Republican endorsements for Obama

Wayne Gilcrest, Republican Congressman from Maryland
Jim Leach, Former Republican Congressman from Iowa
Harris Falwell, Former Republican Congressman from Illinois
Lincoln Chafee, Former Republican Senator from Rhode Island
Larry Pressler, Former Republican Senator from South Dakota and 1st Vietnam Vet in the Senate
Charles Mathias , Former Republican Senator from Maryland
Jim Whitaker, Republican mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska
William Weld, Former Republican Governor of Massachusetts
Arne Carlson, Former Republican Governor of Minnesota
Linwood Holton, Former Republican Governor of Virginia
Richard Riordan, Former Republican Mayor of Los Angeles
Fred Bramante, Former Chairman of New Hampshire Board of Education and Huckabee co-chair Susan Eisenhower, International security consultant and daughter of Dwight Eisenhower
Joel Hagen, current Republican candidate for Congress in Oregon
Colin Powell, George W. Bush Secretary of State, George H.W. Bush National Security Advisor
Scott McClellan, George W. Bush Press Secretary
Doug Kmiec, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush head of legal counsel
Larry Hunter, Reagan and Bush economist
Charles Fried, Reagan solicitor general
Francis Fukuyama, former advisor to Reagan
Ken Adelman, member of Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations
William D. Ruckelshaus, Nixon Deputy Attorney General
Jeffrey Hart, Nixon and Reagan speechwriter
Tricia Mosely, Strom Thurmond staffer
Tony Campbell, Congressional staffer and former Republican candidate for Congress
Jackson M. Andrews, Counsel to Senate and former Republican candidate for Senate
Rita Hauser, Former George W. Bush intelligence advisor
Andrew Bacevich, Boston University International Relations professor
Andrew Sullivan, Conservative author
Tom Bernstein, Texas Rangers owner and Bush supporter
Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of Richard Nixon
C.C. Goldwater, granddaughter of Barry Goldwater
Lilibet Hagel, wife of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel
Christopher Buckley, Conservative columnist and editor, son of William Buckley
Wick Allison, Conservative editor and former National Review publicist
Major General Walter Stewart, Former Commander of Pennsylvania National Guard
Elizabeth Drew, author of Citizen McCain
Nicholas P. Cafardi, Catholic legal scholar and former dean of Duquesne University School of Law Dennis Hopper, Conservative actor and filmmaker
Michael Smerconish, Conservative talk-show host and lawyer
Bill Handel, Conservative talk-show host and lawyer

Even more endorsements here that I haven't managed to add yet

What Republicans say about Obama

Endorsements:
Jim Leach, Former Republican Congressman from Iowa

The change Barack Obama is advocating is far more than a break with today's politics. It is a clarion call for renewal rooted in time-tested American values that tap Republican, as well as Democratic traditions. There's no doubt that John McCain has served in Congress longer than Barack Obama. But it's important to look at judgment over experience and I am impressed by Barack's judgment."

Lincoln Chafee, Former Republican Senator from Rhode Island

I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability

Jim Whitaker, Republican mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska

Whitaker, a former state lawmaker, said a comparison of Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain — neither of whom he has personally met — leads him to believe Obama has the stronger “intellectual capacity” and a greater ability to manifest it.

Whitaker, who as a politician has often focused on energy issues, said he sensed an open-minded approach in Obama’s campaign toward traditional, alternative and renewable energy issues that can benefit resource-rich Alaska.

Susan Eisenhower, International security consultant and daughter of Dwight Eisenhower

I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation’s impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

Other praise:
McCain advisor Mark McKinnon quits campaign rather than oppose Obama

While saying that he does not agree with Obama on every issue, McKinnon gushed about the Illinois Democrat.
"I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal," said McKinnon. "I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would a great race for the country."

McCain delegate Kirk Dilliard supports Obama's bipartisan State Senate record

Sen. Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had, and he was successful in a bipartisan way. Republican legislators respected Sen. Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well.

None of my colleagues who admired Obama will return the reporters’ phone calls, and that’s the problem with this country. No one is willing to say something nice for 10 seconds about someone of a different race, party and location.

Obama's resume

EXPERIENCE:

United State Senator, elected November 2004, serving to present

• Serves on Senate committees for Foreign Relations, Veterans’ Affairs, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Also served on Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works.
• Chairman of Senate subcommittee on European Affairs
• Shares responsibility for the bipartisan Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, requiring full online disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds.
• Shares responsibility for the bipartisan Lugar-Obama Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006, deepening non-proliferation work and including surface-to-air missiles, land mines, and other weapons that may be used by terrorists
• Responsible for the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005, providing aid and expertise to promote democracy in post-war Congo
• Was chosen by the Democratic party to be the point person on ethics reform, putting forth important contributions to a major ethics reform bill
• Wrote and sponsored successful amendments that provide food and telephone services to recuperating veterans free of charge, improve aid for homeless veterans, ensure that all Iraq veterans are tested for Tramatic Brain Injury, improve evacuation and location services in the event of a natural disaster, investigate FEMA's response to formaldehyde-infected trailers used in the Katrina aftermath, require lobbyists to disclose who they collect or arrange contributions for and the total amounts of those contributions, provide funds for summer learning programs among low-income students in the early grades, increase the pool of students entering science and technology fields, improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests, clarify U.S. policy detering nuclear testing, forcing the EPA to enforce lead paint regulations, funding avian flu research, fund research for hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles, and several others

Illinois State Senator, elected November 1996, served to 2004

• Chairman of Health and Human Services Committee
• Spearheaded a successful bipartisan effort in Illinois to pass the broadest ethics-reform legislation by any state in 25 years
• Gained bipartisan support for his bills reforming death penalty interrogations and ending racial profiling by police
• Sponsored successful bills expanding tax credits and child-care subsidies for low-income working families, protecting overtime pay for workers, expanding health care for children and their parents, setting up a "Hospital Report Card" system, and providing job skills training for juveniles
• Worked with Republican-led state senate to negotiate welfare reform

Civil Rights Lawyer, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, 1993 to 2004

• Represented non-profit organizations and private individuals in urban development projects, voting rights cases, and wrongful firings
• Filed major suit that forced the state of Illinois to enforce the Motor Voter Law
• Successfully argued before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case of wrongful firing

Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Chicago School of Law, 1992 to 2004

• Lecturer from 1992 through 1996, senior lecturer from 1996 through 2004
• Taught courses on the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law, on voting rights, and on racism and law
• Helped develop a casebook on voting rights

Community Organizer, Developing Communities Project, 1985 to 1988

• Motivated community members to fight for their own causes through a church-based movement
• Helped set up a college prep tutoring program, job training center, and tenants' rights organization, and fought to get asbestos removed from tenants’ apartments
• Also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation

Community Organizer, New York Public Interest Research Group, 1984 to 1985

• Promoted personal, community, and government reform
• Mobilized student volunteers at the City College in Harlem

Researcher and Writer, Business International Corporation, 1983 to 1984

• Helped companies understand overseas markets in the “Financing Foreign Operations” service
• Wrote for the “Business International Money Report”

EDUCATION:

J.D., Harvard School of Law, 1988 to 1991

• Graduated magna cum laude
• First Black president of the Harvard Law Review in school history

B.A. in Political Science and International Relations, Columbia University, 1981 to 1983

• Graduated with honors
• Wrote thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament

ACTIVITIES:

* Wrote the best-selling Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope
* Has written articles for the Harvard Law Review, Foreign Affairs, and The Washington Post
* Founding president and chairman of board of directors for Chicago Annenberg Challenge
* Founding member of board of directors for Public Allies
* Served on board of directors for The Joyce Foundation
* Served on board of directors for Woods Fund of Chicago
* Served on board of directors for Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
* Served on board of directors for Center for Neighborhood Technology
* Served on board of directors for Lugenia Burns Hope Center
* Has also been involved with ACORN, the Center for New Horizons, and Leadership for Quality Education
* Has spoken on behalf of “Wake up Wal-Mart”, “Families USA”, the “Global Summit on AIDS and the Church”, and the “Call To Renewal” politics and religion conference

Is Obama a Liberal?

"Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate" and "Joe Biden is the third most liberal member of the Senate" are common talking points for McCain and associates nowadays. These statements (silly to anyone who follows the Senate) are based on a single flawed National Journal report about 2007 voting patterns (they said the same thing about John Kerry in 2004). The only reason these senators ranked so high was because they missed many votes while campaigning. In previous years, Barack Obama had ranked 10th and 16th, and Biden was even more moderate. The National Journal themselves has said that their vote rankings should not be used in such a way, and just stated:

Joe Biden's voting record has generally placed him among the center of Senate Democrats ideologically in National Journal's annual congressional vote ratings

A separate, more comprehensive study of the 109th Congress found Obama to be the 21st most liberal Senator. The study of the 110th Congress put Joe Biden and Barack Obama tied as the 10th and 11th most liberal senators, which was exaggerated due to missed votes. Obama has also coauthored several successful bills with Republicans Richard Lugar, Tom Coburn, Kit Bond, and Chuck Hagel, who are nowhere near the liberal end of the spectrum.
The McCain campaign has tried to push these false impressions about both Obama and Biden themselves, even as they claim that "Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time." That's pretty hard to do if he's the most liberal member of the Senate, isn't it? John McCain has been in the Senate with both men and should know better.

Walking the line with the Religious Right

Back in 2000, John McCain made it clear that he would not pander to the Religious Right:

They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country...

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right...

We are the party of Ronald Reagan, not Pat Robertson...

We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Bob Jones...

That same year he especially criticized George W. Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University:

If I were there, I would condemn openly the policies of Bob Jones, because I would want to make sure that everybody knew that this kind of thing is not American.

He also sent out anti-Bush calls to prospective voters, telling them not to vote for a politician who sought the endorsement of "anti-Catholic" religious leaders:

John McCain, a pro-life senator, has strongly criticized this anti-Catholic bigotry, while Governor Bush has stayed silent while seeking the support of Bob Jones University.

But by 2006, McCain was meeting with Jerry Falwell and giving the commencement address at the university of his "good friend":

While Sen. McCain and Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell have had their share of political differences through the years, the two men share a common respect for each other and have become good friends in their efforts to preserve what they see as common values. This will mark his first ever appearance at Liberty University.

McCain also carefully avoided criticizing Bob Jones University and suggested he could be willing to speak there:

I can’t remember when I’ve turned down a speaking invitation. I think I’d have to look at it," he told The State newspaper. McCain, R-Ariz., says he would have to look at Bob Jones University’s latest policy statements. "I understand they have made considerable progress.

In 2007 McCain began actively seeking the endorsement of anti-Catholic Reverend John Hagee, speaking at a Hagee-sponsored event and thanking him for his:

spiritual guidance to politicians like me...It’s hard to do the Lord’s work in the city of Satan.

In February 2008, McCain again shared a stage with Rev. Hagee while he publicly endorsed McCain, assuring voters:

John McCain is a man of principle. He does not stand boldly on both sides of any issue.

McCain had also been seeking the endorsement of controversial televangelist Ron Parsley, and later in February McCain publicly appeared with Rev. Parsley, calling him a 'spiritual guide' and accepting his endorsement.

In March 2008, Hagee made it clear that McCain had actively "sought" his endorsement. When attention was drawn to Hagee's pattern of anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim statements, McCain would not reject the endorsement, and tried to sort of defend him and repudiate his words at the same time:

I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you’d give him a chance to respond. He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression.

In April 2008, McCain said that it was a mistake to seek Hagee's endorsement:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?
MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure.

but just a few seconds later said he was still glad to have the endorsement:

I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. And thanks for asking.

In May 2008, Joe Lieberman defended Hagee for McCain:

He accepted his endorsement. He represents a lot of people in this country, particularly Christians who care about the state of Israel. He founded a group called Christians United for Israel.

But just a week later, with Hagee's negative comments continuing to get media attention, McCain finally rejected his support and strongly criticized the man:

Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.

Later in the same day, he rejected the support of Rev. Ron Parsley:

I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn’t endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement.

About that campaign finance reform...

In 2006, McCain took his name off the reform effort that he had previously supported in 2003.

Then in 2007, he said he would vote to strip away part of that same package that he had tried to pass four years earlier:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has told conservative activists that he will vote to strip a key provision on grassroots lobbying from the reform package he previously supported.

The provision would require grassroots organizations to report on their fundraising activities and is strongly opposed by groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

On a different note, in 1996 and 1997, John McCain proposed legislation that

would ban a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee from paying registered lobbyists

But by May 2008, he had 134 lobbyists either working as paid staff or raising money for him.

Negative publicity caused him to create a new conflict-of-interest policy and fire several lobbyists from his campaign that month. The policy clearly states:

No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity.

But despite this published policy, in July 2008 it was clear that lobbyists are still welcome on his campaign staff:

Katie Couric asked Rick Davis, ostensibly McCain’s campaign manager, how many lobbyists work at campaign headquarters. “We don’t make it a litmus test for employment at the McCain campaign,” Davis said. “It goes without saying that some people who are involved in the lobbying profession do it because they are interested in that side of the equation. They’re interested in government, they’re interested in Congress, they’re interested in public service.

When Couric followed up by asking if the McCain campaign considers lobbyists “public servants,” Davis responded, “Well, I didn’t say that. How do you distinguish someone who lobbies, you know, on behalf of cancer from someone who lobbies on behalf of an oil interest. I wouldn’t call them the same thing but they’re still lobbyists.”

Can McCain remember his talking points on gay marriage?

In 2004, McCain strongly opposed the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court had removed the ban in their state:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
"What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?" McCain said.

In an interview in 2006, he appeared to be sorta in favor of gay marriage, with an unclear qualification:

On the issue of gay marriage, I do believe, and I think it’s a correct policy that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, a marriage between man and woman, should have a unique status. But I’m not for depriving any other group of Americans from having rights. But I do believe that there is something that is unique between marriage between a man and a woman, and I believe it should be protected.

I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman.

After getting some advice from another Republican, he went off-topic later in the interview and tried to clarify his stance:

Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.

It was a good thing he clarified that, because that year he had publicly come out in support of Arizona's Protect Marriage Amendment, which stated in no unclear terms:

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to marriage.

So that means he's against civil unions, and wants to deprive gay persons from any rights that are similar to the ones married persons have, right?

And just to be clear, openly gay persons don't have a right to be in the military either:

McCain says the law, passed in 1993, unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline.

What to teach in science class?

In 2005, John McCain felt that all points of view should be thoroughly presented:

Daily Star: Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
McCain: I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one line of thinking I don't think is - or one belief on how people and the world was created - I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of thought.
Daily Star: Does it belong in science?
McCain: There's enough scientists that believe it does. I'm not a scientist. This is something that I think all points of view should be presented.

In 2006, he said that creationism did not belong in science class:

In the final question of the evening, an audience member asked McCain to outline his stance on teaching evolution and creationism in schools.

"I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view," he said. "I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not."

In 2008, he decided that it's up to the schoolboard, and he doesn't know what he would do:

Q: How do you feel about teaching evolution in schools?
Mr. McCain: I think, first of all, it’s up to the school boards. That’s why we have local control over education. So my personal view is that children should be exposed to as much as they possibly can so that they can make their decisions and be the best informed. But I really believe that school boards are elected in order to make a lot of those decisions, and I respect their decisions unless they are unconstitutional in some way or, you know.
Q: If you were on a school board, how would you vote?
Mr. McCain: I don’t know, Adam. I’d have to see the proposal, I’d have to see where it lies in the curriculum, I’d have to – I can’t. I’m not running for school board.

Are these positions contradictory? Not exactly, except that he seems to know less and less about his own beliefs over time. If you asked him about it right now, do you know how he would answer?

An Orphanage or a Home?

On July 13, 2008, McCain made it clear that he was against adoption by gay parents, even if an orphanage was the alternative:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.
Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.
Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

On July 15th, the campaign tried to adjust McCain's very clear position against gay adoption by saying something completely different:

McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative

When it came up again in an interview on July 27th, McCain got back on-message by making an evasive statement:

McCain: I think that family values are important, when we have two parent — families that are of parents that are the traditional family.
Q: But there are several hundred thousand children in the country who don’t have a home. And if a gay couple wants to adopt them, what’s wrong with that?
McCain: I am for the values that two parent families, the traditional family represents.

Now do you understand what his position is?

Whose troops in Afghanistan?

At the end of 2007, McCain felt that NATO troops should be relied upon to increase the troop presence in Afghanistan:

Our recommitment to Afghanistan must include increasing NATO forces, suspending the debilitating restrictions on when and how those forces can fight, expanding the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army through a long-term partnership with NATO to make it more professional and multiethnic, and deploying significantly more foreign police trainers. It must also address the current political deficiencies in judicial reform, reconstruction, governance, and anticorruption efforts.

On the first week of July 2008, he said that troop presence in Afghanistan was not the issue:

One of the major reasons for it is not so much troop presence as the situation on the Pakistan-Afghan border. And I've been briefed several times by military leaders, including I met just yesterday with the ambassador from Pakistan to the United States

McCain said just one week ago that the way to solve the situation in Afghanistan was to look at "a broad variety of areas" -- none of which were an increased troop presence, but instead included some things that were absent from his speech today, including "the effectiveness of the Karzai government, ungovernable areas, ungoverned, uncontrolled areas of the Afghan-Pakistan border."

As that article suggests, his speech the next week brought a new focus on the troop issue, and implied that American troops being freed up from Iraq duty should fill the gap:

Our commanders on the ground in Afghanistan say that they need at least three additional brigades," McCain said. "Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them.

But after that speech, he reoriented and said that it could be NATO forces instead, or both.

In an interview with reporters aboard his campaign bus, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) modified his assertion today that the U.S. could send three additional brigades to Afghanistan by drawing on troops that were leaving Iraq. The presumptive GOP nominee, who made his initial remarks in a speech before an Albuquerque audience, told reporters just minutes after the event that he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region.

John McCain - Iraq War Cheerleader

From before the Iraq War started through its fourth year, John McCain made it very clear that he liked how it was going:

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.”
[NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.”
[ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.”
[MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.”
[This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.”
[ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise. Obviously, some mistakes were made, to say the least, in allowing some of the looting. We have more troops there now. We probably should have had more troops. But the fundamental point is whether we're going to move forward and have the elections and have a government that the Iraqi people can support, which I believe that we will.”
[CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.”
[The Hill, 12/8/05]

McCain played down the increasing civil violence in Iraq. When host Don Imus remarked that Iraq "already looks like a civil war," McCain responded, saying, "I keep trying to look at the bright side of this because we have to because the consequences of failure are catastrophic." McCain added, "I think, at least we're on the right track here."
[MSNBC, 3/1/06]

But in 2007, when accused of being a supporter of Bush's policy, he rewrote that history:

It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.

To timetable or not to timetable

In January, McCain repeatedly berated Mitt Romney for using the word "timetable" in reference to Iraq policy.

In May, McCain said that combat troops would by out of Iraq by 2013, but made it very clear afterwards that he was not referring to a timetable.

On July 8, McCain clearly stated that there "should not be a set timetable" when responding to Obama's proposal of a 16-month timetable.

When Iraq's president endorsed the 16-month timetable on July 25th, McCain had no problem jumping on:

Asked why Maliki would describe the 16-month policy as “a pretty good timetable,” McCain said, “He said it’s a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it’s a pretty good timetable, as we should — or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions on the ground.”

Relations with Cuba?

In 2000, McCain felt there was room for negotiations and normalization of relations with Cuba, a position he had held for at least six years:

The Miami Herald reported in 1999 that McCain was the only Republican candidate who believed “there could be room for negotiation on the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.” In 2000, McCain told CNN, “I’m not in favor of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro. In fact, I would favor a road map towards normalization of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalization of relations between our two countries.”
Going back further, to 1994, McCain opposed cutting off remittances because it punished people “whose misfortune it is to live in tyranny.”

Even though Cuba has actually become more free during the transition of power to Raul Castro, McCain now strongly objects to Obama's position of engaging with Cuba in order to move them towards democracy, and takes a different stand than he did in the last election:

McCain said that despite the transfer of power from Fidel to Raul Castro, "he doesn't support any immediate change in the U.S. embargo of Cuba unless the nation releases political prisoners, holds free elections and allows human rights organizations to operate in Cuba."

That would be a strikingly difference stance that the Vietnam tactics that McCain had earlier suggested.

A huge collection of McCain's varied and contradictory positions on Cuba can be found here.

To talk or not to talk...

Back in April 2003, John McCain supported speaking to Syria, a state sponsor of terror:

I think it's very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria. I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It's also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was. I think he's too heavily influenced by a lot of the radical Islamic elements and--and militant groups.

And there certainly was no confusion concerning who he was talking about:

I think they're--they're sponsoring and harboring terrorists. I think they have been occupying Lebanon, which should be free and independent for a long time, but I don't think that that means that we will now resort to the military action. We--we can apply a lot of pressure other than military--than the military action. So what I'm saying, we're a long way away from it.

He made several other statements supporting Colin Powell's visit.
This isn't really surprising, when you see that in 2006 he even entertained the notion of negotiating with Hamas, an actual terrorist organization:

I asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

In 2008 when it was time to attack Obama, his speech sounded much different:

"I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy."

McCain contended that Obama wants to "sit down and negotiate with a government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers. He wants to sit down face-to-face with a government that is very clear about developing nuclear weapons. ... They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That's a huge difference in my opinion. And I'll let the American people decide whether that's a significant difference or not. I believe it is."

Does he want a trial or not?

As far back as December 2003, John McCain made it very clear that those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay had been held without trial for too long and decisions about their future needed to be made now:

Yet, we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision on how the United States will move forward regarding the detainees, and to take that important next step. A serious process must be established in the very near term either to formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action.

Later that month he repeated that position:

They may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I’m concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.

In 2005, nothing had happened and so he used even stronger terms

Now, I know that some of these guys [at Guantanamo] are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there’s a fear that if you release them that they’ll go back and fight again against us. And that may have already happened. But balance that against what it’s doing to our reputation throughout the world and whether it’s enhancing recruiting for people to join al-Qaeda and other organizations and want to do bad things to the United States of America. I think, on balance, the argument has got to be — the weight of evidence has got to be that we’ve got to adjudicate these people’s cases, and that means that if it means releasing some of them, you’ll have to release them.
Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.

And by 2006, he really felt something needed to be done:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., agreed that the U.S. should ensure that no prisoner at Guantanamo is subjected to torture. But, he said, closing the prison is premature without a legal resolution to the prisoners’ cases.
“I don’t think they deserve a fair jury trial, but there should be some sort of adjudication” to decide whether detainees are held for life, executed or released rather than held indefinitely, McCain said.

In 2008, with five years gone by since McCain first got upset and only a single detainee receiving a verdict, the Supreme Court stated that that adjudication needed to happen. On the day it happened, McCain found issues with the outcome but seemed to accept it:

These are unlawful combatants, they are not American citizens and I think we should pay attention to Justice Roberts' opinion in this decision," McCain said, referring to the chief justice's dissent. "But it is a decision that the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know I always favored closing Guantanamo Bay and I still think we ought to do that."

But then the very next day, he changed his mind about moving forward and brutally attacked that same decision:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Senator Graham, and Senator Lieberman, and I…made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have.

And about those combatants, it turns out that McCain's much trumpeted anti-torture bill was worded in such a manner that it would not affect those held in Guantanamo Bay at all:

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture".

In court filings, the Justice Department lawyers argued that language in the law written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) gives Guantanamo Bay detainees access to the courts only to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions.

"Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

And so the torture continues:

Bawazir's attorneys contend that "extremely painful" new tactics used by the government to force-feed him and end his hunger strike amount to torture.

McCain used to think that Bush's warrentless wiretaps were illegal

In January 2008, McCain made it clear that the Bush administration was obliged to follow the law regarding the wiretapping of domestic communications

There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

His actions spoke somewhat differently, for in the next month he consistently voted against any attempts to pull retroactive immunity out of the wiretapping bill or limit the surveillance program in any way.

Despite those votes, the McCain campaign decided to take a hard stance for accountability in May 2008

There would need to be hearings, real hearings, to find out what actually happened, what harms actually occurred, rather than some sort of sweeping of things under the rug," Chuck Fish, a former vice president and chief patent counsel at Time Warner, said last week at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in New Haven, Conn., according to an audiotape available on the conference Web site. "That would be absolutely verboten in a McCain administration."

But but with the chance to push for just the kind of clarity on legality that he had claimed to support, he threw it out with another contradictory vote:

McCain was one of 41 senators to vote against an amendment to make the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the exclusive means for electronic surveillance in this country, an amendment offered to provide the clarity McCain says he wants, Democratic aides say. The amendment failed to get the 60 votes needed for passage.

"If that's his view today, he had a chance to back it up in recent votes on the Senate floor, and he did not," said David Carle, spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

And then in June 2008, he seemed to dismiss his previous public positions when his top advisor declared that McCain believed Bush's circumventing of the law to be perfectly okay and appeared to want things to be swept under the rug:

neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001

So, is he for warrentless wiretapping or against it? Does he want accountability, or does he believe that it's all okay? You decide!

No more exceptions for rape and incest

In 2000, John McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest:

After a lot of study, a lot of consultation and a lot of prayer, I came up with a position that I believe there should be an exception for rape, incest or the life of a mother. And that has to do with moral beliefs. It has to with overriding concerns. It has to do with a whole lot of aspects of this issue, which is one of the most difficult and agonizing issues that I think all of us face, because of our belief -- yours and mine -- that life begins at conception.

As late as April 2007, he continued to support that position:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told ABC News Saturday that he still wants to change
the GOP's abortion platform to explicitly recognize exceptions for rape, incest,
and the life of the mother.

However, now that he is the Republican nominee and actually has the power to make it happen, he has decided on a hands-off approach out of fears that he will lose support with his conservative base.

Roe v. Wade...to repeal or not to repeal

In 1999, John McCain made it clear that he felt Roe v. Wade should not be overturned:

“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” Mr. McCain told The Chronicle. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America” to undergo “illegal and dangerous operations"

But but he began running for the Republican nomination in February 2007, he was not the least bit unclear:

I do not support Roe v. Wade — it should be overturned

Rather than admit that he had changed his position, he repeated in February that this was how he had always felt and disavowed his 1999 statement:

I either inartfully or incorrectly stated my position

No longer on board with the DREAM Act, well, depends on the audience

The DREAM Act is a bill that would allow high-achieving undocumented immigrants who want to enter college or the armed forces to have a path to legal status, as long as they were brought into the US when they were children. John McCain cosponsored the DREAM Act in 2003, 2005, and 2007, and it was a part of his comprehensive immigration bill in 2006.

In October 2007, McCain stated that he did not support the DREAM Act and that the borders needed to be secured (as if they have any relation to each other). He repeated this message several times, and made it certain in no unclear language

I would have voted against it I have said a thousand times, I have heard the message from the American people. They want the border secured first and then they want – well, at least I want to go on to comprehensive reform

In July 2008, when speaking to La Raza, McCain flipped again and said that he would support the DREAM Act.

Someone from One Dream 2009 asked if Senator McCain would support the DREAM Act. Yes, he said, but he also supports the nation's sovereignty and wants to make sure it doesn't come at the expense of legal migrants.

On video

Abandoning his own immigration reform...or not

In 2006, John McCain made huge news by pushing forward comprehension immigration reform that clashed strongly with the anti-immigrant side of the Republican Party. But in March 2007, as the presidential race began to take form, he pulled out of the collaboration with Ted Kennedy and stopped taking any active role in immigration reform. At late as January 27th, 2008, he said that he would still support his bill, although he no longer felt that it was the right thing to do right away:

Mr. Russert: If the Senate passed your bill, S1433, the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill...
Sen. McCain: Mm-hmm.
Mr. Russert: ...would you as president sign it?
Sen. McCain: Yeah, but we--look, the lesson is it isn't won. It isn't going to come. It isn't going to come. The lesson is they want the border secured first.

When confronted by conservatives in a debate on January 30th, he went further and said he would not support his own bill.

Hook: ...What I'm wondering is -- and you seem to be downplaying that part. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCain: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate --
Hook: I know, but what if it did?
McCain: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.

In another conservative debate in March, he again stated that securing the borders would be the priority and any comprehensive reform would have to wait until after that was done

The lesson is that Americans want the borders secured first

But when he appeared before business leaders in May 2008, he stated that the comprehensive immigration reform he originally supported would be his priority from the very beginning of his administration

But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.

And then in front of La Raza in July, he made it clear that he was

committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform.

and omitted any stipulations for securing the border or doing anything else first.

Other McCain Tax Inconsistencies

McCain had been a strong supporter of a major increase in the cigarette tax in the late '90s, and as recently as October 2007 he said:

I still regret we did not succeed

However, in 2007 he voted against a much smaller cigarette tax increase because the revenue would be targeted towards children's health, which he felt was unrelated to smoking.


In March 2007, McCain stated that there was absolutely no way he would allow a tax increase:

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.

In February 2008, McCain again clearly stated that he would not support any new taxes

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked McCain if he were a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge.
“No new taxes,” McCain responded.
“But under circumstances would you increase taxes?” Stephanopoulos continued.
“No,” McCain answered.

But by March 2008, he said that he would not make any such pledge:

Asked about his “no new taxes” pledge on national television two weeks ago, McCain walked his comments back. “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes,” he said. “But I’m not saying I can envision a scenario where I would, OK?”

In May 2008, McCain said that he would consider a windfall profits tax on oil companies:

I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me.

But by June 2008, he was a harsh critic of the idea, stating that Obama

wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us.

On July 27, 2008, McCain made it clear that a tax hike was on the table for saving Social Security:

"There is nothing I would take off the table. There was nothing I would demand," McCain told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview on "This Week." "I think that’s the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did it -- and that's what we have to do again."
When asked if that includes a possible hike in the payroll tax, McCain reiterated that nothing -- including such a tax hike -- is "off the table."

By July 30, 2008, he had nuanced his stance, now saying that he would never support raising any taxes, but still implying that it could happen.


More inconsistencies in McCain's tax record can be seen in this position paper by The Club for Growth, a very anti-tax organization. Even McCain's surrogates are getting confused.

The Estate Tax

John McCain used to fight the Republican Establishment's attempts to remove the Estate Tax, a tax that only affects those who are inheriting millions of dollars in wealth. He used to attack those who used "woe is me" ploys to try to reduce the tax rate on their windfall. In June 2002, McCain said

These facts belie the argument that we must repeal the estate tax to save family businesses and farms to assure that they do not have to be liquidated to pay estate taxes.

And as recently as June 2006, he opposed the repeal of the Estate Tax by quoting Roosevelt:

In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a federal inheritance tax . Roosevelt explained: 'The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.' Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: 'Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.' He noted, however, that such taxation should 'be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'

and added that he has:

consistently voted against repealing this tax because of the impact it would have on the deficit, as well as the possible chilling affect it could have on charitable giving in this country.

Now, McCain sharply criticizes the estate tax, and calls it

one of the most unfair tax laws on the book

While not calling for a full repeal, he now wants to increase the threshold for being taxed from $3.5 million to $5 million and wants to reduce the rate from 45% to 15%. So while a single man earning $45 grand this year might pay an effective tax rate over 20%, the fortunate son with a $10 million inheritance will only pay an effective rate of 7.5%. McCain's new outlook on the estate tax won't save anyone inheriting less that $3.5 million a dime, but it could bring savings of 300 million dollars to a billionaire heir! And now you know why some individuals are willing to pay as much as $3 million out of their own pocket to run attack ads on Obama. McCain's making it financially appealing to help him as much as possible.

Bush Tax Cuts

In 2001, John McCain was one of only two Republican Senators to oppose the Bush Tax Cuts. He courageously said:

I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.

In 2003, he was one of only three Republican Senators to oppose the second round of tax cuts, and as late as November 26, 2005 he clearly stated

I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do.

Then why is it that he now wants to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, and is constantly lambasting Barack Obama's tax plan, which is weighted towards the working class and repeals those "tilted to the wealthy" cuts at the very top? And why does he want to further tilt things towards the wealthy by cutting the corporate tax, repealing the estate tax, keeping the capital gains tax low, phasing out the Alternative Minimum Tax, and increasing the child tax exemption (not the child tax credit), all things that are weighted towards higher-income individuals?