This is a follow-up on some of the discussion in the comments.
So the Republican party is in a pickle. When most of the country wants to get out of Iraq, Republicans tell us what we really want is "victory". Most of the country wants universal healthcare coverage, Republicans tell want to give us "market solutions". Most of the country doesn't want free trade, so the Republicans tell us to support "open global markets". In every case, in order to hide the fact that Republican positions are out of step with Americans, they have to cover up what their positions are - or outright lie - in order to confuse voters. (See Lieberman, Joseph - "Nobody wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do".)
And then there's the question of reproductive rights. McCain is on the record - he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe V. Wade.
McCain knows in order to win he needs both the fringe right-wing base to be energized, plus enough crossover voters (Regan Democrats, Hillary Democrats, independents, liberal Republicans if there are any left, etc.) to be competitive in key states. By selecting Sarah Palin, who would oppose abortion even in the case of rape and incest, as his running mate it appears he has accomplished the former, but Palin presents a potential double-edged sword.
Partly due to his media-bestowed title of Mavericky Maverick of Mavericks, and partly of his own political maneuvering and image-making, there is still a perception today that John McCain is pro-choice, even among progressive voters, even among pro-choice women. A significant number of his supporters self-identify as pro-choice. While the media seemed enthralled - at least for a day or two - with the idea that Sarah Palin would appeal to former Hillary voters, this appears less and less likely, as her rhetoric has been based on fiery, ideological identity politics, very specifically designed to activate the theoconservative voter. As Palin has become the rallying call (not to mention the de facto head of the ticket, at least in view of the base), the question of Roe vs. Wade will likely come up in the debates and McCain will have a little harder time avoiding the question.
But McCain-Palin will try to blur the issue, because, well, they have to.
I came across this piece from Anna Quindlen (who I don't know much about) in Newsweek, it is well-written and does a good job illustrating McCain's flip-flopping and pandering. More importantly it documents his voting record and some of his own quotes about his compromising his principles. The piece effectively debunks the moderate/maverick/principled myth, and I think it would be a good candidate for a McCain googlebomb.
Here's some selections:
What's interesting about all this is not the flip-flopping. All pols flip-flop: if they're Republicans, they describe it as "evolving," and if they're Democrats, they get pounded for it. (If either Clinton or Obama had followed the trajectory described above on an important issue, it would be running on a continuous loop around the digital news wire in Times Square.) And McCain's voting record on abortion is clear. He has a zero lifetime rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund because of his opposition to, among other things, family-planning funding and sex education. When benighted friends used to suggest that McCain was a stealth moderate, I urged them to look at his voting record, which was about as moderate as Strom Thurmond's.
But now even his record has become irrelevant, since to become the front runner McCain has jettisoned many of his past positions. The Bush tax cuts: McCain voted against them as a senator, but now says he would make them permanent as president. Immigration: he cosponsored a bill in 2005 to make it easier for those in the country illegally to become citizens, but now says that if his own bill-his own bill!-came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would vote against it. After Columbine, he called for more gun control; after Virginia Tech, he said more gun control was unnecessary.
...
Sen. James Webb has been trying to nail McCain down on a revamped GI Bill that would fund education for veterans. But the closest McCain has come to a position is to say he needs to examine it more closely. Both Obama and Clinton support the bill, and it's fair to assume that neither senator has any more leisure time than McCain. If the point is that the Republican candidate is incapable of multitasking, that's something he might want to lick before he becomes president...
In 2000 he was asked about the Confederate battle flag, which flew from the capitol dome in South Carolina. McCain first called it a "symbol of racism and slavery," then backed off with a "clarification" that described it as a "symbol of heritage." Later he admitted, "I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles."
He has done that over and over during this race. The Straight Talk Express is all over the road.There are those optimists who like to believe that once elected, McCain would again emerge as a small-government progressive who would set his own course. But it is the greatest of illusions to believe that a man will masquerade to win, then revert to his authentic self - after all, there is always another election coming.
I've been wrestling with this diary for a day and a half... basically as Iraq has moved into the background, I've spent a bit less time thinking about it, but then I saw something on TV that I had to write about. Here goes...
The horserace narrative has swung back into full tweety ahead over the weekend. But more troubling to me than the Clinton/Obama back-and-forth (and let me say, pretty much all of the Democrats running for Prez are equally complicit in Iraq in my eyes) was what Clinton repeated over and over during her interview on Meet the Press on Sunday. Her rationalization for her vote on the 2002 AUMF was 1) it was her understanding that the vote was not for actual use of force but rather for the threat of force 2) she thought inspectors would go back in 3) she found out later Bush was deceiving Congress (and the American people) by going in unilaterally on an inflated / fabricated case for war. In this characterization, Bush is the one who bears the full responsibility for the war. Here's what she said on the transcript:
Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it.
...
I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it.
...
It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job. That's not what I was told by the Bush White House. That's not what we were told in constant briefings from high-level Bush administration officials. That's not what the president told the country in his speech in Cincinnati shortly before the vote. If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation.
Clinton is saying that Bush abused the power of war under false pretenses, and deliberately misled the country by lying about his intentions. Okay, I think we all can agree with that.
But this begs what should be a very obvious question, one that Russert did not ask.
