Media snares McCain in underwhelming flip-flop on Rumsfeld!
posted at 4:38 pm on February 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
“We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that’s the kindest word I can give you — of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war,” the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. “The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously.”…
“I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,” McCain said to applause.
The comments were in sharp contrast to McCain’s statement when Rumsfeld resigned in November, and failed to address the reality that President Bush is the commander in chief.
“While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans’ respect and gratitude for his many years of public service,” McCain said last year when Rumsfeld stepped down.
In other words, McCain — who’s been criticizing Rumsfeld over Iraq since a year after the invasion — is supposedly a hypocrite for issuing a polite pro forma statement of recognition on the day the axe fell. If that’s the new standard they’re holding him to, then the bloom really is off that “maverick” rose.
The little civics lesson/editorializing about Bush’s culpability is nice, too.
You suppose this has anything to do with the newfound media hostility? Because if they’re looking for a flip flop, there’s a sweet one waiting for them on Google. August 24, 1999:
McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” A spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.”
Exit question: Are there any major Republican political figures who have been reliably, consistently pro-life?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations
LOL @ McCain. Oh no! If you make abortion somewhat against the law, people may hurt themselves breaking the law! It’s one of the most asinine arguments for RvW I’ve ever heard.
I’m waiting for the statement where McCain tells me that making Crack illegal has forced people in America to overdose on illegal and dangerous Crack.
Lehosh on February 19, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Dare I hope that the MSM will see Hillary’s flip-flop on Iraq equally newsworthy?
Nah…I didn’t think so.
Chad on February 19, 2007 at 4:46 PM
My answer to the exit question…
Not that have any chance of winning an election. I hate to say it, but the fight to abolish Roe vs. Wade is almost a lost cause at this point in time. Perhaps in the future it will be more doable, but not for the next few years.
The election will have to be focused on National Security, and Republicans will have to exploit the idiocy that is “National Healthcare.”
freakagriep on February 19, 2007 at 5:02 PM
PS –
Rick Santorum is about as solid as it gets when it comes to pro-life and the social conservative agenda.
freakagriep on February 19, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Are there any major Republican political figures who have been reliably, consistently pro-life?
Uhhh..Yeah. That would be McCain. He has a 100% negative rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood for God’s sake.
A politican is not going to SAY the right thing all the time. He has ALWAYS voted pro-life, even on the stem cell issue, so presenting him as someon wh “really isn’t consistently” pro-life is unfair.
Is he the “hardliner” that I am or Rick Santorium is? No, but isn’t that what makes some of you guys nervous? The hardline religious conservative?
The two quotes on Rumsfeld do not contradict each other in any way. One is being polite and the other is not.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 5:12 PM
The answer is no. In fact, no one out there is consistent, truly consistent on RvW. Sam Brownback in his first run for office described himself as pro-choice, until he heard from the base. Romney and McCain changed when they started pursuing higher office. Rudy at least is consistent in that he doesn’t support the overturn of RvW. But really, the supporters of RvW, insist that it is a right, but rights are not granted by judicial fiat, they are protected by coutrts, not created by them. Further, the idea that life does not begin at conception is ludicrous. But even more troubling, to me, is that RvW is less relevant than anyone really notices. The extremists use RvW as a hobby horse to fundraise, by demonizing the opponents ont eh other side of the issue. But really at the end of the day, does an abortion matter so much that it changes your decision to vote for a person? For me, only one issue does that, and that’s the war. Abortion is a nasty thing, that is better dealt with through individual faith based outreach and (don’t laugh) love, as opposed to governmental intrusion. Just my two cents.
Ennuipundit on February 19, 2007 at 5:13 PM
You knew I would be here, right? I’ll keep showing up to defend McCain until all of you see that this is the man to beat Hillary.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Townhall.com has an excellent article comparing the Republican candidates on their conservatism:
Here.
The article goes through several issues, but on pro-life it had this to say:
“Throughout his career, John McCain has been reliably pro-life (is there any bigger litmus test in the conservative movement?) You could argue that Sam Brownback is a more committed social conservative, but if you are looking at the current frontrunners (and it’s pretty clear this election is going to be wrapped up sooner than past elections), McCain’s pro-life credentials clearly trump both Romney (who, as recently as the 90s was pro-choice) and Rudy (need I say more?). So if the life issue is your bailiwick, McCain should be your candidate, right?
If you can judge a man by his enemies, then he’s in good shape on the Life issue; Sen. McCain has a zero percent rating from both NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood. (NARAL Website, http://www.prochoiceamerica.org, Accessed 1/19/07; Planned Parenthood Website, http://www.ppaction.org, Accessed 1/19/07).
It should come as no surprise that the pro-abortion lobby hates him; Sen. McCain voted eight times to ban partial-birth abortions, including voting twice to overturn Clinton’s Veto of the ban. Sen. McCain also voted against using federal money to distribute the “Morning-After” abortion pill in schools.”
As you can see, being pro-life is more than just being against Roe v. Wade. Do any of you have little girls? Would you want your 14 yr old to be given a medication to induce an abortion AT SCHOOL??? This being done without out your knowledge, but with your money (tax wise).
There are many others things that could affect your daughter. Allowing her older boyfriend to cross state lines to force to abort in a state that doesn’t require parental notification for instance.
You guys don’t think this issue affects you, but if you have daughters….it could.
And that is why is should be important to you beyond the freaking “judges” thing.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Unless I’ve suddenly become unable to read, the contradiction is right there in the passage AP has. Where did that come from? How does a spokesman get away with saying the boss has voted for 17 years to overturn something the boss just said he was against overturning?
Anwyn on February 19, 2007 at 5:32 PM
One more thing..
Does anyone here believe that Rudy would have voted against the federal funding of distributng the morning after pill in schools?
Not on your life.
Just something to think about.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Rightwingsparkle, I am with you 100% but it’s unrealistic to think that rhetoric is going to make it with the voters. The “judges” thing and overturning R v. W may be only a starting point, but it may be one that has to happen before other steps do.
Anwyn on February 19, 2007 at 5:33 PM
RWS, either you need to start blogging again or I should’ve read more carefully when you were. Where are they distributing morning-after in schools on the federal dime?
Anwyn on February 19, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Big deal. I’m hardly a strident opponent of abortion (although I’m moving in that direction), but repealing Roe v. Wade would not return women to the days of coat hangers. States could simply pass legislation regulating the practice. I’m tired of liberal scare tactics and the RINOs that mouth them.
jaleach on February 19, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Another thing. The pro-lifers will win their battle one day. I knew this when I saw an article showing pro-life protestors shouting “We love you” and “We’re praying for you” and similarly positive things at newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts as he walked into the Supreme Court building. Compare this with the shrill rhetoric and crude threats emanating from the NARAL crowd. The pro-lifers will win this war. It’s only a matter of time.
jaleach on February 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Where are they distributing morning-after in schools on the federal dime?
Uhh..They aren’t. Because people like McCain VOTED AGAINST IT.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Sorry if I sounded shrill there…I’m just tired of defending McCain on obvious things.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 5:55 PM
When you take a strong stance one way or the other on abortion, you have just ruined your chance for election, especially in the presidency. Youo have to play both sides of the fence to get elected.
It’s been nice knowing you, McCain.
Now, there are 300,000,000 people in ameria. Three Hundred Million. We’re a tad ovecrowded. One website gave a figure of 70 million orphnas aged 10-24, 20 million under 15. Thy don’t count babies.
Pro lifers aren’t providing squat to the women who have the baby, but don’t want it. Why don’t they do “planning for Parenthood,” and provide the same natal care, but promote abstenance, use of birth control and condoms, and provide adoption services instead of abortion?
Mazztek on February 19, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Allah, I wrote about McCain’s abortion position at my blog today. I’m no McCain fan, but his stance on abortion really isn’t a flip flop. McCain has been one of the few who has been consistently pro-life. I don’t trust Rudy on this issue, nor Romney, who I DO think flip-flopped for political expediency, but I do McCain, even though I don’t trust him on a lot of other issues.
SisterToldjah on February 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM
If it comes down to Hillary and McCain in the general election, then I will probably stay home and hang myself.
Watcher on February 19, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Pro lifers aren’t providing squat to the women who have the baby, but don’t want it.The Nuturing Network.
Birthright.
I also worked with this adoption center for girls who were unable to parent their babies.
Get your facts straight before you mouth off…sir.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Oops. Link didn’t work there.
The Nuturing Network.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 6:32 PM
“I’ll keep showing up to defend McCain until all of you see that this is the man to beat Hillary.”
I don’t recall Hillary crapping on the Bill of Rights for her own Political views. I’m not saying it’s outside the range of what she’s capable of, but she isn’t the one on record claiming her personal politcal views are more important than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights; or having her named pasted across one of the most blatantly Unconstitutonal pieces of Legislation I have ever seen.
I can’t see him coming anywhere near winning the primary… for which I’m glad.
gekkobear on February 19, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Ok, my comment got messed up. Here is how it should have read.
Pro lifers aren’t providing squat to the women who have the baby, but don’t want it.
A more ignorant statement could not have been made.
I have worked personally with 3 different organizations.
The Nuturing Network provides college transfers, jobs, medical care, adoption services, and shelter for college women in crisis pregnancies.
Birthright provides medical care, lamaze, for preganant women and then anything a new mother might need from diapers, formula, cribs, ect.
The Gladney Center provides boarding and hospital care for pregnant teen and adoption services.
There are more pregnancy crisis centers than abortion clinics in the U.S.
So get your facts straight before you mouth off..Mazztek
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Shinola. All of em. Both sides of the aisle. Polls can decide what day it is. Don’t like Monday? It’s Tuesday!
Limerick on February 19, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I don’t have a high opinion of Birthright, but I only had contact with one office. I hope it was anomalous.
Overcrowded? By what possible standard?
Anwyn on February 19, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Well, McCain will win the nomination. A Fox News poll recently shown here proved that most Republican voters don’t know about
Rudy’s liberal stances. Once they do, their support will dwindle.
That is just the way it’s going to be my friends, whether you like it or not.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 7:33 PM
There are 400 birthright centers. Each staffed by volunteers from the area. Mostly church folk of course, but that isn’t required.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Uh, huh.
Slublog on February 19, 2007 at 7:50 PM
It’s just a matter of time and knowledge my friend.
Now, don’t be mad at me when he wins, ok? You know I love you.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Oh, I won’t be mad at you.
But the inauguration of President Obama is going to be hard to take in 2009.
Slublog on February 19, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I’ve been reading this thread for a while now, and now feel it’s time to comment. First, the right to life debate is and always will be a big deal for most conservatives, so the fact that Guiliani is pro-choice is going to give him some trouble. Next, rws is right – McCain is going to win the nomination. Most people consider him a “moderate” (whether they are right or not, I’m not really sure – it just depends on what issue you’re looking at).
And Slu, as for Obama, let me give you an analogy – have you ever trained and/or run a marathon? well, during training, especially for your virgin marathon, it’s important to start training at the right time. If you start too late, you won’t be able to finish the run. if you start too early, you risk peaking too early (like running your 22 mile training run in your best time and feeling fantastic as you finish). Obama is going to peak too early. He won’t be able to finish the race. Too much crap is going to come out about him way too far in advance, he won’t be able to recover, Shillary will crucify him, and he will die an early death. McCain, on the other hand, has been in politics most of his life (so it seems) so not much new can come out about him that will further damage his reputation as a RINO.
The only question at this point is whether or not we can hold our collective noses and vote for McCain in order to keep Shrillary out of 1900 Pennsylvania Ave.
pullingmyhairout on February 19, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Oh, I agree about Obama. I just couldn’t bring myself to type the alternative…
Slublog on February 19, 2007 at 9:13 PM
pullingmyhairout GETS it.
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Great… maybe I should just hang myself now then.
Watcher on February 19, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Watcher,
I will be here for you and for all of those angry at McCain and help you through the process of healing, forgiveness, and voting.
;-)
Rightwingsparkle on February 19, 2007 at 9:28 PM
And that is why is should be important to you beyond the freaking “judges” thing.
Because judges trump Senatorial votes.
A 17 year record of voting to overturn Roe v Wade does not mean shit if you won’t put the justices on the bench who can actually do that.
daveintexas on February 19, 2007 at 9:32 PM
We live in the age of convertible Conservatives.
Right now McCain is cruising with the top down and the RNC seems to think it’s all good.
Next thing we know Johnnie will be a staunch immigration law enforcer.
Americans, just as in the 94 revolution will vote center right, if offered a good candidate.
McCain will lose against Hillary.
Are American voters articulate enough to realize that after the vote, the winner will go back to supporting the same issues they were gung ho for before the campaign for votes?
Yes they are, if the office of POTUS is important, find a better offering than McCain.
I won’t vote for him.
Speakup on February 19, 2007 at 9:38 PM
I could vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama… But not easily and only because of the alternatives.
John on February 19, 2007 at 9:44 PM
That’s it. That’s all it is. Gang of 14, in one fell blow, went far to minimize whatever else he may say and do on abortion because it completely limits his ability (and/or will) to put judges on the court who will take that first step of recognizing that Roe v. Wade was, at the very least, a dire misuse of the Constitution.
Anwyn on February 19, 2007 at 9:50 PM
I refuse to vote for him… I just refuse. I’m sorry, but my hatred for Hillary just isn’t going to be enough.
It isn’t just McCain-Feingold that has my dander up about McCain… it’s that “gang of 14″ business, his crusade against so-called torture, siding with Ted Kennedy on illegal immigration, and being squishy on tax cuts. (On top of all that, he’s also really really really old.)
Watcher on February 19, 2007 at 10:02 PM
My hope is that Newt will get in the race I know some people can’t stand him while he was speaker or even now but he sure knows about the constitution and how to debate on ALL the issues Give him time, I belive he will enter the race this fall after all the infighting has bloody up all the lib’s and most of the repubs.
bones47 on February 19, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Then you are wasting your breath with many here. You cannot defend the indefensible.
McCain has shown his petulance, anger, and lack of loyalty to conservatives for too long. I will not lower myself to vote for him after what he did trampling the Constitution, or in his smearing of his colleagues as corrupt. Some might be, but the honorable there did not deserve to be lumped together as with the corrupt by McCain.
His actions in the past have shown pettiness and selfishness, not the traits I would like to see in a leader. He has also shown his propensity to turn on a whim, and attack what should be his base with a viciousness that is surprising.
91Veteran on February 19, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Little early to be touting polls isn’t it? What if someone more conservative decides to run?
Friends don’t let friends vote McCain.
91Veteran on February 19, 2007 at 11:51 PM
That part where he says “abortion is no longer necessary” is rediculous! Abortion is almost never necessary! More pro-death nonsense
sMack on February 19, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I’m not sure McCain is going to survive at all. The media previously promoted him, is it because they believe he is a weaker candidate?
The drive-by media will promote him long enough to get him past the primary, and then they will turn on him with a vengeance.
91Veteran on February 19, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I won’t be surprised to see McCain swapping spit with
John “stuck in Iraq” Kerry the way this flop is flipping.
WTF OVER
Texyank on February 20, 2007 at 12:09 AM
This was one of the biggest mistakes McCain has ever made in his political career, for which I will NEVER vote for him.
I and many others have worked very hard over the years to put Republicans in charge, and when they can finally put conservative judges on the bench, McCain usurps the power of the President and all other Republicans in Congress.
To this day I cannot discern a reason for his incredibly selfish and childish act.
91Veteran on February 20, 2007 at 12:15 AM
I hope it doesn’t come to it, because I can’t see voting for McCain without kicking myself repeatedly for four long years afterwards.
NellE on February 20, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Allah,
Answer to your exit question;
McCain has reliably and consistently been PRO-McCAIN!
McCain is Hellary without the pantsuit.
mountainmanbob on February 20, 2007 at 7:17 AM
Everyone here is very passionate on their views, and display logic not seen on dem blogs. Everyone is making very good points, but for me, it wil come down to two principles: I will not vote Democrat, and I will not waste my vote on a third party candidate. IMO a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for a Democrat. Each Republican that has declared so far has his share of warts (possible exception Duncan Hunter-has he declared?) and I agree that Hitlery will cause Obama’s crash and burn. But for the ultimate good of this country I will hold my nose and vote for whomever is NOT the Democrat candidate. McCain won’t be my first choice in the primaries, but if he wins I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. Our country will swirl down the toilet with a Dim as President, but a Pubbie will at least slow the trip down the drain somewhat.
geekrunner on February 20, 2007 at 8:31 AM
I’m not the least bit interested in whether McCain is loyal to conservatives, or to Republicans. I am intensely interested in whether he is loyal to his oath to support the defend the Constitution. And he isn’t. Nobody I know will vote McCain.
Exit question answer. No, not reliably, consistently. And that’s a piece of the puzzle of why they are losing. Bork explains it all.
Freelancer on February 20, 2007 at 8:36 AM
**support AND defend** Posting on no sleep again…
Freelancer on February 20, 2007 at 8:37 AM
McCain is a tough nut to crack. He is especially weak in two areas that I can see: illegal immigration and his penchant for hanging out with ultra-liberals.
On illegal immigration, he wanted to extend social security benefits to people who stole social security numbers. In other words, he wanted to reward identity theft. He also opposed tax cuts, which means he’s for robbing from the legal to give to illegals.
His other problem is McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Kerry roll off the tongue too easily. He worked with Feingold to limit free speech, Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind disaster, and often praises Kerry and cites their friendship. And let’s not forget the Gang of 14 where McCain organized a cabal against his own party.
He may be loved by the MSM and respected by the other side of the aisle for these traits, but hard-core Republicans vote in the primaries.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see his age and health made issues also. But if he has an undoing it is his habit of equivocating. This is just another example of the “Straight Talk Express” saying what he thinks the audience wants to hear.
cmay on February 20, 2007 at 8:45 AM
One other tidbit about McCain: He was born in Panama. If he is elected, there will certainly be a Constitutional challenge that he is not a natural born American citizen.
I’m sure that a lot of folks here will weigh in with their opinions on whether he is or not. For the record I don’t think we should punish the children of military or State Dept personnel born abroad and the Panama Canal Zone was controlled by the US at the time of his birth. But this will be challenged and eventually decided by the Supreme Court. And they are an unpredictable bunch.
cmay on February 20, 2007 at 8:54 AM
None that are running for president.
One Angry Christian on February 20, 2007 at 9:21 AM
He is a “natural born citizen” as defined by Title 8 of the US Code. Not an issue in any way.
honora on February 20, 2007 at 9:34 AM
I clicked the link to see what Bork had to say. Most interesting thing: “out of print”. God, will he ever stop whining?
honora on February 20, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Gingrich seems to be slipping under the radar, here.
He’s more consistent on ALL of his views.
And, he has as good a chance of beating the Hilldebeast as McCain does.
franksalterego on February 20, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Um, what about healing the Constitution? McCain has already shown that he has no respect for, or reason to believe in the Constitution.
Why would you vote for someone who has already shown that their oath to the COnstitution didn’t mean crap, and the only thing they listen to is their own ideas and be damned any rules that get in the way?
I just don’t get this love of McCain. C’mon, Hillary wanted to impose her will on the people as well. Why aren’t you as fond of her as you are of McCain? Because she failed?
I’ll personally go door-to-door to rally votes against McCain. He’s the only one right now who’d get me to volunteer… too bad it’s volunteering against him.
You may agree with him that his ideals are more important than the Constitution… but I am damn well not going to sit by and hope someone with this mindset gets the Presidency.
gekkobear on February 20, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Heh.
McCain…Inspiring people*
*to vote for the other guy
Slublog on February 20, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Comment pages: