But The Talk is So Straight

Here's a bit on Saint John of Arizona flip-flopping on the Law of the Sea Treaty:

It's no surprise, really, as he's flip-flopped on a ton of stuff, though none of that seems to have penetrated into the narrative about him.

UPDATE: More here.

Comments

The law of the sea treaty? Really?

Were you jealous of Mr. Sullivan's one-man crusade against Senator Clinton and so you wanted to put yourself on the map with a [bitchy] one of your own? Just asking...

Posted by Vermando | January 29, 2008 11:33 AM

Seriously Matt, let it go. McCain isn't nearly as bad as Romney, and you know it. American warming? Expand Guantanamo? And you bring up flip-flopping as an argument to support Romney? Look, if you want Romney to get the nod because hes easier to beat, just say it. But don't pretend that its because hes a better candidate.

The progressive blogosphere, including you, needs to stop bashing all of the GOP candidates. They all suck - we get it. The more important point is that no GOP candidate should stand a chance in November. This election *should be* one of the biggest Democrat landslides in American history.

But it may not be. A Republican may end up winning in November. Your focus should be on how to prevent the Clintons from blowing this whole thing.

On a related note, wtf was Hillary doing clapping when Bush was talking about the surge? Does she honestly think in the general election that anyone who would support the surge would ever vote for her? What a moron.

Posted by Nick | January 29, 2008 11:55 AM

A couple of weeks ago, January 17 I think, I was listening to All Things Considered and Michelle Norris was "interviewing" McCain with "questions" such as, "You were very honest, very straight with the voters... Are voters not ready for straight talk?" "That's a courageous stance to take, though, to stand up to voters..." Is it possible that an experienced journalist is not aware that there are no circumstances where hurling softballs while also praising the interviewee for being just-oh-so courageous and honest is appropriate? I e-mailed the NPR Ombudsman, which, of course, yielded exactly bubkes.
____________________________________________

Posted by Aris | January 29, 2008 12:00 PM

McCain isn't nearly as bad as Romney, and you know it.

No I don't. McCain is promising more wars, and threatening to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years. He loves this stuff. Romney has a technocratic background.

McCain is more dangerous both as a candidate in the general election and as a president than Romney.

You are right, of course, that they all suck.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 29, 2008 12:01 PM

"McCain isn't nearly as bad as Romney, and you know it."

Actually, he is. There are many Republicans who would like to have a reasoned discussion about a responsible endgame in Iraq. Concern about wear and tear on military, costs, maybe going to Baker-Hamilton, etc. But McCain jumps down the throat of anyone who dissents on Iraq, calling "surrender" and Munich-class appeasement. So there has been no real discussion of Iraq, other than Ron Paul.

McCain's vaunted foreign policy experience just seems to consist of generalized belligerence.

Posted by bob h | January 29, 2008 12:22 PM

Let's face it, the McCain/Guiliani deal--social liberalism, sort of, at home, and perpetual war abroad--will appeal to a lot of people. The costs will all be borne by other people: Arabs and our all-volunteer military. And it's not like anyone really believes that terrorism is a domestic public safety/health threat anywhere near the magnitude of the cars we drive and the food we eat.

Of course that last obvious and undeniable fact sort of undercuts the rationale for the current crusade, but it also explains why no one (despite the polls) really cares about it: apart from the meager-to-nonexistent threat of domestic blowback, they have no skin in the game.

Posted by kth | January 29, 2008 1:09 PM

I don't understand the comment above that the progressive blogosphere should stop talking about the republican candidates. Why on earth would we do that? Now is a great time to talk about the shortcomings of all of them.

Posted by MikeJ | January 29, 2008 2:21 PM

MikeJ, my point is that everyone knows that GOP candidates have serious shortcomings. Its called beating on a dead horse. All a Dem candidate should have to do to win is show up.

Unfortunately, each passing day the Clintons are feeding the GOP more ammo to use against her in the general election. She is going to continue to motivate republicans to try to stop her, while simultaneously jading democrats to the point where maybe a lot of them stay home.

In short: If you compared attitudes towards Hillary now and a couple of months ago, I bet Republicans hate her more and Democrats like her less. Do the math.

Personally, I was indifferent to her a month ago, and would have voted straight ticket Democrat. Now I loath her. I'll either stay home or vote against her.

Posted by Nick | January 29, 2008 3:20 PM