No Obama. No McCain.
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, McCain, Republicans, RomneyAs anybody who reads PoliGazette on a regular basis knows, Michael van der Galiën has been very clear about his distaste for Obama’s brand of politics. And while I very rarely think Michael is giving Obama a fair shake, I understand that he’s not convinced that somebody so “new” can bring about the change he’s talking about.
But when Michael sent me a story about how he’s giving the thumbs down to McCain too it left me wondering how he determines somebody is “real” or not:
Although I think that Robert forgets to keep in mind that McCain is sucking up to the far right because he, wait for it, has to, there’s most certainly truth to the claim that McCain may not be much of a maverick anymore. He’s defending tax cuts he once opposed; he’s being endorsed by pastors he once dubbed “agents of intolerance”; he was a hawk, but he’s now an überhawk.I’ve never bought into the entire “straight talk” thing. It’s sheer propaganda, in my opinion. McCain isn’t more willing to tell the truth than other politicians, or at least not so much more that one would actually notice a big difference.
I’ve said in the past that I would endorse someone at the moment that I realize that my blogging may be influenced by my political preferences. That’s why I endorsed both Romney and Clinton. But if the race is between McCain and Obama, I’m not going to endorse either one. McCain is - from a policy perspective - obviously less bad than Obama from my perspective, but I’m negative about both.
So on one hand, McCain is disqualified because he changed his mind on tax cuts and embraced the religious side of his party, but Romney’s flip flopping on big time issues like abortion and taxation when he was in Massachusetts is okay on the other hand? And what does it mean to go from being a hawk to an überhawk? McCain has always been very pro-military and pro-war-when-necessary type of guy. Obviously I completely disagree with McCain’s assessment of Iraq, but there are few politicians who are consistently as high profile and still non-partisan as McCain.
What posts like this continue to tell me is that while Michael is being true to his feelings, those feelings are simply inconsistent with one another. He’ll apply one standard to one politician, but won’t apply the same standard to another. On one hand Obama and McCain are phonies, but Romney and Clinton aren’t? Because that’s seemingly what his opinions have been based on…whether he believes the candidates are telling the truth or not.
Again, it’s certainly Michael’s right to endorse who he wants to, but I wish there was more to his arguments than “I don’t trust him!” Because that seems like it should apply to nearly all the politicians who ran for POTUS in the last year, not just the ones he’s selectively choosing.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 1st, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Hillary, McCain, Republicans, Romney. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Actually I’ve said many times before that one of my main problems with McCain is… his age.
And Romney’s changes can all be explained as development, yes really unlike what hit-and-run bloggers have pretended, whereas McCain’s changes happened overnight. Romney became increasingly more pro-life as a Governor for instance.
Lastly: McCain doesn’t have the temperament to hold the highest office.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Who cares what Michael thinks or how he reasons? He never has struck me as someone whose opinions carried much weight.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I’m afraid that Michael’s views on McCain are seriously colored by this: McCain has, as you say, embraced the religious side of his party. And Michael has been increasingly worked up about the religious party in Turkey. I think his dislike for the latter is driving his distate for McCain. I have no idea whether he is conscious of that or not.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
McCain
will beis old, yes. But Reagan was old too and that didn’t seem to stop him from being the most beloved Republican president ever. Still, I suppose that’s valid, even though it is technically ageism and a form of prejudice.Concerning Romney, he was pro-life before he ran for Gov, but then ran as essentially a pro-choicer in Mass and then became a public pro-lifer when he started to run for President.
In fact, here’s his wife on her husband’s views…
Sorry Michael, but I don’t accept that Romney’s views were “development” and his own wife confirms it.
And if you’re extending this acceptance to Romney’s flip flop, why not McCain? In fact, McCain’s views have changed far less than Romney’s.
Again, I have problems with you applying different standards from candidate to candidate. This is the issue you and I have had from the beginning of this campaign, and this latest condemnation of McCain is just another example of it.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Why can’t we say no to both candidates and ask congress for new candidates