« Election Central Morning Roundup | Home | Poll: Obama Has Big Lead In Michigan »

Obama Camp: McCain Flip-Flopped On Question Of Whether Specter Of Terrorism Helps Him Politically!

Did McCain actually flip flop on the question of whether scenes of international violence help him politically? Looks that way.

The Obama campaign is keeping up the pressure on the McCain campaign over top McCain adviser Charlie Black's assertion that a terror attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain, which McCain subsequently disavowed. On a conference call with reporters moments ago, the Obama camp said it had dug up a quote from McCain back in December when he did in fact say that the specter of attacks helped him.

Black had also said that the Bhutto assassination had helped McCain. And the McCain camp disavowed this, too. But here's what McCain said back when the assassination happened:

In an interview with reporters after the event, McCain said, "I would hate for this tragedy to affect anyone's campaign." But he was quick to add that "my theme throughout this campaign has been that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment. Perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials."

On the call, one of Obama foreign policy advisers drolly noted the inconsistency. "Back in Decmember, he said something very different," he said. "He said that the assassination...would enhance his national security credibility."

Yep. Wonder if the big news orgs will note this in their coverage of McCain's "disavowal" of Black's remarks.


Late Update: Just to clarify, this is important because it suggests that McCain really does think what Black inadvertently revealed.

Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:


72 Comments

| Leave a comment

For the love of all that is holy, can we PLEASE stop with the flip-flop crap?! I thought we ran that well dry the LAST presidential election. Plus, I'm just sick of hearing the term flip-flop. Sheesh.

As they say, payback is a bitch ;)

I hated the term when they used it against Kerry, especially because he didn't really "flip flop", but now that karma is feeding the Republicans their own crap, and now that McCain REALLY flip flops, I delight in the sweet irony.

Yeah, I'm totally fine with it. McCain has changed his position on almost every major policy issue and he has to be called out on it.

user-pic

He has changed on illegal immigration...but that was because he was wrong and he was called out by his base. So he said he changed based on that.

..he has also changed his mind on the religious right.

And public campaign financing ...

..and the Bush Tax cuts.

user-pic

The only reason he was against them in the first place was cuz GWB kicked his butt in the 2000 primary. He's otherwise been a pretty reliable tax cutter. His personal vendetta has come back to haunt him on that one.

Please, let us elect a president who makes policy decisions on personal vendettas!

That's a winning explanation.

user-pic

...I told you he was my 3rd choice out of 3 possibilities...

Oh, I don't remember that.

But, either way, you're really reaching for defenses here.

I might even call them "Kerry-esque."

Exactly! SF, the thing that worried me (and I think a lot of Dems) about McCain a year ago is that he had some pretty middle of the road views on governing that could bring a lot of people to his camp, but since he's clinched the nomination he's been running towards his base on a myriad of issues. What you see as McCain's policies coming into line with your own, the rest of the country sees as flip-flops...

...and offshore drilling

user-pic

off shore drilling he says she be up to the states...that's a flip flop from...?

off shore drilling he says she be up to the states...that's a flip flop from...?


from supporting a federal ban. If he thought it should be up to the states, he should not have supported a federal ban. On the other hand, it clearly should not be up to the states. The continental shelf off the coast of our country is a national resource, not a local one. Just as Wyoming has no right to decide whether snowmobiles are allowed in the Yellowstone National Park.

..his stance on Cuba.

..the confederate flag

user-pic

I wouldn't call this a "flip flop" he admitted it was an "act of political cowardice..." to not oppose it originally.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310003

I'd call it a flip flop. http://youtube.com/watch?v=WN8EMmML-es

on Privatizing Social Secuirty..

..On Ethanol

user-pic

He was against the production of ethanol?

user-pic

Small distinction...the specter of terrorism vs. an actuall attack...(or does that sound too much like "I was for the bill before I was against it?").

Kerry is old news, SFC.

user-pic
Wonder if the big news orgs will note this in their coverage of McCain's "disavowal" of Black's remarks.

No.

This has been another edition....

The NY Times buried this in a tiny box in the campaign coverage.

Can you imagine the media firestorm had David Axelrod said that a bad economy would help Obama?

Can you imagine the blaring headlines on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC? "Obama thinks it's good that people are hurting!!!!!"

BTW, if anyone wants to get really riled up over the atrocious way that the McCain campaign is covered by journalists, take a look at this week's The Nation.

Warning: you may want to vomit, after.

user-pic

yeah, it is surprising that this wasn't a big story. very odd (not)

user-pic

Hey Greg - do you suppose that now we are seeing why they didn't call for Black to be fired?


He really is going to keep giving - so why look a gift horse in the mouth?

user-pic

fair enough!

Hooo! Greg woulda never pass up da chance to reply on a commentation bout Horsies' Moufs!

user-pic

Maybe they didn't call for Black to be fired because Hillary Clinton said essentially the same thing as Black.

Yes, the weirdest (not the worst) part of Black's statements were that somehow John McCain was better fit to get us through Bhutto's assassination?!?! It's so non-sensical and ridiculous it's difficult to respond to other than repeating: These guys are just idiots.

Not to mention that if there were a terrorist attack before the elections, wouldn't that mean it had taken place on Bush's watch?

I don't know, I was pretty shaken up by the whole Bhutto thing....and the prospect of John McCain taking the reins of power next year just made me feel safe.

I am currently hiding in my house with the shades drawn, having heard about the unrest in Zimbabwe, and the shots fired near the Israeli Prime Minister

All I can say is luckily John McCain is there for us.

user-pic

I wish I could do that - that was so funny!

(although I was shaken by Bhutto's assassination)

user-pic

Have you covered your windows with plastic sheeting and duct tape?

John McCain disagrees with John McCain? Now that's a true MAVERICK.

user-pic

LOL!

Maverick? OK, but what flavor Maverick?

Bart's boxers, or Brett's briefs? Nationally Enquiring MTVer's wanna know!

I say McCain should trade Charlie Black for Don Imus and a first round draft pick.

user-pic

LOL!!!

Nice, score: Obama 114, McCain 0

The talk about whether or not a terrorist attack helps the Republican candidate reminds me of this quote from McCain back in March:

Senator John McCain said on Friday that he feared that terrorists might step up their attacks in Iraq this fall in an attempt to tip the November election against him.

“I worry about it because I know they pay attention, because of the intercepts we have of their communications,’’ Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, told a friendly crowd at a town hall-style meeting at the Springfield Country Club in suburban Philadelphia. “I worry about it, because the hardest thing in warfare to counter is someone, or a group of individuals, who are willing to take their own lives in order to take others.’’

He added, “I also believe that they may be able to carry out some spectacular suicide attacks, but we do have them on the run.’’ Nonetheless, he concluded, “Yes, I’m very worried.’’

Mr. McCain was responding to a question from a member of the audience about whether he was concerned that Al Qaeda in Iraq or any other terrorist organization might ratchet up its activities in September or October to increase American casualties and to try to tilt the election against him — but in favor of a candidate more willing to withdraw American troops.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/mccain-says-he-is-worried-about-pre-election-iraq-attack/

user-pic

hah. this is the essence of the contradiction here. terror attacks hurt the GOP because terrorists supposedly want a dem in the white house. but they help the GOP because no one can trust a dem on national security. (so goes the argument, anyway)

You know something's going awry in the GOP when they can't even fear-monger in the same direction.

"Springfield Country Club in suburban Philadelphia"... I wonder if Obama was there drinking a martini and making snide remarks...
/snark

user-pic


What's it going to take for the media to quit propping up McLame? Is it hopeless - will they just keep on doing it?

They love their horse races. They want the ratings from the Clinton/Obama contest until November.

There has to be more to the media's refusal to go after McCain than his backyard barbecues, like orders from senior management. Evidently, former POWs are sacrosanct.

user-pic

I think it will take a lot of money on Obama's side to tell some truths in purchased political ads because that truth-telling is something the corporate MSM refuses to do. Donate to Obama, folks.

user-pic

From near the end of the article in The Nation:

Let's take a moment to sum up: the anti-torture candidate supports torture. The pro-immigration candidate opposes immigration. The candidate who opposes tax cuts for the rich supports them. The pro-campaign finance reform candidate has a campaign that is run almost exclusively by lobbyists, and exploits loopholes in the law to skirt spending limits--even the laws the candidate wrote. The candidate who opposes "agents of intolerance" in the Republican Party embraces them. The candidate with the foreign policy experience frequently confuses Sunnis and Shiites and misreads Iranian influence in the region, but is proposing permanent war. The candidate who claims to be a fiscal conservative wants to bust the budget. The candidate who claims to take global warming seriously does not want to take any serious action to address it.

In light of this evidence--as well as much, much more that space does not permit discussion of here--it is difficult not to conclude that the figure with whom so many mainstream journalists are infatuated is largely an invention of their collective imagination, one they often admit they love not because of what he says and does but because they--as with George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin--can discern what lies in his heart. Recall that the liberal Nicholas Kristof professes to admire McCain because the candidate "truly has principles that he bends or breaks out of desperation and with distaste. That's preferable to politicians who are congenital invertebrates." This is a view echoed by New York Times Magazine political correspondent Matt Bai, who explains, "Like every politician I've known, McCain will sometimes surrender to the cheap ploy or prevarication when the moment demands it, but it is often with a smirk or a wince, some hard-to-miss signal that he knows he's up to no good."

What's it going to take for the media to stop propping up McCain?

A huge embarassing gaffe that cannot be explained away.

Link to The Nation: Loving John McCain

user-pic

Ni-i-i-i-ce!!

First, "liberal Nicholas Kristof". Did the Nation really say that? What a catch-22... exclude the quote and reduce the credibility of your argument; include the quote and reduce the credibility of you.

One thing I despise about the whole flip-flop argument is the assumption that a politican cannot and should not legitimately change their mind. I've had enough of that crap with Bush, "well, at least he sticks to his guns!" Even when they're pointed at his head. Not that McCain isn't a flip-flopper - someone who can offer no rational reason for why they changed their mind - but just sayin'.

user-pic
Senator John McCain said on Friday that he feared that terrorists might step up their attacks in Iraq this fall in an attempt to tip the November election against him.

Shades of Commander CooCoo Bananas. I think Bush took what remained of McLame's brain out in '04 and has it in a glass jar somewhere. He's just a Bush sock puppet now.

Hey, I continue to be impressed at the way Barack Obama plays offense. Instead of being constantly on the defensive, like our past two Democratic presidential nominees, he doesn't let the Republicans direct his own campaign. It's very good to see a Democrat play offense, isn't it? Especially when he's so very good at it!

Now we know why O'Bama's not demanding Black's head on this

Two heads are better than one

I think the media props up McCain for two reasons. One being they want a close election in November because it will be a boon for ratings and the second reason being that he cosies up to the media like no other whereas Obama's Campaign is really restricting access to their candidate. Media denied access to Obama gets angry and it effects their coverage - I mean he is negatively affecting their livelihood because they can't get access and possibly juicy stories.

It's utterly shameful that McCain's constant contradictions get no MSM play and this whole deal with Black was covered less than the faux Presidential seal issue.

It's not news it's infotainment, and in a 24 hour news cycle, a stronger election battle means better ratings and thus more ad money for the networks.

I'd love to see polling done that would seperate internet users from non-internet users.

user-pic

Middlenames, catfood and Donna G -

All excellent comments. The media follows the money - but I've never been able to understand the love affair with McMavericky, except that he was always a walking story - given his history.

user-pic

I think I like Alterman's interpretation better. They love the image of McCain, in the same self-delusionary way that George W. Bush looked into the eyes of Putin and knew his soul.

They love an imaginary creature.

...and protecting abortion rights in cases of rape and incest

that comment belongs way upstream (down stream?)

anyway it's another McCain flip-flip

user-pic

Jonze - I agree with you but that doesn't address this love affair that has gone on for years between McLame and the media. This isn't something that came up just this election. I agree this contest is great for their business - so was the primary. That's one reason it kept going and seemed to close to open warfare - the press were living off the story for as long as they could keep it going.

The media has been loving them some McMavericky for years. And there's very little there there with McLame- he's not very bright, really, at all.

user-pic

The thing that bothers me the very most about the last 8 years, and McLame is up to his eyebrows in it, is the matter of war crimes: torture. What upsets me is that so few Americans seem to care.

I find that shocking. I can't believe more hasn't been made out of his vote on the torture bill. I really can't.

Why aren't people outraged about what we did? It has devastated me, emotionally, morally, and intellectually, that we are now that kind of nation.

It's difficult to address the issue of media bias because it's safe to say many in the media are enamored with Obama, too. It does seem like Obama's gaffes are overreported and McCain's are underreported, though...but maybe that's a function of the public's reaction/interest? Are gaffes taken more seriously when they come from the "unknown" candidate?

user-pic
Are gaffes taken more seriously when they come from the "unknown" candidate?

Flip-flops and gaffes are only taken seriously when they come from the Democratic candidate.

I would argue that the depth and width of the media's adoration of McCain far outstrips the supposed favoritism towards Obama.

The media has been quite straightforward, for instance, in pointing out that Obama appears to have backed away from his pledge on campaign financing.

I don't see the same straightforward treatment of McCain.

But then, McCain fed them barbecue. Obama flew them to Chicago while he was in D.C.

CNN has video of McCain's comments in September. They were made following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. CNN's Dana Bash was with McCain at the time and asked him point blank if he thought a terror attack would help him and he said "yes."

Dana reported this verbally in the morning. But the time the Situtation Room aired, they had dug up the video!

Sorry, I believe McCain's comments were in December, not September.

This is typical Reppub strategy: the interests of the party and getting elected ALWAYS trumps the national interest.
I'm not a "grassy-knoll" or "black helicopter" type, but there is no question in my mind that the Repubs secretly contacted Iran during the 1980 election to not release the hostages, and thus helped sabotage Jimmy Carter's re-election efforts.

For goodness sake, cannot the VA find McSame a room in their old folks home? He is not flip-flopping, he is simply being a Republican living in an alternate reality not unlike HRC for the past 6 months.

Attack on America helps McCain; Charlie Blackand McCain help Obama's election.
If I were running the Obama Campaign, I would not even mention Charlie Black's name at this point because if McCain fires him NOW, the damage will be short-lived and will not have much effect on the election day. This guy could be the end of McCain's campaign. I would keep gathering all the concrete information about his associations in the mean time and use them in explosion about 2 weeks before the election day, 10 times every day and in every public appearance, to have maximum gain out of it.
McCain's own remark similar to it can be recalled: He said the same thing about Bush in 2004 (?) that an attack would help the latter's re-election to the White House. As recently as before Iowa primary, Huckabee accused McCain of "playing political games" with the attack (AP).
Obama should hold on to these things for later use in an explosive manner. This issue alone can easily knock off McCain from the scene.
If used properly, Obama could win over 35 states.

And lest anyone forget, many Americans, but no one on here surely, that McCain was against torture before he was 'for' it. As in, voting 'for' it in cases involving CIA interrogations. Never mind that he could've voted 'no' and it still would've passed. he voted for it because it was political, pure and simple. the McCain of 2000 would've voted no and that wouldve been the end of it. he wouldve been consistent and no one wouldve dared call him on it. but this version isn't 'strong' enough to have done that. he has shown himself for the ego that he has, the one that has overwhelmed his integrity and he's taken every position under the political sun. anything to get him into the WH. sorry, sir, but you don't get it that way. you are not a 'straight talker'. good nite.

user-pic

Everything "our" government says is a lie!!

It’s that simple.

But do not expect Americans to believe it, not most anyways.

They would rather be led than to lead.

Those who do follow it are patriots, the rest of us and the world call it "acting like cows going to slaughter" because that is exactly what the USA government expects Americans to do, and that is exactly what the USA government does.

They really do not care much about what others around the world say about us, as long as they get enough sh&t heads in America to believe them, they can act like Imperialists and bullies of the world.

As long as they keep the balance of "us" and "them" mind-set, most Americans will actually be happy to die for the USA government.

I wonder if the USA were to be bombed, would that help McCain, or would that get rid of enough American "cows" that the rest of us could take over and create a new Declaration of Independence....a new country, where We the People, really do govern and make the rules?

Maybe this attack that the McCain fool talks about would actually hurt McCain.

Is this the games they are playing with Americans?

Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
www.CoreyMondello.com
6-25-08

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address