Separating yourself from an issue and stepping back for the better view is advantageous to gain perspective, as seems to be the case with our friends across the pond.

While the MSM is full of, for unwillingness ot use the more precise term, 'amour' for McCain, the British press seems to have the ability to grasp the bigger picture and put to light the facts of a situation where our media tends to..gloss.

In an article today in The Guardian, John McCain, flip-flopper (link), Michael Tomasky makes the points we wish the MSM would get to already: that Obama hasn't 'flip-flopped' and that McCain has not only flip-flopped in his economic stance by supporting the Bush tax cuts that he once was dead set against, but that he's flipped his lid by thinking he can balance the budget with Conservative pandering and attacking Social Security:

We've been talking a lot about flip-flops in the past week, some of them real, most of them imaginary. But I've been astonished at how few people have mentioned the obvious mother of all flip-flops in this campaign so far – John McCain's embrace of the Bush administration tax cuts.

In 2001, McCain was one of just two Republican senators to vote against the tax cuts. "I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans," he said at the time. And now? Well of course big tax cuts are the anchor of his economic plan. But what tells us more about the man is where and how he indicated the change.

It was last December at a sit-down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board when McCain first made unequivocally clear that as president, he would fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (some are set to expire in 2010). Boy, now that's courage. Remember the story of the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, who saw a crowd marching through Paris and reportedly said: "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them"? Thus, McCain to Paul Gigot: Tell me where to go, master, and I will lead you there!

This week, McCain will travel the country explaining why these tax cuts – which so disproportionately are doing exactly what the 2001 McCain said they would, benefiting the very wealthiest Americans to the tune of nearly a half-trillion dollars - have to be made permanent. This is not a nip or a tuck or a refinement. This is a blatant and complete reneging on past principle.

__


Other aspects of McCain's plan seem even less serious. He's going to balance the budget by the end of his first term by cutting spending and cracking down on entitlements? That sounds lovely, but it's just nonsense. The federal deficit is projected – assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, which McCain of course assumes – to total $443bn by 2013. Obama economic adviser Jason Furman estimates that reaching that number in cuts would require cutting every federal department, including defence, by one third.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Furman is exaggerating and the real amount of necessary cuts is 25%, or even 20%. John McCain has been in Congress long enough to know that that is totally impossible. On top of that, McCain pledges to "reform" Social Security as a way of saving money. A Republican promising to reform Social Security is sort of like an ivory black-marketer promising to see to it that elephants are treated more humanely.

Why is McCain proposing things that are, as he surely knows, irresponsible (the tax cuts), chimerical (the budget cuts) and potential political suicide (rethinking Social Security)? The answer is straightforward. Conservatives don't trust him, and he feels he has to win their trust. That's bad policy, and it's not even good politics. The man who once said he knew little about the economy is now proving it.

It's a good piece and says the things we should be hearing from our own press. Too bad they are too glossy-eyed in their swoon with McCain to be bothered to do their jobs as reporters.