TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.07.2008
No. None. None. ... Okay, Maybe Some.

Ramesh Ponnuru makes a great catch: John McCain has changed his position on the acceptability of raising taxes as part of a Social Security deal:

March 2007:

Ponnuru: If you could get the Democrats to agree, or at least to come to the table on entitlements or on tax simplification, are those circumstances under which you’d be willing to accept a tax increase?

Sen. McCain: No; no.

PONNURU:  No circumstances?

Sen. McCain: No. None. None.

Yesterday

MCCAIN: I am a supporter of sitting down together and putting everything on the table and coming up with an answer. So, there is nothing I would take off the table. There was nothing I would demand.

I think that's the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did it. And that's what we have to do again. . . . I have said and will say, I will say that everything has to be on the table, if we're going to reach a bipartisan agreement. I've been in bipartisan negotiations before. I know how you reach a conclusion. We all have to sit down together with everything on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that means payroll tax increases are on the table, as well?

MCCAIN: There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table.

I don't want tax increases. Of course I'd like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table...

It's yet another policy reversal from Mr. Straight Talk.

--Jonathan Chait 

Posted: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:20 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

GSpinks said:

This is to be expected if McCain is going to fully embrace Obama's position on SS...good for McCain for finally seeing reason.

July 28, 2008 5:33 PM

AlanSP said:

I don't care if it's a reversal.  It's a reversal in the right direction.  It's sort of stupid to criticize someone for shifting towards a view that you think is the right one.

July 28, 2008 7:12 PM

hewstino said:

"It's sort of stupid to criticize someone for shifting towards a view that you think is the right one."

Actually, it's pretty intelligent if it underlines the shakiness of  McCain's image of resoluteness.  Also, it compromises him with the right-wing, anti-tax-no-matter-what base.  

July 28, 2008 10:23 PM

scrubbyoak said:

Where are the Obama ads pointing out to voters all this not-so-straight talk by McCain? McCain uses ads to shape the voters' perception of Obama. Anything that could be perceived as negative, whether it's true or not, he has used and will continue using because it works. It's not fair but that's politics, hardball politics. The GOP understand this better than Democrats, and are doing well so far at this point in the campaign inspite of their disadvantaged position this election cycle.

All I see is the Obama camp and their surrogates crying foul (basically whinning) everytime one of these negative shots from McCain gets delivered. McCain's reversals - in the right direction or not - should be packaged and used in ways that'll have him be perceived in the worst possible light. I'm sorry but that would level the political perception playing field.

Again, the GOP is doing it and will not stop. If the Democrats don't, we'll lose again as usual. Bill Clinton, love or hate him, matched the GOP hard blow for hard blow and beat them twice. So far, It's the GOP 5 hard hitting ads, the Democrats 5 loud whines. It has kept McCain, as RP put it, "well within the margin of undecideds".

July 28, 2008 11:00 PM

jemerk said:

Straight talk now means talking straight to the audience of the moment, and then talking straight to the aims of the next audience and so on and on - say anything do anything now - he has been waiting so long.

July 28, 2008 11:07 PM

AlanSP said:

I don''t mean it's politically stupid;  I mean it's intellectually/philosophically stupid.  "Flip-flop" attacks are the expression of deeply flawed reasoning that essentially glorifies rigidity and demonizes any change in position, even a change for the better.  Take a step back for a moment and think about whether changing positions in inherently a bad thing.  I sure as hell don't want a President who will stick to his flawed policies because he doesn't want to seem inconsistent.  We have that now and look where it's gotten us.

It is inherent in my criticism of a candidate's positions that I would like him to change those positions.  If I criticize someone's policy and then criticize them when they shift their position toward mine, I'm effectively saying I've effectively said that I'm going to criticize them no matter what.  I made this point a while ago with regard to conservatives criticizing Obama for taking what they viewed as more conservative positions.  The exact same argument applies here.

July 29, 2008 12:45 AM

AlanSP said:

Another data point for my time of day vs. # of horrific typos chart.  You get the idea

July 29, 2008 1:20 AM

elliesch said:

AlanSP is absolutely, positively right (as in "correct") when he says "If I criticize someone's policy and then criticize them when they shift their position toward mine, I'm effectively saying I've effectively said that I'm going to criticize them no matter what. " I completely agree that what is often criticized as "flip-flopping" often is simply a policy reversal based upon new evidence or rethinking the old evidence.

However "flip-flopping"  also sometimes implies to me "changing position for politcal expediency."  So each change in position needs to be evaluated on its own merits, in its own context.

July 29, 2008 1:47 AM

hewstino said:

AlanSP, I agree that it's great to see Republican politicians bending to reality occasionally.  But I think this is another case of the bar being so low after GWB that even John McCain can clear it.

The best way to test McCain's new line on taxes is to see how he negotiates with President Obama over the new administration's first budget next year.  In the meantime, McCain has kissed too much right-wing ass to interest me with his heartfelt, personal evolution regarding tax policy.

July 29, 2008 2:50 AM