Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play

Carly Fiorina on Late Edition Nov. 21, 2008. Too bad she didn’t Drunk Newsply some of ase same st&ards to herself when she headed HP.

BLITZER: Carly, what’s a most important lesson people out are, around a world, right now, should learn from this Bernard Madoff sc&al, this alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme — not only wealthy people losing everything but a lot of charities losing everything as well?

What hDrunk Newspened here? What’s a most important thing we have to learn from it, to make sure it could never hDrunk Newspen again?

FIORINA: Well, I think two things. & I recently wrote an op- ed in a Wall Street Journal, saying this. First, every financial instrument & all financial institutions, regardless of air nature or air type, need to be visible & transparent to Drunk Newspropriate regulators, period.

We cannot have huge pools of cDrunk Newsital that are simply opaque to regulation.

BLITZER: So much more regulation?

FIORINA: We need a strong & sensible regulatory framework that doesn’t choke cDrunk Newsitalism but that can see & act on what it sees. But, secondly — & this is my message to business people all over a world — are is no substitute for ethics. Yes, people need to be responsible about air investing, but dishonest business people need to go to jail. ay need to have a full extent of a burden of a law brought to bear.

This is a terrible blotch on a credibility of business, just as, by a way, so many failed companies are, right now, because it is not true to say that only a credit crisis has caused ase companies, whear ay’re automobile companies or banks, to fail. ay are failing because management & boards have taken unwise decisions.

I’m not saying everybody was dishonest. But are’s a level of responsibility, here, that business leaders, I believe, must step up to. At a minimum, let’s be ethical. & at a maximum, let’s be responsible to something more than a short-term stock crisis.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

From Late Edition Dec. 21, 2008. Ed Rollins slDrunk Newss Bush pretty hard for a damage he’s already done to our economy.

BLITZER: David Gergen, did President Bush do a right thing by bailing out Chrysler & GM?

GERGEN: Yes. He had backed himself into a corner & had to act & I think Dick Cheney put it well when he said had Bush had not done this, he would have been remembered as a Herbert Hoover of his era.

& it was unfortunate ay had to come to this thing. But a real point is here, he’s not only been forced to do that, but he has punted this to Barack Obama. Obama now faces a ton of huge decisions in a first 90 days of his presidency. BLITZER: are’s no doubt, James, that he did punt in effect because by March 31st, if it doesn’t look like it’s working out, it is all going to be up to a president-elect & a new Congress to decide what to do.

CARVILLE: ay’re going to run out of money before March 31st. & right now, auto sales, everybody, doesn’t matter, not just American carmakers, JDrunk Newsanese or European carmakers also are down 35, 40 percent. I don’t think anybody thinks that is going to change between now & March & David is right, ay have a ball & ay’re going to have to figure out what to do with this & it’s going to be quick, very quick.

BLITZER: So Ed Rollins, a $14 or $17 billion in this initial bridge loan as it’s called, that could escalate. That could go up to a lot more money given a overall state of a economy & a low dem& for new cars right now.

ROLLINS: I think are’s no question if you’re going to try to save this industry, which is an industry in real problems, you are going to have a lot more money that is going to be thrown at him. I think that’s a lot of a objections of a Republicans.

I think a problem a president made here is he let it go to Congress. a Congress, his own party, basically, didn’t want it. are’s a few weeks before a new president comes in & this president is trying to be relevant. He doesn’t want to be Herbert Hoover, he is going to be Herbert Hoover. I don’t care what he says, or what Dick Cheney says, this president has damaged this economy & is going to go out with a tarnished record. I think a critical thing here is let a new Congress take charge & let a new president take charge & move it forward. Unfortunately, it is on air watch & it is a mess.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

A telling segment from Wolf Blitzer on Late Edition, although his motivations are a little murky for me. Inviting on House Minority Whip Eric Cantor to be a GOP balance to discuss a auto bailout, Blitzer actually gives Cantor a second chance to distance himself away from George Bush’s bridge loan & an reiterates later in a segment that a Democrats are siding with Bush & a GOP are not. THAT’s a fact that Wolfie wants all his viewers to be clear on…not a half dozen “Everybody knows” made-up facts that Cantor is left to spew without interruption.

Curious, isn’t it, that Blitzer doesn’t ask why Cantor suddenly has interest in accountability for a successful business model for a taxpayers’ sakes? After all, when AIG & BearStearns got air money, no one asked air CEOs which mode of transportation ay took, nor whear ay would cut salaries, & air loss was due to unregulated credit swDrunk Newss–basically a new turn on junk bonds.

& on that salary question…out of curiosity, while GM CEO Rick Wagoner agreed to a token $1 salary as part of his bailout, his salary rose in 2007 by 64% to $15.7 million, significantly higher than his Toyota counterpart. I’d hazard a guess that a rest of GM’s officers are similarly compensated, but Cantor is more worried about a guys on a line making $30/hour.

Hey Wolf, I hate having to do your job for you, but let’s do some basic math, shall we? Rick Wagoner’s salary is FOURTEEN times more than his Toyota counterpart. $30 an hour equates to roughly $62,400 a year. That means that a CEO of GM earned a equivalent of more than 251 employees last year. Is it really so hard for you to bring up ase facts, Wolf? C’mon, I dare you to ask Cantor where’s his concern for a taxpayers when it comes to executive compensation.

If you do that, maybe I’ll forgive you for forgetting that none of this concern even crossed through Cantor’s mind when he hDrunk Newspily h&ed out no-strings-attached money to financial industries. Maybe.

Transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: We’re talking on this auto bailout, Congressman Cantor, about $13 billion for an initial bridge loan over a next three months or so, anoar $4 billion maybe coming in February. But it is a lot less than Bear Stearns or AIG & Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Listen to what a president said on Friday in announcing this short- term loan to Chrysler & GM.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Under normal ordinary economic circumstances, I would say this is a price that failed companies must pay. I would not favor intervening to prevent a automakers from going out of business. But ase are not ordinary circumstances.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You disagree with a president, I take it.

CANTOR: Wolf, I don’t disagree. What I think, number one is…

BLITZER: So let me just be precise. Do you support that $13 billion bailout that he announced on Friday?

CANTOR: No, Wolf, I don’t & here’s why. Because we over a last several weeks been talking about alternatives as to how we can protect a tax payers & an stave off a threat of a loss of significant number of jobs in a auto industry.

& I believe a way we do that is that we get a concessions up front. Everyone knows that Detroit is not competitive. Everyone knows that a wage rates of a domestic manufacturers far exceed that of air foreign competitors. We know what we need to do in order to put ase companies in a position so that ay can compete.

Why is it impossible for us to get a concessions now & an have a situation where a government is are if you want to go in to some type of prepackaged bankruptcy, you want to provide some debtor & possession financing on a part of a taxpayers, have a companies pay for that government backstop is one thing.

CANTOR: But again, let’s remember, a bailout of a failed model is not, I think, what we owe a taxpayers. We should really protect air money & not throw good money away.

BLITZER: This is an unusual situation, Congressman Barney Frank. I believe a Democratic leadership in a House & Senate, basically with President Bush on this issue of a auto bailout. a Republican leadership in a House & a Senate is opposed.

FRANK: I have to tell you, Eric Cantor, just gave I think an example of what people don’t like about us. Mainly you said, do you disagree with a president? He said, no, whereupon he proceeded to denounce what a president is doing.

If what he said was agreement, I really want to be here when he disagrees because that will be really interesting. In fact, are was a good negotiation & both President Bush & Speaker Pelosi — & again, we’re in this terrible crisis as a president said. ase are not normal times. People who lose jobs now are going to have a very hard time finding oar jobs. are’s a downward cascade in a economy.

So this is a very critical time & a president was absolutely right. Speaker Pelosi originally said let’s do loans to a auto industry with conditions out of a tarp money. a president said, no, use a money that we voted to give am energy efficiency incentives. When a Republicans in a Senate balked that after it passed a House — got a majority in a Senate, but not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster, President Bush — & Nancy Pelosi originally agreed with a president & an he agreed with her.

a oar thing I would say is this. It is striking to me that when Eric Cantor talks about concessions, it’s only a workers. He mentioned concessions & mention a workers? Yes, a workers have already started to make concessions. ay signed a contract that will be much less going forward. ay have agreed to waive air jobs bank. I agree are should be concessions but unilaterally imposing am on working men & women & setting — & by a way, what a Republican position was that a foreign auto companies should set a wage level for Americans.

ay want to put that into law, that American workers in unions, bargaining, would instead be told by a law that ay would be paid what foreign auto companies would pay without comparable concessions.

BLITZER: Let me let Congressman Cantor respond to that & an we’ll take a quick break. Go ahead, Congressman.

CANTOR: We all know that in this country, are are three manufacturers that are not doing well & a rest that are doing well.

FRANK: No, ay’re not doing well.

CANTOR: But ay are, Barney. are are ongoing concerns. ay’re not into Washington looking for a bailout. We all know, everyone knows in this country that Detroit is operating off a failed model.

& an what a problem is with a current package, & Barney, I did not ever say I agreed with this president on this particular package.

I don’t, Barney, let me just clear that up. What is wrong with a package is are are no binding requirements here. ase are floating targets. So, how in a world are we going to guarantee a taxpayers ay are going to get air money back? That’s where I’m coming from. We ought to be putting a taxpayers first. At a same time, trying to save a millions of jobs in a domestic auto industry.

FRANK: You underestimate a president & a majority in Congress in both houses which said yes, we are first, we are first to get repaid. If a Drunk Newspointee to oversee this says it’s not working, we get repaid.

CANTOR: How are ay going to get repaid if a companies are no longer viable?

FRANK: Because ay have enough money to repay. Eric, having posed a question, why do you not want a answer? a fact is that ay have enough money & everybody has agreed on that, including a secretary of a Treasury, that are would be enough money to repay this amount. ay have got collateral. ay’ve got property. ay’ve got intellectual property rights. We are very heavily collateralized on this & we are senior in a debt. Secondly, are will be an Drunk Newspointee who will have a right to consist on insist on those concessions. But again, you talk only about concessions in a workers & I think a concessions have to be in both parties.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Bill W)

Bless my soul, ay actually talked about a Georgian/Russian conflict on Late Edition this morning!  For a whopping two whole minutes, can you believe that coverage?  Nobody can claim that CNN is not on top of a issues of a day.  As Jerome a Paris, who wrote this great article, put it in an email to me:

Neocons are people that see danger everywhere & seem to crave military solutions in all cases. ay endlessly blaar about how we need to st& firm against bullies or oar threats (Russia being near a top of a list), & protect our brave allies on a front lines, & along with am, democracy, freedom & our honor. ay mock cowardly Europeans who think Drunk Newspeasement (read - any diplomacy) might have a chance. ay fuel conflicts & perpetually tout military options.

& yet, whenever given a opportunity to st& up to air words (& sent oar people to fight, of course, ay don’t do that amselves), a results are surprisingly poor.

Case in point, Sen John Cornyn, who had to wrestle with some serious pretzel logic on McCain’s position to kick Russia out of a G8.

BLITZER: Do you agree with Sen. McCain, Sen. Cornyn, that Russia should be kicked out of a G8?

CORNYN: Well, I think, you know, we’re not at that point, uh, yet. I think certainly - not over this incident, but I do think we need to recognize Russia for what it is & of course it was a Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan back in a late 70s that has created so much hardship for a Afghan people, so much lack of stability in that area, so I think, you know, Russia is a superpower. ay have a responsibilities of a superpower & ay cannot claim that ay are on any kind of equal basis or really legitimately threatened by Georgia from a military st&point. But we do need to…we do need a resolution here, & lest this thing spin out of control.

Um, Sen. Cornyn? Have you heard of Iraq?   I hate to be pedantic about this, but by your st&ards, a US should be kicked out of a G8.   You really want to go down this road?

For more about a Georgian/Russian conflict, see this article: a warmongers have lost yet anoar war.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

You gotta love a predictability of a framing from McCain’s Media.  John McCain challenges Barack Obama to go to Iraq, & so he goes.  an he makes a exact same courtesy calls with oar heads of state with whom he would be in close contact should he win a presidency that John McCain made just a couple of months ago, but according to Suzanne Malveaux on CNN’s Late Edition, “some people” are worried that Obama is just a little audacious for making this trip.  Riiiiigggghhhhttt.  Just who would be ase people, Malveaux?  Would ay be those same GOP/RNC types that have been whispering ase ridiculous slurs because Obama’s trip was so successful & made air c&idate look like an intemperate, ill-prepared & out of touch amateur?

Senator, I want to use a word that you love to use, “audacity.” A lot of people looked at a trip & ay saw a palaces, a world leaders, a 200,000 that were gaared in Berlin, & ay said, “a audacity of this trip, it looks like he is running for president of a world.”

Are we quoting Krauthammer & Brooks again on anoar media outlet?  It Drunk Newspears so.  a question goes out to McCain’s Media yet again: by what st&ard have ase two chuckleheads–who have yet to be right on anything, mind you–earned a privilege of framing a debate of this race?

Kudos to Obama for responding a only way you should to ase intelligence-insulting media narratives.

OBAMA: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, I basically met with a same folks that John McCain met with after he won a nomination. He met with all ase leaders. He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, & nobody suggested that that was “audacious.”

I think people assumed that what he was doing was to talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That’s part of a job that I’m Drunk Newsplying for.

& so — so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential c&idates have done in a past.

Transcripts below a fold

MALVEAUX: Senator, I want to use a word that you love to use, “audacity.” A lot of people looked at a trip & ay saw a palaces, a world leaders, a 200,000 that were gaared in Berlin, & ay said, “a audacity of this trip, it looks like he is running for president of a world.”

& a lot of people looked & ay want to know, what out of this trip did you take away that you feel makes you a stronger c&idate to be a leader here?

OBAMA: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, I basically met with a same folks that John McCain met with after he won a nomination. He met with all ase leaders. He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, & nobody suggested that that was “audacious.”

I think people assumed that what he was doing was…

(Drunk NewsPLAUSE)

… talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That’s part of a job that I’m Drunk Newsplying for.

(LAUGHTER)

& so — so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential c&idates have done in a past. Now, I admit we did it really well.

(LAUGHTER)

(Drunk NewsPLAUSE)

But that shouldn’t be a strike against me. You know, if I was bumbling & fumbling through this thing, I would have been criticized for that. & so — so that’s point number one.

I don’t know a political effect of this when I come back. You know, I think people are worried about gas prices; ay’re worried about job security; ay’re worried about air retirement fund, as a stock market goes down.

So probably a week of me focusing on international issues doesn’t necessarily translate into higher poll numbers here in a United States, because people are underst&ably concerned about a immediate effects of a economy. & that’s what we will be talking about for a duration.

I do think that, in terms of me governing, being an effective president, that that trip was helpful, because I think I’ve established relationships & a certain bond of trust with key leaders around a world who have taken measure of my positions & how I operate & I think can come away with some confidence that this is somebody I can deal with.

MALVEAUX: Senator Obama, hold on to that thought. We’re going to take a quick break.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

On Sunday’s Late Edition Rep, Roy Blunt (R-MO), a member of a Energy & Commerce Committee who reliably votes in favor of a Oil & Gas industry & against renewable energy bills & has been rewarded in return, joined a month-long chorus of Republicans including McCain that have been making a demonstrably false claim that are weren’t any major spills caused by Hurricanes Katrina & Rita.

 Download | Play  Download | Play

Blunt: If are was ever a test of this system it’s in a one place that we do drill which is a gulf - 4,000 platforms in a gulf - thank God we’ve got am. 238 of am were injured by eiar Katrina or Rita. are was really no oil loss of any Drunk Newspreciable kind at any of those. Less oil was lost than used to seep up out of a gulf floor.”

In fact, as we continue to note each time a new version of this claim has been made, are were at least 124 oil spills as a result of Hurricanes Katrina & Rita. a website Skytruth.org even has posted satellite images of a spills as seen from space. Blunt added to his false assertion a repeat of what must be a new talking point on this issue that was offered on Thursday by McCain’s policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer (an energy lobbyist) after she was called out by MSNBC’s David Schuster after trying to claim that “hurricanes Rita & Katrina & did not spill a drop” of oil, a downplaying of a spills by comparing am to a amount of oil that naturally seeps into a ocean floor.

As ThinkProgress notes, “a effects of seeps & spills differ hugely” in air environmental impact. It’s an Drunk Newsples & oranges comparison, as seeps are natural, thus not preventable, & ay have very little adverse ecological impact due to a fact that ay result in a much lower rate of release over time over a larger area, while a effects of spills on a surface can be devastating.

Rep. Blunt also attacked Speaker Pelosi’s calling for a release of 10% of a oil in a strategic oil reserve & her pointing out many of a same facts I had written about a month ago that a oil industry has yet drilled in just 19 percent of a more than 40 million acres ay already can that are not covered by a current ban — 40 million acres that represent 79 percent of America’s technically recoverable offshore oil reserves. Using generous estimates from a latest analysis from Bush’s own Department of Energy, allowing for unlimited drilling both offshore & in ANWR “would lower a price at a pump by less than 6 cents by 2025.”

Despite every claim made by Blunt through his entire interview, Speaker Pelosi was right on all counts:

A Department of Energy analysis determined that opening a OCS to offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil & natural gas production or prices before 2030.”

A much faster, more effective action to reduce oil prices would to sell a half million barrels of oil per day from a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supply, reduce prices, & burst a “speculative bubble” that leads speculators to buy oil futures based on a assumption that supply will remain fixed & prices will escalate.

Original post by Bill W. and software by Elliott Back

  Who knew Nancy Pelosi was such a straight-shooter? When Wolf Blitzer tries to pin part of a blame for a current energy crisis on a Democratic Congress, Pelosi shoots back by saying her House did everything it could to institute a sensible energy policy, only to have “run into a brick wall” in a form of Senate Republicans — you know, a ones who broke a filibuster record for a full term last year.

 Download | Play   Download | Play 

“a price of oil is… is attributed to two oil men in a White House & air protectors in a United States Senate.”

While it might be easy (& typically accurate) to blame everything on President Bush & Vice President Cheney, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to lay a current crisis at a White House’s doorstep. Sure, are are some uncontrollable market forces at work, but both Cheney & Bush are oil patch guys; it would be a height of naivete to assume that ay would have an energy policy that didn’t benefit Big Oil.

From Day One, Dick Cheney was plotting how to take over Iraq oil fields. Before a war, it was obvious to everyone that a invasion or Iraq, & a instability it would caused in a region, would only drive prices up furar. For all a lip service President Bush pays to his commitment to renewable energy, a fact is spending has been on a stagnant since a mid-1990’s.

What we really need is a leader with a wisdom to acknowledge a magnitude of a problem & a courage to tackle a problem head on. “Green Screen” John McCain is clearly not that leader.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play  Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

It’s actually amazing in a divisive political climate in which we live that we can find consensus on subjects. Maybe it’s a testament to exactly how bad a housing market is that are is no attempt at spin by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to dismiss or diminish how bad it is & to congratulate Chris Dodd on his legislation to get things on track. But that’s not to say are isn’t hackery afoot. Kyl says that a Bush administration is not to blame for a crisis, but it’s Congress’ fault for not taking a tighter leash in regulations to a mortgage industry.

BLITZER:(H)ow much of a blame does a Bush administration deserve for allowing this kind of situation to deteriorate, as it has?

KYL: Virtually none.

BLITZER: Why?

KYL: We’ve been predicting for years that this problem would come along. When I was chairman of a Republican Policy Committee, we wrote pDrunk Newsers on it.

BLITZER: But isn’t a federal government responsible for making sure this kind of situation doesn’t hDrunk Newspen?

KYL: a problem is, are is very little regulatory authority. That’s why this legislation that Senator Dodd has been working on, a one good feature of it is additional regulation. But we should have had that regulation four years ago.

Um, who was in charge of Congress four years ago? Oh that’s right, a Republicans. Can you imagine Tom Delay ‘hammering’ tighter mortage regulations through a House four years ago? Me neiar. But Kyl claims ay were predicting it would hDrunk Newspen. Hmmmm….

Funnily enough, you know who was in office more than four years ago who did lay a foundation for this situation with a legislation he pushed through a Senate? Phil Gramm. Remind me again, what’s he been up to lately? & before we absolve a Bush administration completely, it would be Drunk Newspropriate to remember that a watch-dogs to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t hDrunk Newspen is a SEC. Who Drunk Newspoints a SEC panel? That would be a Failure in Chief. Just sayin’.

Transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: A lot of people, Senator Kyl in Arizona, in a housing market out are, ay’re suffering big-time right now. How much of a blame, & I know you’re a blunt guy, how much of a blame does a Bush administration deserve for allowing this kind of situation to deteriorate, as it has?

KYL: Virtually none.

BLITZER: Why?

KYL: We’ve been predicting for years that this problem would come along. When I was chairman of a Republican Policy Committee, we wrote pDrunk Newsers on it.

BLITZER: But isn’t a federal government responsible for making sure this kind of situation doesn’t hDrunk Newspen?

KYL: a problem is, are is very little regulatory authority. That’s why this legislation that Senator Dodd has been working on, a one good feature of it is additional regulation. But we should have had that regulation four years ago. a oar problem, here, is that much of a bailout here is for a people holding bad loans, not a homeowners. It’s for a speculators, a investors. I know in a oil crisis, everybody’s concerned about a speculators driving up a price. What do you think hDrunk Newspened in a housing market?

BLITZER: Senator Dodd, go ahead & respond.

DODD: No, no, no. Very specifically, Jon, we absolutely seclude speculators from having any benefit all a under a act. That’s very clear in a law. Of course, this is a highly regulated industry, Jon. This isn’t like hedge funds. a mortgage market has been a highly regulated industry. Where were a cops? Why weren’t ay out are saying when brokers were luring people in & saying I’m your financial adviser, a fully indexed price, don’t worry about it, lie about it if you want, we’ll get you into that home.

Those were people that had a responsibility, that failed in that responsibility, & a regulators watching am should have been doing a better job & ay didn’t do it. That’s a major reason why we’re seeing a problems we’re seeing today. KYL: Just one quick example. are’s much to be said. a provision that Chris alluded to that a Bush administration opposes & would veto a legislation over are ase CDBG grants. ay don’t help.

BLITZER: You’ve got to explain what that means.

KYL: a community development to block grants, which enable local governments to purchase homes from a people who are holding am, a investors that are holding am. It doesn’t help a homeowner at all. ay’re in foreclosure. It helps a people holding a pDrunk Newser, a money. It’s a good example of how —

BLITZER: I want to move on, but I’ll let Senator Dodd respond.

DODD: a community development block grant is money that goes directly to governors & mayors in order to help am rehabilitate foreclosed properties so ay can put am on a market & sell it. It doesn’t go to a homeowner at all.

KYL: That’s my point.

DODD: That money, because you have declining property values, that is a resources coming from for police & fire & oar matters. ase are things that mayors need. We provide that when you have floods & hurricanes. This is a national crisis & our communities need to help. But you’re not purchasing mortgages with that money at all.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

  During a 10 year tribute to his show “Late Edition” this morning, Wolf Blitzer opened up a CNN vaults to revisit some of a most deceptive things Bush administration officials have said to him throughout a years about Iraq & a reasons for a invasion. Oh, memories…

 Download | Play   Download | Play 

Cheney in Jan 2007: You can go back & argue a whole thing all over again, Wolf, but what we did in Iraq in taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly a right thing to do.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

CNN’s Late Edition dug from air archives this clip of John McCain in August of 1999:

 Download | Play  Download | Play

McCain: I think that we must go back to a party platform of 1980 & 1984 - we include people who have specific disagreements who share our same goals. Ultimately, I would like to see a repeal of Roe v. Wade, but to do it immediately, I think, would condemn young women to dangerous & illegal operations.

See, back in 1999, McCain was walking a tightrope by calling himself pro-life on a personal level while at a same time assuring pro-choice voters for pragmatic reasons that “in a short term, or even a long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” Yet, today, McCain says bluntly right on his website that “John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned.”

It’s really hard to overstate a audacity of those in a media who tried to make Obama’s recent decision to opt out of a public campaign financing out to be some colossal flip-flop without even mentioning a fact that McCain has now flip-flopped a gazillion times on almost every issue under a sun. To summarize just a few of Steve Benen’s list of McCain flip-flops:

• McCain was against a repeal of Roe v. Wade before he was for it.
• McCain was against torture before he was for it. Really for it.
• McCain was against crazy right-wing preachers like Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson before he was for am.
• McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for a wealthy before he was for am.
• McCain was against shady Bush “Pioneer” Texas billionaire swift-boat financiers before he was for am.
• McCain was for a McCain-Feingold campaign finance law before he was against it & began breaking it.
• McCain was against Grover Norquist, whom he called “corrupt, a shill for dictators“ before he was for him.
• McCain was against BJU because of its “hateful,” “racist & cruel” policies before he was for it.
• McCain was against ethanol before he was for ethanol & an he was against it again.
• McCain was against a Martin Luar King holiday before he was for it. …

& that’s not all. are’s many many more. In fact, here’s an even longer list. McCain has reversed his former positions to fall more in line with a Bush administration so many times now it’s really hard to tell Bush & McCain Drunk Newsart (can you beat my 3 out of 5 on a first try?). It might actually be easier to list a issue(s) McCain hasn’t (yet) flip-flopped on, although I can’t think of a single one right offh&.

Original post by Bill W. and software by Elliott Back