Gotcha!
Gotcha moments can be fun — and politicians keep providing them.
The latest one is TPM on Rudy’s immigration views. Call it Rudy 2007 vs. Rudy 1996. I discussed the hypocrisy of Rudy’s pledge to end illegal immigration here yesterday — but no blog post could make the point as effectively as this video, which had to be a pleasure to put together for whoever did it (cough cough Hillary’s campaign cough):
D’oh!
You also may have seen the video of Dick Cheney talking about what a good idea it was not to go to Baghdad after the first Gulf War. Call it Cheney 2007 vs. Cheney 1994:
D’oh!
Then there was John Edwards boasting about how he would never be caught associated with Fortune Magazine, like Hillary was:
Answering a question about NAFTA, the 1993 trade agreement signed by Clinton’s husband former President Bill Clinton, Edwards said NAFTA was negotiated by Washington insiders and that “you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine saying “I am the candidate that big corporate America is betting on'” — a blunt jab at Clinton who recently donned the cover of Fortune.
That was a reference to this picture:
Then the Huffington Post found this picture:
Call it Edwards 2007 vs. Edwards 2002.
D’oh!
These are hardly the only three politicians to get caught with their pants down, though these examples are pretty stark.
If you have any stark examples of your own, feel free to leave them in the comments. The clearer the hypocrisy, the more effective your example will be. And it’s a bipartisan exercise, so go nuts, lefties. This is your chance to shine! (Same for righties, but that goes without saying . . .)
UPDATE: Just so it’s clear, the picture of Edwards is not him on the cover of Fortune. It’s him standing at a podium labeled “Fortune.” It’s hypocrisy, but at a slightly higher level of generality.
There was the St. Hillary of the nineties who decried the greed of the Reagan era vs. Hillary the cattle futures trader and Hillary the land flipper (Whitewater), who wouldn’t let McDougal buy her out of the investment because she wanted more money.
Doug E Fresh (bfbba1) — 8/16/2007 @ 3:53 amPatterico:
The world and political landscapes change and people grow and change with them. A lot will happen in 10 years which can’t be reasonably foreseen by us now.
It’s disingenous to compare people with their own self 10 years prior, and call them hipocrites for adapting to new developments, or revising their opinions and ideas in the face of new reasoning/circumstances. Politicians are allowed to change their minds.
Fco (201cb0) — 8/16/2007 @ 4:37 amThis is my gift to AF and blubonnet. It’s not necessary to link the President’s “Axis of Evil” speech after 9/11. But now it seems that we are faced an entirely new enemy.
nk (e3412b) — 8/16/2007 @ 5:00 amSeriously… Does Edwards have no recall of things that happen more than a couple of months ago?
I mean, he’s saying stuff that most sane people would know isn’t true just by going “Hmmm… Did I ever… Yup, 5 years ago…”
The man is a sociopath…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/16/2007 @ 5:15 amAlthough, again technically, he didn’t lie.
With the Harpcollins money, he’d claimed “all the money he recieved” went to charity, but then we found out nearly $300,000 had gotten paid to his duaghter and some other guy. That $300,000 went right from HarperCollins to those two, so technically Edwards never recieved it.
For this one he said “you will never see a picture of me on the front of Fortune magazine”, which is, in theis case, still true. He spoke before them, it seems… Or was paid to speak by them, or SOMETHING…
But wasn’t on the cover of the mag.
And really, Business is BETTING on Hillary? Capitalist institutions are betting on a socialist?
OK, I suppose betting on her to lose is still betting, but that’s hardly what they suggest…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 8/16/2007 @ 5:19 amin the iowa electronic markets, run by the u of iowa biz school, where you can bet real money on the candidates, hillary’s odds of winning the democratic nomination have shortened dramatically in the last four weeks.
assistant devil's advocate (8f0824) — 8/16/2007 @ 6:31 am1991 was different from 2003. That absolves Cheney of hypocrisy, although I disagree with Cheney about 1991.
Law (62ca0c) — 8/16/2007 @ 6:59 amTo Patrick:
Gotcha on your Rudy video.
Read this.
Rudy at the Kennedy School
Do you disagree with his 1996 arguments?
And if you do, what specifically?
Flap (e29dbf) — 8/16/2007 @ 7:10 amZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
These are politicians, reacting to what we-the-voters want to hear. Don’t blame them for flip-flopping; blame yourselves. After all, there was a time when sending troops to Viet-Nam was overwhelmingly popular.
I’m actually more worried about a politician who IS consistent (e.g. Kennedy, Ted).
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 8/16/2007 @ 7:27 amCertainly not a politician, but a respected internet figurehead just the same. Patterico in October 2003:
Jim Montague (d318ad) — 8/16/2007 @ 8:10 amANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR WAR: I
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:25 pm
ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR WAR: I keep hearing that war will increase terrorism, because Arabs will become enraged due to the suffering that war will cause the Iraqi people. But I think there is at least one major factor that points the other way.
If we roll in and completely overwhelm Iraq, we might finally be able to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. The only reason they have been there for over 10 years is to keep Saddam in check. Moving the troops out would remove Osama’s great rallying cry that the infidels are occupying the holy lands. It can’t hurt to take one of Osama’s major talking points away.
We should also keep in mind that anybody who would get enraged at us over a war is probably already enraged at us over sanctions. There is a widespread myth, one oft-repeated by folks like Noam Chomsky, that we have killed 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions. Whoever believes that can’t be getting too much more upset over a few civilian casulaties in a war.
Commenter Fco said it all: “It’s disingenous to compare people with their own self 10 years prior, and call them hipocrites for adapting to new developments, or revising their opinions and ideas in the face of new reasoning/circumstances. Politicians are allowed to change their minds.”
More from the same speech at Harvard
Jmegill (ab3452) — 8/16/2007 @ 8:44 amVideo:
Giuliani defends NYC Sanctuary City Policy in 1996
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0jgZsaT98
Don’t worry, Rudy, us rubes’ll believe anything you tell us!…
Can someone tell me why I ought to trust Mr Giuliani when he’s speaking to the “rubes” from whom he wants votes, when his words are completely opposite not only from his past words, but also his past deeds?
……
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 8/16/2007 @ 9:32 amFCO,
It’s disingenous to compare people with their own self 10 years prior, and call them hipocrites for adapting to new developments, or revising their opinions and ideas in the face of new reasoning/circumstances. Politicians are allowed to change their minds.
It is true that they are allowed to change their minds, but the problem comes when they refuse to acknowledge that they changed their minds. If Guiliani came out and said “I was wrong then” or that “things are different now, requiring a different solution” and explained why he thought that, it would be one thing. However, claiming that his positions has been consistent all along when it clearly has not is the troublesome part.
And, of course, we should ask what the magic time-limit is past which we are not allowed to recall someone’s past positions. In the statement above, you put it at ten years. So, if someone changes their position on an important issue within one year, is it fair game? What about 5 years? Six months? At what point are we allowed to look at someone’s past statements and positions? Or are we never allowed to? We must only analyze what the politician states as of this moment?
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/16/2007 @ 11:04 amTechnology is so wonderful. Politicians can no longer lie without being confronted with their lies. As the frauds like Rudy and the Hildabeasts are confronted with their flip flops and lies we have to thank bale tv, the blogs and talk radio for doing what the MSM never did.
Perhaps we can get better, more honet politicians though integrity comes once in a lifetime. We’ll never see another Reagan and hopefully never see another Clinton or Carter.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 8/16/2007 @ 11:32 amThomas Jackson, as I recall — and it’s been a long time — Jimmy Carter had a reputation for honest and ethical behavior. A lot of people just thought he was incompetent.
lc (a21bb2) — 8/16/2007 @ 11:39 amGreat banana:
Fair enough. They should explain why/what changed their minds. And your point about a time frame to switch positions is well taken.
Often the person doesn’t change but the situation does. At the risk of recycling a cliche… but 9-11 changed everything. Cheney in 2007 is living in a VERY different world than Cheney in 1994. His opinion at the time made sense, in my opinion(at the risk of hijacking this thread).
We all need to be careful with criticisms like the one in this post. This is why politicians can’t give a straight answer to a question anymore. They’re too afraid (justifiably so) that their answers will be taken out of context, or used against them when the situation has changed.
Fco (201cb0) — 8/16/2007 @ 11:41 amWe all need to be careful with criticisms like the one in this post. This is why politicians can’t give a straight answer to a question anymore. They’re too afraid (justifiably so) that their answers will be taken out of context, or used against them when the situation has changed.
I agree with you to a point. The problem is that politicians actually don’t want to be clear about what their position is in many instances – and give vague answers they hope will please everyone. That is why looking at a politician’s past answers end up being so relevant. It would be easy for someone to avoid having their answers taken out of context if they were very clear on what their position right now is.
I welcome Guiliani becoming tougher on illegal immigration, but am still troubled b/c he still favors a legalization plan and when you look back at his past positions, added to his current statements, I don’t think he is really as tough on illegal immigration as his statements are intended to make him look. He could clear this up with a much more clear statement outlining his plan and what he means when he says he still favors a legalization process for illegal immigrants. Until he does that, I think it is fair to look at what his positio was ten years ago and look at the specific actions he actually took regarding illegal immigration ten years ago.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/16/2007 @ 11:50 amTo put what I just said into even more context, I actually have no problem with candidates cynically changing positions in order to win an election, if they actually stick to those promises once elected. After all, we are a representative democracy and thus we must expect politicians to change their positions to get a majority of votes.
The problem comes when a policitican cynically changes a position to win, but then changes his position back. And, that is the worry people have about politicians changing positions. If they change, do they really mean it, will they do what they are now saying? Or, are they only saying it to get elected. If an issue is not one of your major issues, you probably don’t care if the candidate changed positions, b/c you don’t care so much whether or not he follows through.
If the issue at hand is one of your main issues, then you do care, and a candidate changing positions troubles you b/c you are not sure whether the candidate will actually stick to his campaign position once elected. That is why people tend to look for candidates who have long histories supporting that issue, instead of recent converts. Thus, I think it is fair to call the candidate on it and force him to explain and demonstrate whether or not he is serious in his position change.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/16/2007 @ 11:58 am“The problem is that politicians actually don’t want to be clear about what their position is in many instances – and give vague answers they hope will please everyone.”
Which speaks to the fact that in essence its a popularity contest – whatever you do, don’t offend – even if it means waffling and compromising.
The problem of course comes back to the fact that a serious backbone is vital to the position if one is to stand up to against an enemy (whether Congress, Iran or some tyrannical leader).
If they are flip-flopping because popularity demands it, and without any evidence that its been an evolution of thought and retrospective review re current situations, then all you’ve got is a fish out of water. Flip-flop.
And I just won’t vote for a fish.
Dana (b4a26c) — 8/16/2007 @ 12:29 pmin 1996 we were too stupid to prepare for terrorism. Now we know better.
In 1996 we didn’t have very good automation or surveillance technology. Now we know we can force companies to hire only legal workers and we can see our entire border.
Giuliani was dead wrong that we would never be able to control immigration; he seems to have learned better.
Of course we can stop this problem. In fact, it wouldn’t even be very difficult.
Dustin (aba75b) — 8/16/2007 @ 1:27 pmOur so-called liberal media should have played that clip of Cheney repeatedly back when they were calling anyone against the war a traitor.
By the way, the lame excuses for dishonesty, when something as serious as war is involved, on this thread aren’t the least bit convincing. Cheney knew the truth but chose to ignore it.
Psyberian (9a155b) — 8/16/2007 @ 3:54 pmLet me see if I have this straight. VIP X once said Y about A. Now, many years and changed circumstances later, VIP X says not Y about related A. Therefore, VIP X must be a hypocrite, liar or a fool (take your pick). I admit I’m not an expert in critical thinking, but I detect the whiff of a whole heepin’ helpin’ of logical fallacies in the above.
The case of Edwards is completely different. The Edwards reference, on the other hand, is a discovery of fact. He says he did not do X and irrefutable evidence is presented that he in fact did do X. Case closed.
JohnSal (81a7ca) — 8/16/2007 @ 3:56 pmPsyberian – I thought you clowns on the Left were all about the NUANCE.
JD (815fda) — 8/16/2007 @ 4:26 pmI’m currious as to why the Cheney clip was un-used during the ’04 re-election race? Wouldn’t this have buttressed the Lie-Die arguement by undercutting the “power behind the throne”?
Of course, we could go back to the 1932 race and skewer FDR for advocating a reduction of govt expenditures to balance the budget, and then turning around 180-degrees and just blowing the budget out of countrol in his attempt to “end” the Depression.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/16/2007 @ 4:55 pmI think a question is when does a “Gotcha” have any significance?
If logic and common sense ruled the way we think, and truthfulness and integrity were things we valued, John F. Kerry should not have gotten over 15% of the vote in 2004. His “reporting for duty” and being “proud to be in the US military” were hideously warped versions of his early 1970’s “Winter Soldier” days. And if you think that was too much distance in time, how about him arguing on the Senate floor in 1992 that Bill Clinton’s failure to serve in the military was not a legitimate issue, then it became a central issue in 2004?
I think “gotcha’s” are important myself, that was why I decided after the first Gore-Bush debate I would never vote for Gore, but it seems we public pick and choose which ones we remember.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/16/2007 @ 5:41 pmI think the old quote about pornography would answer this. I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it.
JD (815fda) — 8/16/2007 @ 6:25 pmJD, to me there’s a major moral chasm between lies about an appearance on the cover of a magazine and lies about starting a war. So the pornography quote is not warranted.
Psyberian (9a155b) — 8/16/2007 @ 6:55 pmoh god! im gonna have to take up for Edwards here but only because i know he has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected anything again. he was saying he would never be on the cover of fortune, he was saying he would never be the candidate big business would endorse. if hillary had been on the cover of money magazine that wouldve been the mag he named. and for the record im waiting on fred. my remarks are only to keep it real.
chas (3385c2) — 8/16/2007 @ 9:06 pmopps that 2nd sentence should read “he wasnt….”
chas (3385c2) — 8/16/2007 @ 9:07 pmBLABBER BLABBER BLABBER these politicians are always saying something about IF IM ELECTED what a bunch of fools i mean where have we heard them make these stupid promises?
krazy kagu (0c7fb2) — 8/16/2007 @ 9:09 pmwaiting on fred, chas?
How very sad.
Not a gotcha, but a little sumpim’ for the Fred waiters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdDfVklg7WU
alphie (015011) — 8/16/2007 @ 9:23 pmWhoever, get over yourselves.
Scrutiny, the new hypocrisy.
cts22 (9c3e04) — 8/16/2007 @ 10:27 pmSo, you won’t be voting for Hillary, Psyberian? You’re talking about “lies” like this, right?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/17/2007 @ 1:13 amEh, Edwards is out too:
Obamarama!
Pablo (99243e) — 8/17/2007 @ 1:17 amI prefer comparing Hillary Clinton’s promise to talk to despots and take nukes off the table, only to bash Obama for advocating the same in debates. Call it Hillary 2007 vs. Hillary 2007. D’oh!
Xrlq (6c2116) — 8/17/2007 @ 2:40 amPablo, to an extent the democrats can be excused for believing all the WMD lies coming out of the white house. Plus, the hysterical zeitgeist held that anyone against starting the war was a traitor. You expect any politician to stick their neck out in a political climate like that? I don’t believe that’s being realistic.
Off topic, but speaking of zeitgeist, anyone planning to watch The Zeitgeist Movie?
Psyberian (9a155b) — 8/17/2007 @ 4:29 amPablo, to an extent the democrats can be excused for believing all the WMD lies coming out of the white house. Plus, the hysterical zeitgeist held that anyone against starting the war was a traitor. You expect any politician to stick their neck out in a political climate like that? I don’t believe that’s being realistic.
Umm, they were given the exact same intelligence that the White House was relying on. So, either they are a) stupid and incompetent, relying on “lies” rather than on the intelligence they were given; or b) they believed what they were saying.
As to your point about those policicians supporting war b/c it would have been politically difficult not to, do you really want such horrible people leading the country? How can you support someone who does not have the courage to be against a war b/c it would be unpopular – if you believe being against the war was morally correct?
Talk about low morality, cynicism and hipocracy. I don’t think you can find much worse than that.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 8/17/2007 @ 7:09 amPablo, to an extent the democrats can be excused for believing all the WMD lies coming out of the white house. Plus, the hysterical zeitgeist held that anyone against starting the war was a traitor.
How about Al Gore in 1992 denouncing Bush ’41 for ignoring Saddam’s nuclear weapons program and his ties to terrorists? Was The Goreacle lying then or now?
Stu707 (adbb5a) — 8/17/2007 @ 8:54 am“You expect any politician to stick their neck out in a political climate like that?”
Yes, yes I do. If its a matter of entering war, what better time to show your mettle, stick to your convictions and press on for what you believe to be in the best interest of our country – no matter the climate.
After all, that is why we elect a president.
Dana (b4a26c) — 8/17/2007 @ 10:30 amRe: the Rudy video, if it had come from a candidate who has been consistent on the immigration issue (ie: Tancredo or McCain) I’d call it a fair cop (wouldn’t change my support though).
But coming from the Romney camp, this video really is an outrage. For Romney to criticise Rudy for expressing much the same views on immigration that Romney did during the same period of time that Romney did is taking hypocricy to such an extreme that it threatens to open a hole in the space/time continuum. I doubt he’ll shake me off my support of Rudy, but he will never EVER get my vote — the man is the biggest phony to hit the political scene since John Edwards.
Sean P (e57269) — 8/17/2007 @ 11:42 amPsyberian
“Our so-called liberal media should have played that clip of Cheney repeatedly back when they were calling anyone against the war a traitor.”
Who was this “they” person and when exactly did “they” call anyone against the war a traitor?
Comment by Psyberian
buzz (9e5c44) — 8/17/2007 @ 2:22 pmWho Does the Democratic Party Represent?
If you listen to Democratic politicians talk, you would think that they are concerned for the great middle class-working people, if you will, who are being screwed by the rich upper class, those that are represented by the evil Republicans. Yet, if you look at the recent audiences that the Democratic candidates for president have graced their presence with, it gives you pause.
For example, let us look at the most recent venues that the presidential candidates of the Democratic party have visited. First, they refused to take part in a debate that would have been conducted by Fox News. Why? Were they afraid of receiving hardball questions by this “far-right” network? On the other hand, they have no problem being questioned by the likes of CNN or MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, folks who are, let us say, sympathetic to the liberal, Democratic cause. These folks represent the preferred venue for the Democrats. Did you see the last debate held in Chicago’s Soldier Field under the auspices of the AFL-CIO? There was Keith Olbermann throwing up softballs like “How will it feel in your first week as president, when everyone else is vying to replace you?” If you watched it on TV, you probably noticed Sluggo, the union guy, responding to each answer by standing up (behind the candidates) and raising both arms in triumphant applause. I think he liked all of them, even Dennis Kucinich in his ill-fitting suit and probably wearing (union-made) Buster Brown shoes as well.
Then there was the recent appearance by all of the candidates (except “Humble” Joe Biden) before the mad hatters of the left-wing blog, Daily Kos, at their annual convention. It was instructive that the candidates passed on attending the meeting of the (moderate) Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), in order to pander to the far-left wing of their party. Most memorable here was the fact that the candidates competed against each other in demonstrating to the Daily Kos mob who was the most courageous in standing up to Kos critic, Bill O’Reilly. Personally, I would be more interested in knowing who would be more courageous in standing up to Islamic terrorists. But I guess I’m just a narrow-minded bigot.
Finally, there was the “Great Gay Debate” hosted by Melissa Etheridge, who cornered virtually all of the candidates into responding, “Some of my best friends are gay”- or something like that. Another exercise in pandering.
Putting philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives aside, can we agree on one thing? The last thing America needs in this age of international Islamic terror is a president who would pander to anyone. Doesn’t all this confirm the image of the Democrats as the party of weakness?
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (d83b57) — 8/17/2007 @ 9:06 pmfousesquawk
Umm, that’s false. The white house has access to much more intelligence than congress does.
It would have been political suicide for any politician opposing the war during the hysteria of 9/11. They knew this of course. Notice that I still don’t totally excuse them – I said “To an extent.”
Stu707, obviously I can’t defend everything that every politician has said. But saying something like that and putting our men and women in a quagmire are not comparable. No moral equivalence there.
Buzz, where in tarnation were you during the war-mongering? I was against the war with Iraq from the beginning and I couldn’t find any TV news that would even entertain the idea that invading was a bad idea. On the contrary – all of them seethed disgust at the notion that invading Iraq was a questionable move.
Psyberian (9a155b) — 8/18/2007 @ 6:20 amUmm, they were given the exact same intelligence that the White House was relying on.
Umm, that’s false. The white house has access to much more intelligence than congress does.
Well now, that’s an interesting interpretation, since those same senators and house members admitted they were given the same intelligence the White House had. It seems ironic to me that the left tries to get by on its own “facts” b/c the truth does not support their claims at all.
And, of course, Bill Clinton said all the same things the Bush White said about Saddam, the Clinton White House just did nothing about it. But, you go on believing your “facts” that the WH “lied” and “fooled” all your brave democrats who knew the war was wrong but were perfectly wiling to vote for it for political reasons. And those are the people you support? Sad.
Great Banana (c72fcd) — 8/18/2007 @ 7:07 amWrong again Banana. They may have had access to what the white house wanted them to have access to. But the WH can get intelligence reports on a daily basis. Your average congressman has no such access. So you have the WH cherry picking – basically making something of nothing, and the NYT reporting it as fact.
When did Clinton say that there was an immanent threat from an Iraqi nuclear bomb? It was primarily the nuke lie that got us in this mess.
Psyberian (9a155b) — 8/18/2007 @ 12:47 pm