He was quoted as saying he could not be for any tax cuts that gave most of the benefits to the rich when talking about the 01 tax cut plan(voted against it then). He then OKd the Captial Gains tax cut in 03.

 

 

 

When you are quoted in 99 saying that you could never overturn R v W and then you change after catching heat from RTL....

 

 

No silence. I agreed (How did he get from point A to point B).

 

As to the tax cuts, so I assume you'd agree his flop occurred in 03; not now. Kind of hard to say that a change that occurred 5 years ago is tied to now pandering to the far right to now get elected as President (again, which was supposedly the point of the article). If McCain is somehow less of a maverick because he supports the tax cut, he lost that maverick status back in 03.

 

As to the R v W, I will agree with you that McCain has been very back and forth on whether he would work to overturn the decision. So that is a valid criticism by the author. But I likewise think the author with a little research could have easily discovered that McCain has consistently and for a long time voted "anti abortion" and should have disclosed that voting record in his article if he was trying to inform his readers about where McCain stands. He could have fairly stated that McCain is flip flopping on R vs W, but has a long and consistent voting record on women's reproductive rights. By pointing out the flip flop on R v W, but not mention the consistent voting record I think is misleading.

 

I'll admit that his position on overturning R v W is flip floppish, but I don't think any of the other supposed now flip flops to get the far right vote hold water.

I found the one on Obama offensive. I find this one on McCain offensive. Not sure which is worse, but neither should be in print IMHO.

I found the one on Obama offensive. I find this one on McCain offensive. Not sure which is worse, but neither should be in print IMHO.

In my opinion, if you're a big enough to run the country, then you should be big enough to not let this stuff get under your skin. Politics is dirty and getting elected is even dirtier. As Harry Truman said "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

As to the tax cuts, so I assume you'd agree his flop occurred in 03; not now. Kind of hard to say that a change that occurred 5 years ago is tied to now pandering to the far right to now get elected as President (again, which was supposedly the point of the article). If McCain is somehow less of a maverick because he supports the tax cut, he lost that maverick status back in 03.

 

 

Poor wording on my part. He voted against the Bush tax cuts in 01, 03,04, and 05. He changed his mind in 06 which has led many to believe that the change in tune and the timing were tied to his upcoming run for the White House. He did, in 03, vote for the cap gains cut.

I view McCains stance on the tax cuts the same as his stance on off shore drilling. He feels one way when the economy is going strong and now the economy is not so good he changes his stance. He feels one way about off shore drilling when gas is $1.50 a gallon, now that gas is $4.50 a gallon he changes his stance. That is flip flopping. Changing your mind from week to week like someone I will not mention, is flip flopping like a fish out of water.

I view McCains stance on the tax cuts the same as his stance on off shore drilling. He feels one way when the economy is going strong and now the economy is not so good he changes his stance. He feels one way about off shore drilling when gas is $1.50 a gallon, now that gas is $4.50 a gallon he changes his stance. That is flip flopping. Changing your mind from week to week like someone I will not mention, is flip flopping like a fish out of water.

 

I'm less concerned about the flopping issue than I am about his lack of foresight.

I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Taibbi was high on drugs while writing this article- it has happened before:

 

It was about four minutes into the phone call before I realized the fuss was over my column......which I had written in the waning hours of a Vicodin haze the previous Saturday morning.

I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Taibbi was high on drugs while writing this article- it has happened before:

 

 

Does that possibility change the discussion?

Does that possibility change the discussion?

Quite a few posters commented on how all they got from the article (FWIW I did not read) is that he is a poor writer. As well as the fact that last time he wrote an article that garnered controversy (I believe it was entitled something along the lines of "100 Reasons to celebrate the Death of the Pope") he responded that he was working off a high.

 

It does not change your discussion on McCain's flip-flopping. It does touch on the thread's title "Why no outcry here?", because I believe that my post indicates what I think- there is no outcry here because no one cares what Matt Taibbi, who has openly admitted writing articles while under the influence, says or thinks.

LN, let me disagree with you. I don't think the purpose of the article was to debate policy positions. The author clearly says that this supposedly independent middle-of-the-road Republican has resorted to the same ol' same ol' when it comes time to campaign. It would be hard to ignore Mr. McCain's change in positions on areas such as taxes and , say, immigration when he has gone from what some would call "middle ground" to what is the traditional "right." He's playing to his audience despite it going against what he has said in the past. That's the point of the article as I read it.

I find this funny to say the least. Odd how he doesn't want to mention Obama's playing to his audience despite it going against what he has said in the past. :lol:

I find this funny to say the least. Odd how he doesn't want to mention Obama's playing to his audience despite it going against what he has said in the past. :lol:

 

I only think that bothers people who support McCain. It should come as no surprise that Matt Tiabbi of Rolling Stone slants right. However, again, it doesn't change the points he's making about Mr. McCain.

I'm not one that gets caught up in the flip-flop debate. However, in this case it would be difficult to argue that the "Maverick" has not made a sharp right turn. That's the point of the article as I read it.

 

 

As I said, it's apparently immaterial in this election since Obama has also made a series of sharp left and right turns. If one or the other had not it would be an issue. That's not to say both sides won't continue to make it an issue.

I only think that bothers people who support McCain. It should come as no surprise that Matt Tiabbi of Rolling Stone slants right. However, again, it doesn't change the points he's making about Mr. McCain.

 

My editor called. It should have said "Matt Tiabbi of Rolling Stone slants left."