Takes one to know one. The Washington Post Editorial Board accuses John McCain of having "failed to offer an wholly coherent case" . They should know.
They write "As opponents reversed long-held positions to appeal in ugly ways to anti-immigrant sentiment, Mr. McCain insisted on his more humane approach."
That would be the Mr McCain who said during a debate that he would vote against the comprehensive immigration bill bearing his name "no I would not".
The bill was then less old than the Palin administration in Alaska is, so I guess McCain's support for his bill wasn't long-held, but if saying he would vote against his own bill isn't a reversal, what would be a reversal ?
Ah yes a coherent reality based editorial in the Washington Post, now that would be a reversal
They go on "Over the course of his career, Mr. McCain has broken with his party and even risked his political future in the service of principle. Campaign finance, climate change, immigration, the Iraq war surge, opposition to torture"
OK lets see. On the surge he did not break with his party. He advocated it before Bush did, but the Republican party had no position. On campaign finance reform, he decided the current law is optional and that the opinion of the Republican head of the FEC that what he was doing (up until yesterday when the convention started) was illegal is just an opinion, on immigration he said he would vote against his own bill, on climate change is is for a gas tax holliday, drill here drill now and cap and trade so long as the caps aren't mandatory, on torture he voted to allow the CIA to torture.
McCain once had positions on the issues which appear to have been principled. He has abandoned each and every one of them in his desparate effort to be President.
The Washington Post used to have journalistic standards. Its editorial board has abandoned all of them. They simply deny inconvenient facts. I don't see how the reporters can stand their work appearing in the same newspaper as the words of that gang of shameless liars.