that he wants to keep U.S. troops there for at least 100 years.

McCain is now back in Iraq for a “surprise visit with Iraqi and American diplomatic and military leaders.” He is joined by fellow Iraq war defenders Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But it’s unlikely they will be visiting the Shorja market again. Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:

We got close to that marketplace today, Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn’t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby.

But when you show up, the local Iraqis, while it is clear security is better on the street — it is clear there are more markets open, just the traffic jams alone tell you that things are better on the streets of Baghdad — it’s also a very sensitive potential neighborhoods.

That one marketplace, as a matter of fact, you do see Iraqi police, you do see the Iraqi army, but in truth, that area is controlled by the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi army.

Civilian deaths per day in Iraq are up to 39 from a low of 20 last January, while at the same time, there has been “a sharp increase in attacks resulting in the deaths of U.S. soldiers.” Twelve Americans were killed last week over a period of four days, “bringing the overall U.S. military death toll since the start of the war near 4,000.”

The Associated Press recently interviewed Iraqis who “said they were not necessarily changing their daily routines,” but “the growing bloodshed was present in their minds, clouding what had until recently been a more hopeful time.”

Here is a great article from Politico.com from someone who voted for John McCain when he ran for president in 2000. Very enlightening for anyone who thinks that John McCain has not completely sold out on his principles.

Not the candidate he used to be
By: Cenk Uygur
Mar 12, 2008 08:30 PM EST

I voted for John McCain in 2000. If he had won the Republican primary, I definitely would have voted for him in the general election against Al Gore. The John McCain of 2000 was the Barack Obama of 2008 — a guy who gave you hope that politics could change and that someone with integrity could actually win.

But he didn’t win. And instead of McCain changing politics, politics changed him.

Now, that McCain of yesteryear is unrecognizable. He has taken nearly every position he abhorred and gotten in bed with every loathsome political figure he fought against. Where have you gone, John McCain? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

There are two different McCains: the John McCain of 2000 and the John McCain of 2008.

The John McCain of 2000 called the Christian right preachers, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, the “agents of intolerance.” He was right. These people are complete charlatans — and McCain knows it. At least he did in 2000.

The John McCain of 2008 has kissed the ring of nearly every major Christian right preacher in the country, even Falwell. Falwell said the United States had the Sept. 11 attacks coming because we tolerate homosexuals, feminists and liberals. The John McCain of 2000 would have found that despicable. The John McCain of 2008 gave the commencement speech at Falwell’s Liberty University.

The John McCain of 2000 said this: “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”

The John McCain of 2008 has pandered to those same exact folks. Can you imagine if Obama gave a speech at an event honoring Farrakhan?

And now, McCain says he is “very honored” to get the endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee, who has called the Catholic church the “Great Whore.” The John McCain of 2000 must be hanging his head in shame.

The John McCain of 2000 thought cutting taxes when you couldn’t pay for it was a terrible idea. In 2003, he thought it was an even worse idea to do that in the middle of a war. The John McCain of 2008 says he will make these same tax cuts permanent.

Is anyone paying attention? Who snatched the body of McCain? I hope it wasn’t the same person who snatched Dick Cheney’s body in 2000.

The Sell-Out Express chugs on. The top issue for McCain has been lobbying reform. That is, until 2008. The man who helped build the public financing apparatus in America is now rejecting public financing in the primaries. But it gets worse.

Full story here…

Please post a caption in the Comments section. Thanks!