As anybody who reads PoliGazette on a regular basis knows, Michael van der GaliÃ«n has been very clear about his distaste for Obama’s brand of politics. And while I very rarely think Michael is giving Obama a fair shake, I understand that he’s not convinced that somebody so “new” can bring about the change he’s talking about.
But when Michael sent me a story about how he’s giving the thumbs down to McCain too it left me wondering how he determines somebody is “real” or not:
Although I think that Robert forgets to keep in mind that McCain is sucking up to the far right because he, wait for it, has to, thereâ€™s most certainly truth to the claim that McCain may not be much of a maverick anymore. Heâ€™s defending tax cuts he once opposed; heâ€™s being endorsed by pastors he once dubbed â€œagents of intoleranceâ€; he was a hawk, but heâ€™s now an Ã¼berhawk.
Iâ€™ve never bought into the entire â€œstraight talkâ€ thing. Itâ€™s sheer propaganda, in my opinion. McCain isnâ€™t more willing to tell the truth than other politicians, or at least not so much more that one would actually notice a big difference.
Iâ€™ve said in the past that I would endorse someone at the moment that I realize that my blogging may be influenced by my political preferences. Thatâ€™s why I endorsed both Romney and Clinton. But if the race is between McCain and Obama, Iâ€™m not going to endorse either one. McCain is – from a policy perspective – obviously less bad than Obama from my perspective, but Iâ€™m negative about both.
So on one hand, McCain is disqualified because he changed his mind on tax cuts and embraced the religious side of his party, but Romney’s flip flopping on big time issues like abortion and taxation when he was in Massachusetts is okay on the other hand? And what does it mean to go from being a hawk to an Ã¼berhawk? McCain has always been very pro-military and pro-war-when-necessary type of guy. Obviously I completely disagree with McCain’s assessment of Iraq, but there are few politicians who are consistently as high profile and still non-partisan as McCain.
What posts like this continue to tell me is that while Michael is being true to his feelings, those feelings are simply inconsistent with one another. He’ll apply one standard to one politician, but won’t apply the same standard to another. On one hand Obama and McCain are phonies, but Romney and Clinton aren’t? Because that’s seemingly what his opinions have been based on…whether he believes the candidates are telling the truth or not.
Again, it’s certainly Michael’s right to endorse who he wants to, but I wish there was more to his arguments than “I don’t trust him!” Because that seems like it should apply to nearly all the politicians who ran for POTUS in the last year, not just the ones he’s selectively choosing.