McCain's Free Pass On Flip-Flops

National Review Online: Republican Hopeful's New Hampshire Defenders Ignore His Shifts While Trashing Romney

(National Review Online)  This column was written by the editors of National Review Online.

---

John McCain’s aides complain that Mitt Romney is running a negative campaign. Those same aides have been attacking Romney themselves, but for the most part they can outsource the negativism to their friends in the press -- starting with the Union Leader, a prominent conservative newspaper in New Hampshire that has endorsed him. (We have endorsed Romney.)

The Union Leader’s advocacy of John McCain has become so fierce and lopsided that it has practically transformed itself into a pro-McCain 527 organization. It has not formalized the arrangement, which is lucky for it: If it had, McCain would, on his campaign-finance principles, have to try to shut it down.

There is a lot to like about Senator McCain, and we do not fault the Union Leader for endorsing him. We do fault its double standards. The newspaper counts it as a damnable “flip-flop” every time Romney has changed his position or even his emphasis. McCain can switch his views on the very same issues without a disparaging word from the Union Leader.

Take taxes. Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, stayed neutral in the battle over President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts. We wish he had spoken up in their favor. Senator McCain, alas, was not silent: He voted against the tax cuts, as he had voted against the 2001 tax cuts. He flip-flopped on estate taxes, defending them after having voted to get rid of them. As he geared up to run for president this time around, however, McCain became a born-again supply-sider. Now he wants to keep the tax cuts he originally opposed.

The Union Leader has blasted Romney for changing his mind on immigration. It accused him of lying, too, for saying that McCain wanted to let illegal immigrants earn Social Security benefits while working here illegally. But Romney was right. McCain has voted to let illegal immigrants who meet certain conditions become citizens and then receive benefits for their prior illegal work. Few Senate Republicans joined him.

We won’t throw around the word “lie” quite as recklessly as the Union Leader, but its candidate first argued for an “amnesty” and then spent months claiming that his immigration bill did not amount to one. And if flip-flopping on immigration is a crime, McCain can be charged with it, too. He himself says that he has changed his position on the issue. One of the principal points at issue in the debate over his bill was whether we should try “enforcement first.” Since the bill’s collapse, McCain has said that he now understands that we should. If that is not a flip-flop, it is only because his claims of a change of heart are insincere. (The liberal newspapers that have endorsed him seem to think so.)

Some of Romney’s critics allow that all politicians change their positions over time, but say that Romney stands out for changing his very political identity. Supposedly he ran as a moderate technocrat in Massachusetts, but is running as a culture warrior in the Republican primaries. We think both halves of this characterization are overstated, but in any case it is not a critique that John McCain’s supporters can credibly make. McCain was a reliably conservative legislator for 15 years. Then he moved left for three years, so much so that liberals began urging him to change parties. Then he zigged back to the right.

For us, the most important question about a flip-flop is whether the movement is in the right direction. We are glad that Romney has changed his mind about abortion and McCain has changed his about taxes, although we prefer Romney’s open admission that he was wrong in the past to McCain’s evasiveness. We hope McCain comes around some more on immigration, and campaign-finance reform, and a lot of other issues -- and we will not attack him as a flip-flopper if he does. Voters who hold flip-flops against politicians, however, should be warned: McCain is every bit as much of one as Romney is, and all the bile of New Hampshire’s editorialists cannot change the fact.

[reddfredd]

briannorwood....

So you''re a democrat who likes Juan McCain... what a surprise.

Saying McCain didn''t flip flop because you respect him is idiotic. Your regard for him does not, has not, and will not keep him from chinging his positions according to the prevailing political winds.

Simply saying he''s not because you''ve always respected his honesty doesn''t address the MANY examples given both in the article and in the posts previous to yours. After you''ve finished addressing those, then you''re opinion may be relevant. Until then you''re just another democrat who wants McCain.

McCain is a flip-flopper. Pure and simple.

[reddfredd]

Intellectual Creampuffs? Romney? With two *** Laude Harvard Degrees? Probably not. But it is good to know that you''ve bought into the propoganda. We need gullible people in our society too, I guess.

[mitt4prez]

How can the American people forgive McCain
for so readily being willing to throw away our sovereignty? His failure to secure the border and enforce the immigration laws is unforgiveable. His willingnesss to allow illegals to collect OUR social security benefits (taxpayer money) is ludicrous.
*THE SHAMNESTY KING, wrong on giving social security benefits to illegal aliens, wrong on Gitmo and wrong on waterboarding.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=5365
SEE the Conservative Case Against John McCain,

[mitt4prez]

-- McCain flipped on climate change:
John McCain proposed a radical bill, that is not all that different from the Kyoto Protocol. McCain''s bill would do cataclysmic damage to our economy. Here''s the damage John McCain would be willing to do to our economy. htp://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lewis200406160854.asp

--Flipped on faith
The Associated Press broke a story about McCain%u2019s statement in Sept 2007 saying that he is in fact a Baptist, despite his past comments that he is an Episcopalian. The news hook is that McCain made these comments while he was in South Carolina, which happens to have a lot of Baptist voters. %u201CI didn%u2019t find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs,%u201D he said. He told McClatchy he found the Baptist church more fulfilling than the Episcopalian church, but still referred to himself as an Episcopalian. Uh huh.
-- Flipped on guns
**Senator McCain supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006.
**Senator McCain supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005. WOW WHAT A CHANGE! HMMMM.
--McCain flipped on the virtues of Evangelical Leadership
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" in 2002, but has since "reconciled" and has cozied up quite a bit.
--McCain flipped on the Law of Sea Convention
Long-time vocal supporter of the Law, now (just this last month) he''s against it.

[mitt4prez]

The bottomline is that whenever it counted McCain stabbed conservativs in the back. They will NOT reward him with the nomination after his Gang of 14 stunts and his AMNESTY TRAVESTY. Mitt has a platform aligned with the GOP and McCain is not immune from his own flip flops. So Mitt wins.
--McCain flipped on the Bush tax cuts
Most conservatives believe the biggest domestic success of George Bush''s first term were his tax cuts. John McCain voted against them, more than once, before finally flip-flopping and voting for them this year.
--McCain flipped on gay marriage
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-*** marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-*** marriage. (Sep 1996)
--McCain flipped on ethanol.
McCain was anti-ethanol when he was skipping Iowa in 1999. In 2006 he was pro-ethanol while campaigning in Iowa . Now he''s pretty anti-ethanol again that he''s decided to bypass Iowa. (THIS ONE IS A TRUE FLIP FLOP . . . Been on both sides of the issue multiple times)
--McCain flipped on Roe.
In NH in 1999 McCain told reporters that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." He explained that overturning Roe would force "women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
In 2006, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.

[roger_inkart]

Another hachet job from the NRO - the National Equirer of political journalism.

[brianbwb-2009]

"(We have endorsed Romney.)"

So since you also endorsed treasons and war crimes and crimes against humanity as committed by the Bush klan, we now have a better view of what you think Romney stands for, just more of the same.

No more Republicans. Ever.

[brianbwb-2009]

"(We have endorsed Romney.)"

So since you also endorsed treasons and war crimes and crimes against humanity as committed by the Bush klan, we now have a better view of what you think Romney stands for, just more of the same.

No more Repuiblicans. Ever.

[briannorwood]

Excuse me? This guy must be smoking dope! I''m a Democrat, but have always respected John McCain for his consistancy and honesty.

For this moron to claim that McCain is a flip-flopper is insane and seems to be more or the same trash that comes from the Romney campaign.

The voters won''t be fooled. There are just two pandering flip-floppers on the Republican side... and Romney leads the pack (with Giuliani following close behind).

I suggest Mitt go back to hunting varments in New Hampshire, and leave politics to people with real convictions.

[juwboy]

Which candidates are Freemasons?

Why are there mystical Masonic symbols on our dollar bills?

Which past Presidents were Freemasons and how did affect their decision/policy-making?

[adiant-2009]

I just wonder the criteria used by you to pick one out of two disastrous candidates. To choose between McCain and Romney? Between war based on oil domination and religious-based-fears of the mormon brand? Give me a break!!!

[Razzl]

The big picture is that both men have made themselves appear pathetic by changing positions on matters men their age don''t change positions on just to be able to say to primary audiences what they think they want to hear. Who wants to vote for candidates with that kind of weak character? Why trust anything such men have to say? McCain has used up his pool of good will generated by facing down the Bush administration on torture and Romney simply looks like a fool. It isn''t hard to see the appeal of sideshow candidates like Paul, Huckabee, and Thompson when your prime guys are intellectual creampuffs...

[idlepugilist]

The NRO, in all its wisdom, paints John McCain as pro-tax because he voted against Bush''s tax cuts the most benefitted the wealthiest Americans. Apparently the writers and editors of the NRO are paid too well and resented having to pay the same amount of tax, let alone any tax at all.
The wealthiest Americans have the game figured: "My corporation provides jobs for tens/hundreds/thousands of people, and my corporation pays plenty of taxed so therefore I shouldn''t have to pay as much personal income tax." Therein lies the same mentality as those on welfare: entitlement. The tax systems doesn''t say you have to be limited to earning a specific amount and that''s it. If you''re bloody wealthy, go ahead and enhance it, but stop expecting Anybody who makes $50,000/yr to have a shred of sympathy for you when it comes to taxes. Romney will play the same game with taxes Bush is playing, and it will most benefit the rich.

[reformedrepb]

I need these answers before I vote in the NH primary on Jan 8th. I''m still waiting for Sen. Mccain''s organization to respond to these inquiries.
My guess is, they wont.

Sen. McCain you are quoted as having said: "The Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation."
Here are my questions:

1) WHERE in the Constitution is Christianity even mentioned, much less established as the nation''s religion?

2) How do you interpret anything in the Constitution as endorsing a national religion of any type, given the 1st Amendments Establishment Clause, and Thomas Jefferson''s, and James Madison''s writings relative to the "wall of separation" between church and state ?

3) In the Treaty of Tripoli (1796), signed by President John Adams, it specifically states the US is NOT a Christian nation. Was the treaty''s verbiage a falsehood? Was Adams lying? Do you have access to a similar legally binding document that attests to the US BEING a Christian Nation?

4) As an educated man, is it more likely that you don''t really believe the Constitution establishes the US as a Christian Nation, but were in fact just pandering to the Religious Right? Or perhaps you were misquoted and would like to correct the record.

Please advise.