Dispatches from the Creation Wars

John McCain’s Doubletalk

This is classic, a Youtube video showing John McCain contradicting himself left and right, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another audience. Of course, one could make an identical video about virtually every major politician in the country. And I think they should. I’ll be glad to post similar videos about every politicians they’re made about. The video below the fold.


  1. #1 John
    January 30, 2007
  2. #2 Roy
    January 30, 2007

    Since he is conservative, then shouldn’t there be a leftist uproar in the media screaming “Flipflop! Flipflop! Flipflop” ? Or does the media lean only one way?

  3. #3 Martin Wagner
    January 30, 2007

    McCain is the sleaziest form of hypocrite. He will literally say anything at all if he thinks it will win him even one vote, and he’ll cheerfully contradict himself from day to day. He has no position on any subject, other than “say what you think whomever you’re speaking to that minute wants to hear”. I lost any respect I might have had for the guy years ago. He’s a ho, pure and simple.

  4. #4 Michael Heath
    January 30, 2007

    Besides being a hypocrite, McCain is also not very bright, I mean the guy couldn’t beat George Bush in 2000. If McCain and Clinton are nominated, I predict she’ll crush him, even though I think she’s a weak candidate beyond the Democratic Convention. McCain can not hold up under scrutiny, he’s incapable of thinking on his feet.

    I’d love to see both parties nominate their best and brightest. McCain is far from the GOP’s best and certainly not one of its brightest.

    I yearn for something I’m sure I’ll never get, Wes Clark or John Edwards running against either Colin Powell or Rudy G.; no matter what that outcome, I believe the country would win. Worst-case? Brownback vs. Hillary, both being divisive candidates guaranteed to imflame the culture war with Brownback yearning to put us one step closer to a theocracy.

  5. #5 dogmeatIB
    January 30, 2007

    The problem is, if McCain ran against Clinton, I believe the media would do the same thing they did in 2000 for “dubya.” They’ve already annointed McCain as “Mr. Honesty, Knight of Integrity,” and Hillary has already been portrayed as a shameless poll follower.

    My fearful vision of the future is that the media does the same thing they did in ’00, portray Clinton as a liar, weak, insincere, arrogant, etc. etc. etc., while at the same time portraying McCain as a man of virtue. Right now she is actually leading in most of the polls vs. McCain and Gulianni but what do you hear from major “pundits?”

    “She’s unelectable!”

    In ’00 the media attacked Gore for “inventing the internet” (which he never said), discovering Love Canal (never said), wearing earth-tones, and all kinds of other inane BS. They attacked him for not condemning Clinton for his extra-marital affair just three months after he public did so, later claiming that he supported Clinton and then shifted his stance to condemn him (his stance was consistent throughout). The media handed the election to Bush all the while con’s are screaming “liberal media bias!!!”

    Makes one physically ill.

  6. #6 Skemono
    January 30, 2007

    he’ll cheerfully contradict himself from day to day.

    Just a day?

  7. #7 Michael Heath
    January 30, 2007

    Dogmeat – I agree with all our points but one. While I wouldn’t go so far as saying Hillary is unelectable, she is a divisive candidate and I don’t think that’s a media creation. The Democrats have a history of nominating poor candidates, some of whom would have made fine Presidents, but you have to win first.

    As a Republican who voted for Kerry in 2004, she needs to convince independents and moderates like me she’s a better candidate than the GOP nominee. You are dead nuts right that the media won’t play fair with her relative to McCain, however that could change as McCain withers under national media scrutiny and people realize he’s a numbskull (though W. kinda refutes that point doesn’t it?) I think we’ve learned our lesson and in this election, intelligence matters, something Hillary has in spades.

    One thing she has in her back pocket is her being a woman. I think a lot of women, including Republicans will silently vote for Hillary to finally break that barrier no matter what the opposition throws at her, but only if she maintains her coolness throughout what will be a very nasty campaign. That won’t be gift, she’ll earn her win. If she’s nominated, I hope her only the best and I will seriously consider her and if my party throws another theocrat at us, I’ll definitely be giving her my vote.

  8. #8 James
    January 30, 2007

    From what I’ve seen yuo guys are going to have a pretty unappetising linuep for ’08 (not that that’s new or anything). I wonder if there’s any way to convince Penn Jillette to run. He’s a far more intelligent commentator than most politicians.

  9. #9 Chris' Wills
    January 31, 2007

    As I am not a US citizen, this affects me because the US is such a powerful country but, quite rightly, I cannot do much to affect the result.

    However, I agree that John MacCain seems to have lost the plot and would get creamed against even a poor democrat candidate.
    My question is about Mrs Clinton; she has always struck me as similair to Bliar in the UK. A self serving, devious, lying etc.. used car salesperson.

    Someone above said that Mrs Clinton was intelligent, I suspect that she isn’t stupid also I suspect that Bliar is not stupid. Like Bliar she also claims to be left of centre.

    Now McCain hasn’t done much as a politician (well nothing that has made the news outside of the US of A).

    Mrs Clinton, when 1st lady was incharge of some health reformed did she do a good job or did she piss money down the drain whilst aggrandising herself and blaming others?

    Bliar has managed the same stupidity in the UK.

    As an outsider looking in, there are too many similarities between Bliar and Hillary and I think you should be very wary of her.

    Will women vote for Hillary because she is a woman?
    Many women may vote on gender lines, many women in the UK voted for the ‘smoothed tongued snake in the grass’ that is Bliar, this is a sad indictment of the reasons people vote. Mrs Clinton may also garner many black votes because of who her husband is, not on her own merit.

    My hope is, as Michael Heath wrote above, that both parties put forward their best people (honest, intelligent, hardworking) but I don’t expect it to happen. Money talks very loudly and those with lots of money to give rarely have the interests of the working and middle classes in mind when they formulate policy.

  10. #10 Martin Wagner
    January 31, 2007

    Skemono: Well, the term “day to day” is meant to denote an indefinite period of time…

  11. #11 RickD
    January 31, 2007

    “Mrs Clinton, when 1st lady was incharge of some health reformed did she do a good job or did she piss money down the drain whilst aggrandising herself and blaming others?”

    Clinton’s proposed health care reforms were never passed by Congress.

    Answer your question?

  12. #12 Dwimr
    January 31, 2007

    The best thing about Penn Jillette as President would be that at least we would have a vice-president who would keep his mouth shut.

  13. #13 frank
    January 31, 2007

    I wonder if there’s any way to convince Penn Jillette to run. He’s a far more intelligent commentator than most politicians.

    Penn is also openly atheist. He’s less electable than an openly gay candidate because in the minds of the bible belt denizens he serves Satan.

  14. #14 Kevin
    January 31, 2007

    For all those who parrot the media’s “Hillary is unelectable”, realize that in just about every poll, she leads both St. McCain and St. Giulliani by 4-5% points. I think Rudy and McCain will have a tough time getting out of the primaries. The religious right absolutely hates McCain. And given Rudy’s stance on Gay marriage and abortion, I don’t see them backing him either (and people should be glad. Take a look at his run in NY to see an authoritarian obsessed with power at work. He would not be the President to reverse the excesses of Bush.)

    The way it is looking right now, the Republican party is teetering on splitting down the line of religious right (Brownback) vs conservatives. Maybe Jeb will swoop in at the last minute to continue his families…legacy…

  15. #15 Kate
    January 31, 2007

    I don’t actually think that Penn’s aetheism would be the root of the problem, it’d be his outspoken hyperbole when it comes to any matter that he holds a strong opinion on. I don’t think that you could get him to hold that in for the first 5 minutes let alone an entire campaign. I think that he’d alienate the politicians before even getting a chance to be judged on his religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    Which is too bad, because the country could do much much worse than an intelligent man with strong opinions who is willing to call a spade a spade.

  16. #16 stogoe
    January 31, 2007

    While yes, politicians tailor their message to their audience, and it gets annoying as hell, St. John McCain is the only one getting his balls tongue-swabbed by the media at the moment. Listen to the MSM, and McCain is a straight-talking maverick tough guy war hero straight talker no-guff no-nonsense straight-talkin’ man’s man macho straight-talker. They love suckling his balls, man. L-O-V-E. They must be journalist ambrosia or something.

  17. #17 Kristine
    January 31, 2007

    Wow. So Jerry Falwell is no longer an “agent of intolerance,” huh? So, has McCain embraced Al Sharpton, too? No, of course not.

    And the blinking of the eyes, the blank stare at the end–doesn’t that look just like George W. Bush? It did to me.

  18. #18 Chris Hallquist
    January 31, 2007

    The treatment of gay marriage made me suspicious of the rest of the video. In the first quote he was clearly talking about ceremonies without legal status. There was no contradiction. For the video to imply otherwise is dishonest.

  19. #19 Troublesome Frog
    February 1, 2007

    The treatment of gay marriage made me suspicious of the rest of the video. In the first quote he was clearly talking about ceremonies without legal status. There was no contradiction. For the video to imply otherwise is dishonest.

    To some extent I agree, but then I remember the fact that McCain probably said what he said the way he said it to appear to gay voters that he actually cared about them. Of course you can have a ceremony without legal status. I can marry my chair in a private ceremony without legal status, and I sure don’t need John McCain’s blessing to do it. It’s a non-statement that was meant to seem like a position of support.

    He wanted it to seem like he was saying, “I see where you’re coming from and I support you” when in fact he was saying “You kids can go ahead and play house.” Perhaps consistent, but not quite worthy of the moniker “straight talk” as McCain so often liked to say.

New comments have been disabled.