CAMPOS: McCain's the real flip-flopper
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
One of the curiosities of American politics is the media's ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain's opposition to torture (unfortunately we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with McCain is based on other factors.
Consider this typical endorsement from The Orlando Sentinel: While McCain "has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign," Mitt Romney "has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party's conservative base." (Indeed I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain).
This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here's just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk's recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:
* On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately.
* McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics, into someone who sounds like he's drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts - for example federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases - that it's either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance).
* In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork, to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland.
* Six years ago McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance." Eighteen months ago he gave the commencement address at Falwell's university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right.
These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views, or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week.
Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc.
Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism, which stops people from bothering to check whether the story line they've repeated for years still has any relationship to reality.
But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn't even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor.
All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormenters has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
January 23, 2008
7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
campos is French slang for "endless whining".
January 23, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
8 years ago I could have found myself voting for the first republican in my life if McCain would have beaten Bush. Because he was pushing campaign finance reform. Something that would help solve our biggest problems in politics. But this flipfloper let Bush duct tape his mouth and made him go away quietly.
January 23, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
ledbetter66 writes:
Paul, why are you so down on Mccain? Remember, he wants to give amnesty to all your friends south of the border.
January 23, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
kbrigan writes:
rickg19611 and ledbetter66, please stop wasting everyone's time with the childish insults. You're not saying anything remotely useful or even original, and certainly not converting anyone to your opinion, whatever the heck that is. (Since you're not saying anything of substance, there's just no way to know what it is you're actually arguing for or against.)
===
Meanwhile, this is not good news -- McCain's been on my tiny list of possibles (along with Hillary, sort of). While I don't agree all the items on this list make McCain unreachable, there are a couple personal "dealbreakers" that I'll need to research further.
No kidding -- I may not vote at all this year in the Prez race, even though I'm generally pretty passionate about doing so. (Can't get all those women with feeding tubes tearing up their throats out of my head, for one thing, and then there was that time Suzie B. went to jail.) All the candidates scare me, one way or another. Not one of them is anybody I remotely trust to make a sound decision -- it's all about courting influence and playing stupid image games. Maybe I'll just write in Pat Paulson...
January 23, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sam291 writes:
Campos:
"In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork, to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland."
Des Moines Register (11/06/07):
"Presidential candidate John McCain told biofuel proponents here Monday night that he opposes government subsidies on ethanol the same way he opposes subsidies on other products, including oil.
The Arizona senator was the only Republican among four candidates who spoke to a few hundred participants at a renewable-energy conference at Iowa State University's Hilton Coliseum. He said he knows his position on ethanol might not be popular in Iowa, adding that it's what he believes."
Link: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps...
Why is Campos lying about McCain?
January 24, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
kbrigan writes:
Sam291: Are you saying the McCain "flip flop" on ethanol could not have happened since last November? Specifics, please.
Also, what about all the other items on the list? You've found one that MIGHT be inaccurate. I'm not so sure. Two months is a long time, campaign-wise.
And, Gene, all you've done is demonstrate that you can't construct a legitimate argument. I don't care who says it; I care what they're saying. You know -- that whole ad hominem deal (or pro hominem, in your instance).
January 24, 2008
11:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sam291 writes:
I'm saying that Campos is either incompetent or a liar. McCain continues to oppose ethanol subsidies.
Campos also hideously misrepresented McCain's position on abortion.
January 25, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
kbrigan writes:
ON ABORTION:
This is from today's McCain campaign website (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/I...):
"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion... [I]mportant groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level."
Looks like he wants to make abortion completely illegal to me. One to Campos. And, enough to put me more firmly in the None of the Above camp.
ON ETHANOL:
Can't tell from the campaign site (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/I...). Nothing comes up under "ethanol." Lotsa vagueries -- strong economy making good stewards, that sort of thing. Does say he's pro nuclear power. Nothing specific there about ethanol or subsidies. One page about "low carbon fuels" (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/N...). [Most important fact on that page is that McCain is apparently willing to be on the same stage with a disgusting, foolish, violent sex offender (and all around jerk), which is more than enough to make me look elsewhere. This is me taking another look at Hillary...]
Verdict: unresolved on ethanol, but his getting chummy with violent criminals (aka. Schwarzenegger) means he's enough of a misogynist and/or opportunist to put his campaign before ethics. DUMP 'IM.
January 25, 2008
5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
kbrigan writes:
Brief and incomplete round-up:
McCain: anti-choice (now); claims to support "invidividual responsibility" when it comes to fatness, but doesn't have the balls to say out loud that the "obesity epidemic" doesn't exist, and the fatness is overwhelmingly normal, genetic and involuntary.
Clinton: willing to "fight obesity" with "incentives and penalties," although I can't find anybody in her campaign willing to spell out exactly what she's talking about (or what data they're using, since there's no way for people anywhere to lose weight permanently without killing themselves.) Oh, yeah. By the way. Hillary? Penalize *this.*
Huckabee: totally loon crazy, and also likely to not be able to serve out his term due to complications from the "weight-loss" surgery. Intelligence and mental functioning likely compromised due to malnutrition. Also, totally loon crazy.
Ron Paul: anti-choice. No, really. An anti-choice Libertarian. Endorses the inherent civil rights of fat people to be lazy gluttons. OK, Ron, not quite clear on the concept there, dude.
Obama: totally loon crazy, and also most likely of all candidates to deny fat people basic civil rights (i.e. equal opportunity in employment or schooling, or access to health care.) Pretty darn dangerous for a guy who's supposed to be heralding in a new era of freedom or whatever the bumper sticker says. Don't look like freedom from the fat side of the room.
COLUMN SUGGESTION:
"Who should fat people vote for?"
So far, I got zilch.