Ignoring the 'Rocks in Glass Houses' Rule, Lieberman Calls Obama a Flip-Flopper on This Week
Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 15-minute appearance on ABC's This Week yesterday morning essentially boiled down to this message: Americans should vote for John McCain because his position on Iraq has been consistent and correct, whereas Barack Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq and other issues, so much so that the American people cannot trust him.
As I watched, I got increasingly angrier as neither host George Stephanopoulos, nor guest Sen. Jack Reed, a Democratic U.S. senator from Rhode Island who was, allegedly, there to be Obama's advocate, made the obvious point that McCain has flip-flopped on virtually every issue, including Iraq, exponentially more severely than Obama's recent position changes.
Considering McCain's record, how ballsy does the McCain camp have to be to accuse Obama of flip-flopping? Or, put another way, how apathetic does McCain think the voters are that the campaign can get away with accusing Obama of the very thing that has been McCain's biggest weakness?
The interview revealed two major points that Obama will have to consistently address if he is to win in November.
The first is that Obama opened himself up to these attacks, unnecessarily, I think. His cross-party appeal has been based on his argument that he is not a typical politician. That is, he has a set of principles, which all involve solving problems and putting aside any kind of divisions (party, race, region, etc. ... remember, Obama is the man who said: "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America"). No matter what land mines he and his advisers think await him on specific issues, I would urge Obama to consider that no greater threat exists for him than a blow to the idea that he is a man of principle. As he says on the campaign trail: "I can promise you this -- I will always say what I mean and mean what I say." Well, changing positions on issues in a way that feels politically calculated isn't consistent with this statement.
Moderates and Republicans that have embraced Obama have done so due to his authenticity. These voters were willing to put aside differences on individual issues to embrace a candidate who stood for something bigger, specifically integrity and bipartisanship. So it would seem to follow that no one policy issue can damage Obama as much as a blow to the integrity of his positions. Voters seem willing to vote for Obama, even if they have different views on some issues, so long as they think he is different than most politicians. Anything that Obama does to make him seem just like every other person running for office strikes at the very heart of his appeal.
And that is why I am so troubled by Obama's tack to the center in the last week on FISA, handguns and Iraq. On FISA, Obama went from standing with Senators Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) in opposing retroactive immunity, to last week saying he would support the "compromise" bill that essentially gives President Bush everything he wants, including civil immunity for the telecommunications companies that engaged in the administration's illegal wiretapping program. (Keith Olbermann offered an insightful Special Comment on Obama's choices in the FISA issue, which you can watch here.) Obama then hedged on the Supreme Court's ruling overturning the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. And most dangerously, Obama's statement that he would "refine" his position on troop withdrawals from Iraq resulted in headlines that Obama had adjusted his position on the issue. Obama claimed that the statement did not mark a change in his views, but why did he put himself in that position in the first place?
Republicans immediately jumped on all of these alleged shifts in Obama's positions to call him a flip-flopper and play into American fears that voters don't really know who Obama is and for what he stands. I am gutted that Obama is giving this opening to the GOP. I understand that he is afraid of being branded as soft on terrorism -- a fear that seems to be genetically encoded in the DNA of Democrats -- but nothing is as big a threat to Obama's candidacy as losing his image as the candidate of integrity. His policy shifts risk so much more than the alleged gains they may bring with independent voters.
Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with Obama organically making adjustments to his positions based on changes in underlying facts. There is a strong argument to be made that one of the primary character flaws that brought down the Bush presidency was his stubborn refusal to change his programs, even after it became clear that his original assumptions were incorrect. I would support Obama saying to the American people regarding an issue, "These factors have changed, so I believe that we now should be doing this."
But that's not the argument Obama is making to the electorate on FISA, guns or Iraq. Rather, what Obama seems to be doing is making the classic "move to the center" that presidential candidates often make after securing the nomination. But Obama's successful campaign has been built on the idea that he is not a typical Washington politician, and his is not a typical presidential campaign. His policy shifts are being portrayed by Republicans (and possibly are being received by voters) as pandering for votes. And that is exactly what Obama should not be doing. It's like he is helping the Republicans undermine his candidacy.
Which brings us to the second point, which is that Obama has to make clear to voters that McCain has managed to flip-flip on nearly every major policy position. If McCain's argument is that Obama cannot be trusted because he has shifted his positions over time, then by McCain's own logic, he himself should be trusted far less, since he has been a far, far larger offender on this count than Obama could ever be accused of being.
Obama can't control the media, who, for the most part, are giving McCain a free pass on the issue. But Obama can certainly send word to his surrogates who appear on news shows to strenuously make this point. It was indefensible for Reed to sit there silently on This Week while Lieberman hammered Obama over and over again for being a flip-flopper. Reed should have immediately listed the clear and lengthy record McCain has of changing positions on issues solely for political expediency. (If Reed is auditioning for the vice-presidential slot on the ticket, to me, he blew it yesterday.)
If the Republicans want to make the race for the White House a question of who has been more true to his positions over time, that is a battle the Democrats can win, given the records of Obama and McCain. But it's up to Obama and his campaign to make sure that McCain's record is out there, since, as the GOP has proven, the party doesn't need the facts on its side to convince the electorate of something. This is, after all, the party that swayed the American people to believe that John Kerry, who went to Vietnam and was wounded, was somehow less patriotic than Bush, who used the influence of his wealthy parents to get out of having to fight in the war. If Obama isn't careful, the GOP will paint him as a flip-flopper, facts be damned.
To set the record straight, and to provide ammunition for seemingly blind journalists and Obama surrogates, here is a partial list of McCain's major flip-flops:
Taxes
McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, saying they disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans, and advocated for delaying the tax cuts to pay for the Iraq war and reconstruction. But then, as the 2008 election drew nearer, he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts and made making them permanent a central tenet in his economic plan. (Tim Russert on Meet the Press pointed out the change in position to McCain in 2007. You can view the exchange here.)
As for the estate tax, McCain, in a June 8, 2006 speech in the Senate, said, "most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax," and "in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation." But by June 2008, he was calling the estate tax "one of the most unfair tax laws on the books."
Iraq
In the period leading up to the war in 2002, McCain was a vocal supporter of the invasion, agreeing with the administration's claims that victory would be fast and easy, and that the U.S. would be greeted by the Iraqis as liberators. By 2007, he was publicly complaining that "America was led to believe this would be some kind of day at a beach," and that he knew it would be a "long and tough" war all along. McCain essentially switched positions 180 degrees, first siding with the "this will be easy" propaganda of the administration before the war, and then bashing that same strategy when he wanted to defend "the surge" he supported (and, presumably, distance himself from remarks that ended up being proven tragically wrong).
A list of McCain's statements over time can be found here and here (in an Olbermann Special Comment, better video/audio can be found here).
Guantanamo Bay and Torture
McCain spoke out (as a former prisoner of war) against torture and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, but while running for president in this cycle, he voted against the torture-ban bill in the senate and criticized the Supreme Court's decision last month allowing hearings for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Campaign Finance Reform
McCain has gotten great mileage from citing his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill as an example of his "maverick" nature and his willingness to anger his own party to do what he thinks is right. Certainly, in 2000, that argument might have been backed by the facts. But in 2006, McCain abandoned the bill that was named after him and did not support Feingold's campaign finance efforts, apparently with his quest for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination in mind.
GI Bill
After opposing Sen. Jim Webb's (D-Va.) bill to provide benefits to veterans -- one that had 54 sponsors in the Senate -- (including telling Obama that he did not have to defend his position to him because Obama did not serve in the military), McCain then embraced the passage of the GI Bill as part of the war funding legislation (and was thanked by Bush as being one of the senators responsible for its passage).
Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right
When running for president in 2000, McCain decried "agents of intolerance like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell." By the time his run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination came around, he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he did not believe Falwell was an agent of intolerance and gave the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University.
Abortion
In 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that while he was pro-life, he did not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, because doing so would require women to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations." But in 2006, McCain told George Stephanopoulos that he supported the repeal of Roe v. Wade, as well as a constitutional amendment banning abortion (with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother being endangered).
Offshore Oil Drilling
When McCain ran for president in 2000, he opposed offshore oil drilling. Now, he is in favor of it, saying it is up to the states that control the shorelines to decide.
Privatizing Social Security
McCain supported Bush's efforts to privatize a portion of Social Security accounts in 2004, saying, "Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." Bush's efforts never gained popular traction and failed, even with a Republican-controlled congress. McCain, apparently, learned his lesson. On June 12, 2008, McCain told a New Hampshire town hall meeting audience that "I'm not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be." (Watch for yourself here.)
The Federal Budget
McCain can't seem to make up his mind over whether or not he will balance the budget in his first term as president. On February 15, McCain told a campaign audience he would balance the budget by the end of his first term. By April 15, he had changed that prediction to balancing the budget within eight years. (He blamed the souring economy for his change in plan, but that, to me, only makes matters worse, since it's not like high gas prices and the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis weren't already problems in February.)
Immigration
In 2006, McCain reached across the aisle to work with Sen. Edward Kennedy on an immigration reform bill that included a path to citizenship for immigrants. By the time the 2008 race heated up and McCain had to participate in the Republican debates, surrounded by strong anti-immigrant candidates, he shifted his position, even saying at one point that he would not vote for the same bill he worked on if it came up for a vote at that point.
Attack Politics
McCain vocally decried the dirty attacks he endured from Bush during the 2000 primary season, and yet, by 2006, when McCain was assembling his team for his run for the 2008 nomination, he reached out to many of the same Bush supporters (that he had called "coyotes") who had supported attacks on him in 2000. Similarly, the McCain campaign used Bud Day, one of the notorious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who attacked John Kerry in 2004, to rebut remarks made by retired general Wesley Clark. In 2004, McCain used the words "dishonest and dishonorable" to describe the Swift Boat attack advertisement, urging Bush to condemn it. He added, "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me."
So Much More
From his position on the Everglades, to Katrina (also here), to a host of environmental issues, to oil policy (Olbermann's Special Report on the Enron exception and McCain's connections to big oil does a good job of making this point), to lobbyists in his campaign, there are myriad issues on which McCain has changed his position.
See For Yourself Here are some additional videos and sites that outline McCain's flip-flops:
McCain v. McCain by Robert Greenwald (video)
CNN's Jack Cafferty discusses McCain's change in positions (video)
A list of 10 McCain flip-flops
A huge list of McCain gaffes and flip-flops
A blog dedicated to McCain's flip-flops
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is unbelievable that Mccain's camp could accuse anyone of flip-floping. But, honestly if the media won't call him on it, what candidate wouldn't. Think about it, he appears to be so certain that the media will give him a pass on numerous flip flops. At this point I can't say that he's wrong. No one in their right mind would do this knowing he has all that evidence out there about him. Have you seen 5 days of coverage on any of Mccain major reversals? Let alone a perceived flip flop based mainly on a single word.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
DJ23 and Laserbeam, thanks for your comments.
If the media isn't going to do its job and call McCain on the flip-flops, then it certainly falls on Obama's surrogates to step in and make sure the issue is put right.
That is why I was so disappointed at Reed's completely failure to advocate for Obama on This Week.
What about George's failure to correct Lieberman when Lieberman said that Obama said he would withdraw all troops immediately regardless of what the generals on the ground said? Obama said the opposite of that and got crucified by Hillary because of it. She said that meant Obama had flip-flopped on getting us out of Iraq (which he didn't).
I am stunned how many so-called reporters let people say things without bothering to back them up with either facts or examples. An absolute disgrace.
George is just as bad as Lieberman so don't expect any "light" from him. In the end, Obama doesn't have many friends in or around the government because they are all a bunch of crooks and the MEDIA is just as crooked as they are.
You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, my grandmother used to say!
the MSM is so controlled by corporations that true journalism has been rendered impossible. Even venues established as non-profit alternatives such as public television has been influenced by the relative lack of integrity in the field these days. No accountability and it is an absolute disgrace.
"accusing Obama of the very thing that has been McCain's biggest weakness?"
Well, that's one of the Rovian principles, doncha know. Accuse your opponent of the very thing YOU are guilty of and LIE LIE LIE LIE.
yes, a point that was clearly demonstrated in the 2000 election movie "Recount".
What I want to know is why isn't O'bama or the Democratic party running ads illustrating Mc'Cain's flip flops on all major issues? It has become apparent that the MSM isn't going to do it, so if the Democrats don't do it, the "low information" voters will go into the voting booth on November 2 still thinking that Mc'Cain is a "maverick" and a "moderate". I don't know what the Democrats are waiting for.
Because Obama said he wasn't going to do that and that's why he didn't accept funding like McCain. He didn't want to play those games. But McCain loves it!
When we take more seats from the Publicans in the Senate, and no longer need pathetic Joe Lieberman's occasional vote, I want to see what his reaction is when they strip him of his chairmanship & his committee seats. Will he whimper? Will he snivel? Will he cry? Will he indignantly accuse the Democrats of trying to stifle him? No matter what, it should be a hoot!
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Thanks for your comment, RedWhiteandBrooklyn.
A lot of commenters have referred to Lieberman losing his committee chairmanship and/or Lieberman bolting to the GOP after November.
It is amazing to me that in 2006 the Lieberman campaign supposedly begged Obama for an endorsement, and Obama obliged them. You can read about it at: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/top_lieberman_staffer_we_begge.php
Now, two years later, the guy is helping to bring down Obama. Nice.
Par for the course with Tail gunner Joe.
no good deed goes unpunished.
Why are the dems WEAK! They allow these people to defend gramps even though they KNOW the GOP are liars....where's the righteous indignation of the dems....why are we so freakin limp!!!!!!!!!!!!
hawks and doves
Lieberman has done a fine job of demonstrating that he doesn't give a damn about the "average American".
And that's why he should toss away any pretense of being anything but a Republican. Republicans care about one thing, wielding power over the lives of others. The path to that power being total corruption in their endless search for the source of their power, MONEY. Few politicians give a damn about "average Americans", but the Republicans, in this respect are in a class (or classless) by themselves. The one thing they've done so consistently, is to convince people that things that are demonstrably bad for them, are actually good...like vilifying the ACLU, or cutting regulations for health issues. These are but two of the endless variety of things the Republicans have twisted to their own nefarious designs...all of it with an eye ALWAYS on the prize...money and power.
LIEberman can't even decide what PARTY he belongs to. He has no credibility to call anyone else a flip flopper!
Hopefully McCain selects Romney as his V.P. so they can have the Holy Trinity of Flip-Floppers: McCain, Romney and Lieberman.
So it seems that the Republicans have spent a lot of time studying psychology and psychological theories (e.g. projectionism, displacement theory, rationalization, etc.). Too bad they didn't spend as much energy studying history, world civilization, economics and ethics.
Not to mention man's effect on global climate change!
This is one of the standard Rethug tactics: painting their adversary with their own major character flaws, making it next to impossible for the adversary to legitimately point out that the Rethug candidate himself is the one most susceptible to the character flaw in question. In 2004, Bush was as least as big a "flip-flopper" as Kerry, but because the Rethugs pulled that name out of their festering hat before anyone else did, Kerry was deemed a "flip-flopper" by all, and no one even noticed Bush's own penchant for "flip-flopping." Of course they're using that tactic again--it worked well for them last time around.
Obama should stand hold of the convictions that have brought him to this historic time in our country. Don't worry about swaying toward the middle, just speak about how this country needs to change to once again become country we once were. If that is accomplished the middle ground voters will follow him in droves. Don't give LIEberman any air time as he has truly shown all the american public who he and what he stands for. How pathetic a human is he,who eight years ago was the vice president candidate for the democratic party only to flip flop for his own personal gain.
FISA Facilitates Fraud
Competitors (or Foreign Governments) who want trade secrets, R&D plans, bid details, intellectual property or copies of confidential communications can hire well placed private contractors to obtain them.
60-70% of our national intelligence budget is paid to private contractors. Private contractors help monitor all telephone and internet communications for the federal government.
There is no independent oversight, control or accountability over private intelligence contractor activities. FISA presents grave intellectual property security issues. http://HappinessHacker.com has links to respected resources describing the risks of private government contractors.
Also....
Fox's frightening "Flip Flop" tactics are beautifully exposed in OUTFOXED, Robert Greenwald's searing documentary on Murdoch's GOP propaganda machine. It's availalble free online from outfoxed.org
Happiness Hacker / Atlanta
Karl Rove & Steve Schmidt are running McCain's day to day campaign.
Rove/Schmidt playbook, "Perception is Political Reality."
Rove/Schmidt's are trying to put Obama on the defensive and define a "Theme" against him. In other words, cast a Rove/Schimdt Perception of Obama.
The Rove/Schmidt playbook chapter "perception is political reality" is the exact same tactic, exact same message, and from the exact same people (Karl Rove & Steve Schmidt) that was used when George Bush beat John Kerry in 2004.
Watch this CNN Video for proof - http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/07/04/bash.mccain.redefining.obama.cnn
McCain not only supports all of Bush's failed policies -- McCain is using Bush's exact same Rove/Schmidt playbook in this election. McCain & Bush are two peas in a pod ... Further proof McCain would most certainly be a 3rd.
McCain major Lies - McCain said, "Economic downturn is psychological." McCain took credit for the Webb GI Bill that he did not even support. McCain continues to deny he ever said he didn't know anything about economics & needs to get education on it -- even though there are videos of him saying what he says he didn't say. McCain said, "Great progress economically" during the Bush years, McCain said, "eBay is the answer for poverty and recession." McCain said, "I'm not running on the Bush presidency."
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Great comment. Thanks, keepemhonest.
Not only are Schmidt and Rove shaping the general public's perception of Obama, but also the percepton of his supporters. I've been reading several blogs; the buzz is disturbing. The republics are painting him as just another pol, but the dems do not have to jump on the bandwagon (or jump ship, as some are doing. We are providing fodder for the McCain campaign, and boy are they eating it up!
Don't help them shape the debate. Make your complaints to Obama's campaign, not in the marketplace. If you're not sure Obama would be a better president than McCain, or better than anyone I can remember, vote Nader. As for me, I started out supporting Edwards, so I never was starstruck as were many others. I really think that at a minimum an Obama presidency would 1) substantially if not completely withdraw our troops from Iraq, 2) pass some sort of meaningful health care reform, 3) do some major revamping of an energy policy, 4) adjust the tax system to favor the middle class over the moneyed classes, 5) begin serious diplomacy in the middle east, 6) shut down Guantanamo, and 7) appoint decent judges and Justices as needed.
If this does not seem different to you than what McCain at his best would do, there's lots of sand here to bury your head in. The time to push Obama on issues is after he is elected, not now when the McCain camp will gloat over splitting in the campaign.
Little George essentially let McCain do a free 15 minute commercial for McCain without giving Jack Reed equal time. Senator Reed has intelligence and integrity, but he should have fought off Traitor Joe's lies with much more conviction.
See Mitchell Bard's Profile
Thanks for your comment, provgrays. Reed might be a great senator for the people of Rhode Island, and he might have, as you say, intelligence and integrity. But what he did on the air yesterday morning was indefensible. I really hope the Obama campaign stops using him as a media surrogate.
Like Rethugs have been concerned with hypocrisy. This is their platform hypocrisy accuse others of what they are twice as gulity of in the first place. The only thing thats different now the American people have had enough of their lying BS thats why nothing seem to be working for them from running ads tying Obama to Rev Wright to McCain so call biography tour they are losing left right and center. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all the people all the time. The rethugs are Persona non grata in this election. Its so bad I think you can run a dog against them and the dog will win. I know Id vote for the the dog.
Carol
I meant to say that George let Leiberman do a 15 minute commercial for McCain.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
