Pharyngula

Posted by: Adam | September 6, 2008 9:44 PM

Oh, come on. He's a young man, his views have just suddenly changed as he has gotten wiser...

Why aren't the democrats showing these clips all the time? I don't get it.

Posted by: E.V. | September 6, 2008 9:52 PM

This clip was just one part of a brilliant episode. Friday night's The Daily Show should be broadcast in it's entirety every day until the election. I winced as much as I laughed.

Posted by: MeatballEucharist | September 6, 2008 9:57 PM

It's sad that in order to get this kind of honest news I have to change to Comedy Central...god I hate what this country has become. I'm going to watch Blade Runner to cheer me up about the future.

Posted by: wazza | September 6, 2008 10:07 PM

Bigjohn: Um... Obama is now supporting policies that differ from those that have sent the US into a nosedive over the last eight years. That's a good change of mind. John Bush (moment of zen!) has changed to support the policies that have destroyed your economy and international standing.

Posted by: QrazyQat | September 6, 2008 10:28 PM

BigJohn, perhaps you can answer the question I saw posed on a political blog a while ago:

Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?

Just one will do.

Posted by: Iason Ouabache | September 6, 2008 10:52 PM

I didn't need a YouTube clip to tell me that McCain is an opportunist. He is a politician, ya know?

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | September 6, 2008 11:10 PM

The McCain supporters in this thread seem to be using a standard creationist tactic.

Reasonable person: I'm sorry. I'm simply not convinced. Here's why: (Insert paragraph after paragraph exposing brazen intellectual dishonesty here.) See? Your 'theory' is fundamentally flawed.
Creationist: Oh yea?! YOUR theory is flawed!

Just substitute "theory" with candidate.

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | September 6, 2008 11:12 PM

Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?

Sure. What's best for John McCain's political career is best for America!

Posted by: SC | September 6, 2008 11:30 PM

And damn was it good.

And catchy. I'm singing it in my head now.

Posted by: Darth Wader | September 6, 2008 11:39 PM

What I don't get is how McCain's group can call Obama an elitist.
Obama doesn't have any elitist policies, and McCain does. Also the 8 houses thing. I put about it on my blog "Elitism our misunderstood ism". Sorry for the shameless plug.

Posted by: Dan | September 6, 2008 11:53 PM

McCain calls Obama an elitist because Obama went to one of them uppity schools, like Har-vawd and the University of Chi-cahgo!

Also, because for 5 and a half years, John McCain simply couldn't DO community organizing!

Posted by: Darth Wader | September 7, 2008 12:00 AM

McCain calls Obama an elitist because Obama went to one of them uppity schools, like Har-vawd and the University of Chi-cahgo!

Also, because for 5 and a half years, John McCain simply couldn't DO community organizing!

Going to Harvard might make Obama elite, but that's not the same thing as elitist.

Bush on the other hand went to Harvard and Yale, and give his elite friends lots of benefits.

"Its pronounced nuke-ular dummy, the "S" is silent"

Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 7, 2008 12:28 AM

Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years?

McCain's been among the 10 most conservative Senators throughout his career, so there are plenty ... opposition to gay marriage or civil unions is the first to come to mind ... gays serving (openly) in the miliary is a quick follow up ... opposition to single payer health coverage, or anything that might be construed as "socialism" ... against drug decriminalization ... against minimum wage ... for school vouchers ... strong supporter of Israel ...

Posted by: Sioux Laris | September 7, 2008 12:33 AM

McCain is a piece of shit, and there lies his remaining chance, since the Bu--sh-- base either IS shit or enjoys - indeed glories - in eating it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 7, 2008 12:37 AM

one of the delegates saying that "gays can have all the same rights as straights as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. ... I don't think anyone should have special rights based on who they have sex with".

One who registered 11 on a gaydar meter that only goes to 10.

Posted by: Michael X | September 7, 2008 1:12 AM

I personally love that this was narrated by Ian McShane. To picture Al Swearengen sarcastically ripping into John McCain is fantastic.

Posted by: Nick Tacik | September 7, 2008 1:21 AM

Thank you for putting the youtube link instead of the comedycentral link.

Posted by: shonny | September 7, 2008 1:51 AM

Is it just me, but war heroes are usually those who have done something heroic, isn't it?
Like the heroes in Telemark, the resistance fighters, the Russian pilot Aleksei Maresyev who was shot down over enemy territory and spent 19 days crawling back to own lines with both legs wounded, had them amputated, and flew again, and all the others?

Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case. That also fits in well with the flip-flopping.
To re-phrase Julius Caesar to fit John McCain:

I just passed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I crashed
I was caged
I am hero - NOT!

Old Julius was a bit terser (Veni Vidi Vici), but that be as it may.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | September 7, 2008 2:12 AM

Going to Harvard might make Obama elite, but that's not the same thing as elitist.

Reminiscent of this exchange from "This is Spinal Tap":

Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with being sexy?
David St. Hubbins: Sexist, Nigel.

Posted by: echidna | September 7, 2008 2:39 AM

MeatballEucharist@61 said:
I'm going to watch Blade Runner to cheer me up about the future.

Funny you should evoke Philip Dick. His news clown (from What shall we do with Ragland Park) seems more and more apt these days.

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 7, 2008 2:54 AM

Oppurtunstic Flip-flop, what does that mean ? Changing opinion to suit electoral needs ? Well, all politicians do it.

But, here's THE MEGA flip-flop of John McCain, and the most relevant one for this election :

McCain always claimed to be a true moderate republican who could reach accross party lines and get the interest of independent voters and some democrats. That he wasn't a neo-conservative, wouldn't court the evangelical vote specifcally, and that he wasn't a Bush fan (despite the fact that his voting record ahows that he voted lke Bush more than 90% of the times). And also, of course that he would always put the country's interest before his, notably that he would "rather win a war than lose an election", putting the country's national security first.
That's how he got nominated in the primary.

Didn't he ? Any McCain supporter here wants to say that it wasn't the case ?

So that was McCain I

Now we have McCain II (also known as McPalin), who is suddenly advocating hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax-cuts, more talk about religion and abortion and pandering to the evangelicals, and let's not forget, nominates Palin, an ultra-conservative who has absolutely no foreign policy knowledge (I won't even say experience, she just got her passport, just imagine how well she understands the global interdependencies and foreign cultures) and clearly is so unfit to be "commander in chef" on day one that the McCampaign refuses that she answers any intervews for the moment. Just imagine her negotiating a critical issue with Hu Jintao or Medvedev !

So not only is McCain II :

- evidently putting the country's national security in jeopardy for his own political interest, (just imagne if he would die suddenly in the first week after taking office), contrary to hs claim that he would always put the country first

- looks very much like the usual neo-conservatve and obviously like Bush III, the label that he was always trying to defend himself from in the primary

So if that's not a MEGA OPPORTUNISTIC FLIP-FLOP, I wonder what is.

May I ask some pro-republican commentators who might be readng this :

Who is the "real" McCain ? McCain I the moderate or McCain II the neo-conservative ?

Isn't that relevant ?

So of course Obama has had his flip flops, but if you can find me one of such gigantic proportions and that really puts in question the identity of the candidate, I'd be interested to see it described in detail...

Posted by: waffles54 | September 7, 2008 3:27 AM

Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?

Posted by: Azkyroth | September 7, 2008 3:43 AM

Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care and as far as I know this is probably all made up. I saw a clip claiming Obama is friends with a terrorists, what about that lol?

I'm an optimist.

...someday I'll be telling my grandchildren about how we used to have to wonder if comments like that were jokes or serious.

Posted by: Steven | September 7, 2008 3:53 AM

I detest the fact that John McCain ran around saying "Barack Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election", when he himself is willing to sell his poor maverick soul to the republicans, as well as pick an unqualified lunatic to be in the position of replacing him if something were to happen to him. And to say he supported the war when it was unpopular to do so makes him no more of an envelope pusher than Barack Obama who dared to oppose it when it first began, who dares to use a good vocabulary at the consequence of being called elitist, and prove that we need an intelligent candidate for this position in office rather than someone we'd like to have a beer with and chat about war stories with.

WHATEVER

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 7, 2008 4:04 AM

Stop bombarding me with American politics, I don't really care

Where do you live ? In the deep forests of New Guinea ?
Saying that one doesn't care about American politics right now, wherever one lives, is like saying one didn't care about German politics in the 1930s.

Posted by: Richard Harris | September 7, 2008 5:18 AM

Why all this focusing on McCain? He's an old man, & could snuff it the day after he became President. Now then, the thought of President Palin really gives me the creeps. Heck, Sarah Palin gives me the creeps. How can anyone have their head so far up their own arse?

This silly cow screws big oil for taxes in Alaska, then asks her followers to pray to their feckin' god for the State's oil reserves to be exploited. This is multi-level idiocy. Why isn't she laughed out of politics? This puts the USA in disrepute.

Posted by: aratina | September 7, 2008 6:26 AM

[McCain now] looks very much like the usual neo-conservatve and obviously like Bush III, the label that he was always trying to defend himself from in the primary - #42

But seriously, what we see with Palin is the same thing that happened with Mac-in-a-box: he did not get vetted publicly. They have yet to bring up Keating 5 even after the "nation of whiners" comment and the only mention of how he abandoned his family possibly due to PTSD was by John Bush III himself at the Warren interview. No, he rode through the primary under the radar until Florida when he racked up enough points to push out Mitt Romney for good.

There are some really big monetary interests driving the media; they can't possibly want a president who will raise their taxes while 'unfairly' dropping taxes on 95% of all Americans, which is why we have bloggers like our hero, PZ, and which is why the only places where true vetting is allowed are comedy shows where truth comes only in kernels.

Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 7, 2008 8:05 AM

The whole "flip-flop" thing is a bit confused. Voters like a decisive leader in charge of the Executive, but they want their leaders to listen to them and change their opinions accordingly. A leader who is seen to indulge both sides of an argument at different times may be seen as weak or opportunistic, a vote-grabber or a reed in the wind.

So really the bulk of the electorate is in search of a decisive leader who will agree with them at all tinmes and act accordingly. Being human they'll forget that they themselves have changed their opinion over time so even when they see a politician's record that reflects their own opinion shifts exactly, it's likely that they'll see the changes as weak.

On the other hand, most politicians are experts at both the skills of political sleight-of-hand necessary to convince others and that necessary to quietly capitulate when advisable. As media and campaign managers get wiser to this and start to raid the media archives more, this creates a minefield for all politicians.

Posted by: JoJo | September 7, 2008 8:16 AM

shonny #36

Is it just me, but war heroes are usually those who have done something heroic, isn't it? ... Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case.

I have to disagree with this. Especially after the swiftboating of Kerry, I am not going to debate whether or not a combat veteran is a hero.

The point I think is noteworthy in McCain's naval career is what happened after he was promoted to Captain. One important step to making admiral is for a Captain to have a "major sea command." For an aviator, that means being captain of an aircraft carrier. The Navy decided not to give McCain a major sea command. He was deemed unsuitable for promotion to flag rank.

Posted by: Dave | September 7, 2008 8:36 AM

McCain has definitely pandered to the right. He HAS to in order to win but when in office he will do absolutely nothing to overturn roe vs wade and all the other issues we saw at the end of the clip.
It is fair to report on McCain but not to report the 50 flip flops by Obama is the problem!
The unfair coverage of is the bias!
Why not put a youtibe clip about his flip flops on
FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc
Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!

Posted by: Patches | September 7, 2008 9:25 AM

I'm no McCain supporter, but why is flip-flopping in general seen as such a bad thing? Don't we WANT our politicians to be able to change their minds when presented with new evidence?

Or is "flip-flopping" specifically defined as changing your mind solely to please a certain faction of your voters, not because you've had an epiphany?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 7, 2008 9:54 AM

Or is "flip-flopping" specifically defined as changing your mind solely to please a certain faction of your voters, not because you've had an epiphany?

That is the kind that I believe was originally intended by the flip-flop term. But because of the success of said term during the Bush vs. Kerry election it has been used to describe any change from a position that you once held, be that for legitimate reasons or just to serve you politically.

Posted by: June | September 7, 2008 10:17 AM

Another fallacy is to cite a senator's vote on some bill as proof of his position on some portion of the bill. It is standard legislative practice to lard distasteful bills with provisions that you do want, in order to force your vote. Plus the lie that Obama voted to cut off funding of the troops "on the ground" in Iraq. If a bill cuts funding, the DoD decides where and when to cut back military spending.

When Democrats withdraw troops, it's cowardly abandonment; when Republicans withdraw troops, it's victory with honor.

I go with the bumper sticker: SUPPORT YOUR TROOPS - BRING THEM HOME.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 7, 2008 11:09 AM

Can you name any position that John McCain has held consistently for, say, the last ten years? Just one will do.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 7, 2008 12:19 PM

Being a prisoner of war ain't all that heroic, any idiot can become that, which seems to be very much McSame's case.

JoJo (@58) has dealt with this admirably, but let me just add: Stipulating that McCain's behavior as a POW was heroic, it's not at all clear to me that the virtues displayed by an individual's behavior under torture and imprisonment have much, if any, overlap with the virtues and skills we look for in a POTUS. Many athletes (and this is not snark; I greatly admire athletes) probably have the physical courage and stamina to do what McCain did in Vietnam; that doesn't mean they're prepared to lead what is still (for good or ill) the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Not all heroes are the same.

Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge? Heck, I'm pretty bright, but I'm damned sure I still want the person who's determining the future of my country to be able to mop the freaking floor with me, intellectually.

This anti-intellectual streak is the thing that makes me saddest about my country, because so many of the other things that make me sad about my country flow from it. The combination of the Myth of the Rugged Individualist and the culture of American exceptionalism leads many of us to find the very notion that somebody else might be smarter shocking and offensive, I'm afraid.

My daughter (about whom I've bragged here often enough) is very clearly smarter than I am. That's supposed to create some sort of existential crisis for parents, but it does nothing but fill me with joy. My own father, OTOH, reacted with anger and bitterness when he began to suspect I might be smarter than he, and never missed a chance to belittle me. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I wish the electorate were more like me and less like my father.

You can't beat the truth of quotes taken out of context. :)

Never forget that, despite all the comments (on half-joking) about The Daily Show being the best news on TV, they themselves never claim to be anything but comedy.

That said, I personally think this piece depicts McCain's "straight talk" pretty damn truthfully.

FISA, public finance, welfare reform, NAFTA, seating MI and FL degates after he was against it, offshore oil drilling, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Expanding Bush faith based initiatives etc etc Obama has flip flopped and pandered more in one year than McCain has in his whole career!

Some of your examples are sufficiently cryptic that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'll respond to a few. First, though, it's important to note that there's a difference between changing tactics over time and reversing oneself on matters of principle. Of your list, the thing Obama's done that comes closest to the latter is the FISA business, so I'll take that first:

FISA — Obama always said he opposed telecom immunity, and he continued to do so right to the end. The thing he reversed himself on was the promise to filibuster, so let's examine that: The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic, and whether it's appropriate to use it depends on things that are constantly changing... whip count, details of the bill in question, amendments to the bill in question, what the White House is saying about a veto... in short, since all the things trigger one are constantly in flux, promises to filibuster should always be seen as conditional. This, BTW, is part of a larger "problem" that explains why we don't very often elect long-term senators (e.g., Kerry) to the presidency: What happens in legislative action is all about parliamentary maneuvering and details that are invisible to the public. Fairly often, two bills (or two versions of the same bill) that that ostensibly do the same thing are vastly different in effect, due to the minutiae... so it's easy to tag pretty much anyone in the Senate with the "for it before I was against it" deal.

In this case, folks (including many around here) seem to think Obama's tactics around FISA mean he's suddenly automagically become an enemy of the Fourth Amendment, or perhaps of the whole damn document. Given his history, and his consistency in enunciating the underlying principles, I frankly find it impossible to believe that this one vote, even if you think he got it wrong, "means what you think it means."

Iraq — I presume you're talking about his comment that the 16-month withdrawal promise would be subject to "facts on the ground"? This is a Feature, Not a Bug™!! You should run screaming from any candidate who tells you s/he won't change his/her mind even in the event that "new shit has come to light." A foolish consistency is, after all, the hobgoblin of little minds.

FL and MI Delegates — The principle was always that the nomination shouldn't be determined by contests that were manifestly unfair and unrepresentative. Once the nomination was sewn up, that principle had been honored, and a different (but not contradictory) principle came to the fore: that Democrats in FL and MI should have have a voice at their convention (because, after all, delegates vote on a bunch of other stuff besides the nominee). I fail to see any intellectual dishonesty here, nor, in fact, any victims; what's your beef?

Faith-Based Initiatives — This one is just a lie: Obama's comments on faith-based initiatives did not expand Bush's policy; rather, they rolled back the rules to something very similar to what was in place before Bush. And it's not a flip-flop in any case: While he's always been strong on separation of church and state, Obama has also always been upfront about his own faith, and he's always identified faith-based service organizations as one part of the country's response to social problems. You may not like that position, but it's not something Obama has ever changed his mind about (note: by "ever" I mean during his public life).

I'm sure some of McCain's flip-flops could similarly be explained or debunked... but note that the Daily Show piece focused on pretty unambiguous policy declarations that were pretty unambiguously contradictory, and all out of the candidate's own mouth... not on some nitipicking of Senate votes or partisan misinterpretation of plans.

Personally, I don't care if people change their minds about things — it seems to me that mature, intelligent people often do so for good reasons — but I do care about intellectual honesty. I have no doubt about Obama's; I have grave doubts about McCain's.

Posted by: Patricia | September 7, 2008 12:42 PM

Well, well. There's something rarer than chicken lips. #23 - humble Truth Machine. Give Cuttlefish a golden Molly for that! ;)

Posted by: JoJo | September 7, 2008 1:04 PM

Why don't these people want someone better/smarter/more educated than them in charge? Heck, I'm pretty bright, but I'm damned sure I still want the person who's determining the future of my country to be able to mop the freaking floor with me, intellectually.

The only president to have a PhD was Woodrow Wilson. He had a doctorate in political science from Johns Hopkins. He was a professor at Bryn Mawr College, Wesleyan University, New York Law School and Princeton. He was president of Princeton for several years before entering politics.

Opinion is divided on whether or not Wilson was a good president. Personally, I'm not impressed by Wilson. He was a man convinced of his own rectitude. He believed that his opinions were not only right but moral. Therefore, if someone disagreed with Wilson, that person was not only wrong but evil. Wilson's refusal to compromise with the Republican controlled Senate on even minor points meant that the U.S. did not enter the League of Nations.

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 7, 2008 1:29 PM

You're placing your faith in a professional politician who has attained a cult following. Bad idea.

And what does the "cult following" have to do with purported evidence of Obama's intellectual dishonesty ?

The "cult following" is evidence that people on the left are really fed up with 8 years of neo-conservative policy and that they found that Obama is really connecting with some voters - obviously not all. Is that a bad sign about the way Obama will govern ?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2008 1:31 PM

McCain: The candidate who the Repuglicans eight years ago decided was *less* qualified than Dumbya to be president.

That does make one pause.

You're placing your faith in a professional politician who has attained a cult following. Bad idea.

This is America. Every candidate for president gets a cult following.

"Alright, I am the messiah..."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 7, 2008 1:38 PM

You're placing your faith in a professional politician who has attained a cult following. Bad idea.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 7, 2008 1:39 PM

This is America. Every candidate for president gets a cult following.

I should make clear that I think this is because of (1) the fact that, among 300 million people, you can always find a few (million) people who like being in a cult, and (2) the lack of separation between president and goverment, so that the president has a lot of influence on where the country goes. These two conditions happen to exist in the US of A. I don't think it's a mentality thing or suchlike.