comMITTed to Romney!

McCain re-writes history; a “Reagan footsoldier” goes AWOL

A couple things have been clear to me as I’ve reviewed the mushrooming number of anti-McCain spots.

The first is that there are quite a few motivated conservatives out there that don’t relish the thought of this guy being the GOP nominee (as his mom seems to admit: see the link here).

But the principal reason for this blog entry is to initiate discussion of the second thing I’m noticing consistently. Namely, when faced with a flip-flop or other “inaccuracy” (that’s a euphemism), McCain does one of two things:

1. He re-writes history. Has anyone else noticed this?

Example 1: there are quotes at the time of the Iraq invasion in which he swore it was going to be easy. Now that we’ve been there for years, when asked about Iraq he states, as if it was obvious to anyone paying attention at the time, that everybody knew it was going to be tough going in, and that anyone who thought otherwise wasn’t paying attention. It’s as if he’s accusing everyone else of being wrong if they remember things any differently from him. Isn’t that a bit fishy? When called on a flop he essentially accuses the questioner of remembering incorrectly, even though McCain’s been caught on tape with a contradicting statement? And what are the reasons he gives as to why he’s right? Because his 72 year old memory is better than everyone else’s and he does, after all, only give us straight talk.

Example 2: when asked about the Bush tax cuts, he claimed most recently that he wanted there to be accompanying spending cuts and that’s why he voted against them. But in reality his rhetoric at the time was that he couldn’t “in good conscience” support tax cuts “to the wealthiest americans.” The problem of course for conservatives is that the real reason is consistent with liberal thinking (a problem), but his later excuse is more consistent with conservative thinking, which may sit better with republicans. When pushed on these and other matters, he states, again as if it was obvious to anyone paying attention at the time, that “I made very clear at the time” or “I’m consistently on record as saying” that the reason was spending cuts. But again, what reason are we given to trust his memory over the sound bites, quotes and YouTube videos from the time? None, other than “I’m a straight talker.” Unfortunatley that’s just not the case.

Example 3: when discussing his allegation that Mitt supported an Iraq withdrawal, he claims that “at the time timetables was the buzzword,” and that everyone at the time knew that discussing timetables meant a withdrawal. Again, he apparently remembers the past better than everyone else, even when caught in a dissimulation (lie), truth-twist or a flip-flop. I know lots have discussed his flip-flopping ways, but my point here is that his consistent excuse is that “it was clear at the time” or “I’m consistently on record as saying,” when in fact, in all three examples, the record in fact DOES NOT support his statement. Yet people seem like they just let his initial answer suffice, saying essentially “oh, you must be right, I must be remembering wrong.” I believe this is working with journalists because they don’t usually anticipate having their research challenged, and, unless they’ve anticipated it, in the face of a confident fraud, they figure they need to go back and look at things again. So McCain gets pass after pass from people that just bow down when he simply says “the record is clear” or “I’ve consistently said….” In fact, anyone can make that statement, and it’s about time to make him back them up.

2. When faced with an unpleasant part of his record, like his votes on the Bush tax cuts, like his lack of experience on the economy, he never says “here’s what I’ve done: x, y and z.” Instead he cites his list of Washington insiders that have endorsed him, like an old smoke and mirrors parlor trick. His argument is that “if I’ve tricked these smart people, you should be tricked, too.”

I’m getting the distinct impression that his “straight talk” is just really him bullying us into believing him because he remembers better than everyone else, including video and audio recordings. The argument boils down to “it’s true because I said so.” And the second line of defense is if you don’t believe him, look at all the Washington buddies standing behind him. Of course all these folks owe and are owed favors by McCain, and the endorsements make Mitt’s argument that we need new blood in Washington, not someone with lobbiest on all sides and that will owe everybody and their brother when they arrive.

Let me know if you’ve also noticed this. I’m getting pretty annoyed at his circular reasoning as to why we should trust him. When I studied formal logic way back when, this was called “begging the question.” See this link at Wikipedia that defines what this means, and it’s not what people usually mean when they use this phrase. It’s an argument that assumes the very conclusions it’s trying to make, and that’s what McCain’s been selling us. And with most of his statements attempting to justify departures from conservatism, this former Reagan foot soldier has gone AWOL.

Share on Facebook

Share This