McCain: For Lobbyist Disclosure Before He Was Against It

You might think that removing a key provision of a lobbying bill you authored which requires the "disclosure of grassroots activities by paid lobbyists," because conservatives you're trying to court oppose it, is indicative of a lack of integrity. That's what I used to think, too. But now I think of it this way: What good is one shoe all by itself?


What the heck am I supposed to do with this?
You can't get very far with only one shoe, people. You need to have a whole pair, especially when you're trying to navigate the long, hard trek to the Oval Office. So when McCain appears to be changing his position on lobbying, including his own legislation, or leaders of the religious right, or how easy the war would be, or tax cuts, or abortion, or intelligent design, or the confederate flag, or torture, or campaigning at racist institutions, or ethanol, or Henry Kissinger, or any one of a very large number of issues, it's not that McCain is—what's a good term for it?—opportunistically substituting one position for another with no regard for the merest appearance of integrity; he's just making sure you've got a whole set of shoes.

"[I]n 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."

"I've never agreed with Roe v. Wade so it wouldn't bother me any [if it were overturned]."

Together, those seemingly contradictory statements mean that no matter how you feel about Roe v. Wade, John McCain agrees with you. That's a complete set of shoes, my friends—and you can take that to the bank. Or could, if banks accepted shoe deposits.