Say Anything Blog

My reaction?  Meh. He said what he said then, but he’s campaigning on staying in Iraq now. And that’s not exactly the path of least resistance when it comes to foreign policy.

If he didn’t mean what he’s saying about Iraq now he wouldn’t be saying it.  For me, that’s all that really matters.

Translation:  “Yeah, it was a flip-flop...but his flip-flops aren’t like Dems flip-flops...because McCain is being honest about his flip-flop”:

The mind boggles when trying to understand the silliness behind the Republican’s lack of principles, standards and values, when it comes to making excuses for their own.

Logical back-flip anyone??  They are fun when jumping off a cliff.

My reaction?  Meh.

Well duh.  After all, it’s not a dirty liberal being inconsistent. 

I’m beginning to see the rationale over here. 

Liberal fluidity in position = lying bastards
Conservative fluidity in position = learned/bastians of truth

Liberal fluidity in position = lying bastards
Conservative fluidity in position = learned/bastians of truth

Uh...right Jay.  That’s entirely accurate.

Get real.  I’m no friend of McCain.  I wish we weren’t going to nominate the guy.  But this issue?  C’mon.

He’s not taking a hard line on Iraq out of political convenience.  This isn’t like going to church with a white-hating bigot for 20 years and then turning around and saying the guy offends you.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This isn’t like going to church with a white-hating bigot for 20 years and then turning around and saying the guy offends you.

A desperate and painful attempt to change the subject is usually what is called for at a time like this.

There is some simple expediency here on McCains part.  Finishing this right is a foregone conclusion now.  Obama and Clinton don’t campaign on this to the general public anymore. 

I’m troubled by the flip flop because it indicates he wouldn’t have tried but he’s not willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  I think my half hearted support is fully warranted.

What should be disturbing (but isn’t) to my counterparts is that moving forward this will give lie to the idea that they can count on McCain to make the right decisions and when the going gets rough.  Or it should give them concern that McCain is merely shifting his positions out of political opportunism.

How can you be a maverick if you don’t do the opposite of what is popular at every moment?  This is after all, the schtick we have been seeing on McCain on issues such as immigration, iraq war, campaign finance and few others.

But why worry about leadership and judgement calls that might be made by the potential president, when you can instead write about people who stood near Obama, or the stupid things his pastor had said in the past?

He’s not taking a hard line on Iraq out of political convenience.

Do you really believe this?  It is entirely politically convenient.  Or are you willing to admit to me that the majority of the American public AND your own political party come to the conclusion that an exit from Iraq is what’s necessary.  You can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth Rob.

This isn’t like going to church with a white-hating bigot for 20 years and then turning around and saying the guy offends you.

No, it’s not.  Because McCain has had two (if not three) positions on our involvement in Iraq.  Obama has had but one regarding his pastor.  Certainly there are others, but they are of your own creation.  Those “close ties” to Reverand Wright that you so want the people to believe in sure are coming in handy for Obama right now aren’t they?  I know that when I have “close ties” with someone, I’m normally the first one they throw under the bus when the going gets tough.  Get off of it.  It’s obvious that your position is faulty and you simply can’t let it go. 

And this is what makes your dismissal of McCain’s political inconsistencies so enraging.  It’s only outrageous when your party’s candidate isn’t the one doing it. 

I’m no friend of McCain.  I wish we weren’t going to nominate the guy.

But your party WILL nominate him...and you’re covering for him.

If he didn’t mean what he said then about Iraq, how could he perform the old McCain switcheroo now?

For me, that’s all that really matters.

Hey, it’s Flipper John, what did you expect...consistency?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

H and Jay: If John McCain wanted to endear himself to the vast pool of democrat and independent voters, he could pander and say, “I told you this wasn’t working years ago and I still think so.” That would be the popular, safe and sensible thing to do, since nearly 70% of them oppose the war.

Instead, McCain has bitten the bullet, taken a potentially unpopular stand, and vowed that we must not leave the Iraqi people and our troops in the lurch.  That takes conviction and a certain amount of guts to do.

Already, the DNC Madison Avenue sleeze-bags are running ads saying that McCain wants the war to go on for a hundred years. I expect that the American people, with their usual common sense, will see this dem crap for what it is.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

But why worry about leadership and judgement calls that might be made by the potential president, when you can instead write about people who stood near Obama, or the stupid things his pastor had said in the past?

Um, yea, cause Obama’s association with Wright wasn’t a judgement call or anything. Yawn.

This isn’t a flip flop. He was asked if he would be ok with leaving troops indefinately in Iraq...like in Germany and Japan (both peaceful nations btw). The comparison is between indefinate troop deployment, not simply completing the mission.

"If he didn’t mean what he’s saying about Iraq now he wouldn’t be saying it.  For me, that’s all that really matters.”?!?!?!?

So he lied before, but he says what you want to hear and that means he is not lying now? Really?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I love the extremity of the positions displayed here: some seem to hold that any change of position is a flip flop and therefore the new position - and the person holding it - is necessarily bad. Others seem to hold that since a given politician has changed position, the change of position is a flip flop and therefore it is never bad for a politician to flip flop.

Changing one’s opinion, in and of itself, isn’t a flip flop. A flip flop is changing a position back and forth (and even back again) for the mere sake of expediency. Were a person to never change their position - regardless of any new information, or the perspective that time and space from an event can bring - would in fact be evidence of a serious character flaw.

A good leader - hell, a good person - should be steadfast but not stupidly stubborn.

Repubs turning on their own?  Wow.  I didn’t think the principle was there to pull it off.

Changing one’s opinion, in and of itself, isn’t a flip flop. A flip flop is changing a position back and forth (and even back again) for the mere sake of expediency.

I COMPLETELY.....agree.

In 2005, McCain decided Iraqis resent our military presence, so we should reject a Korea-like model for long-term troop deployment. He insisted that “U.S. ‘visibility’ was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America’s presence — positions held by both Obama and Clinton.”

In 2006, McCain reversed course, and embraced the Korea model for a long-term military presence.

In 2007, McCain reversed course again, saying the Korean analogy doesn’t work and shouldn’t be followed. “[E]ventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws,” McCain told Charlie Rose last fall.

And in 2008, McCain reversed course yet again, deciding that we should be prepared to leave troops in Iraq, even if it means 100 years or more.

Link, H. You quote a lot of stuff and you never link to it.

That’s dishonest.

Link, H. You quote a lot of stuff and you never link to it.

That’s dishonest.

You can always Google Kenny.  But it’s a reasonable request.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15370.html

What, you didnt like the link?