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.
Hannitized - 08:04am on 04/29/2008
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
Jay - 08:04am on 04/29/2008
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.
Rob - 08:04am on 04/29/2008
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.
Hannitized - 08:04am on 04/29/2008
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.
FlyOnTheWall - 08:04am on 04/29/2008
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?
Hannitized - 11:04am on 04/29/2008
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.
Jay - 12:04pm on 04/29/2008
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?
realitybasedbob - 12:04pm on 04/29/2008
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.
pparets - 01:04pm on 04/29/2008
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.