John McCain made his bus famous in 2000 during his first run for president, calling it the “Straight Talk Express.” In 2008, he’s moved up to a fancy, configured jet, painting its sides with the same slogan. The trouble is, when you examine McCain’s polices and public utterances you will find very little resembling straight talk. A substantive reading of his record leads to one clear conclusion: The John McCain of 2000 would not vote for the John McCain of 2008.

The John McCain of 2000 stood up to the George W. Bush faction of the GOP, expressing and fighting for his different beliefs. Sadly, the John McCain of 2008 shamelessly panders to that Bush base, attempting to gain the support of the establishment that he previously railed against. Radical figures that McCain wouldn’t have touched in 2000 are sought after for their endorsements. Let’s be real: Would the John McCain of 2000 ever solicit the support of someone like the Revs. John Hagee or Rod Parsley? Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group McCain vehemently decried in 2004, currently serve as top surrogates to bash fellow veterans who support Obama. Lobbyists and Bush fundraisers he denounced eight years ago are now valued donors.

McCain’s shifting of his stances isn’t just the process of evolution or changing with the times; it is a wholesale pandering, making substantive changes in a transparent effort to garner votes. McCain’s statements on any given issue are shaped by who happens to be sitting in the audience. In front of conservatives, McCain pledges to appoint radical judges like Justice Samuel Alito to the courts. But according to Politico reporter Ben Smith, while wooing former Clinton supporters, McCain suggested he would appoint more moderate judges, emphasizing his votes to confirm Clinton nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. At town halls, McCain emphasizes enforcement to deal with illegal immigration, while in closed-door meetings with Hispanic leaders he promises if elected president to overhaul federal immigration laws. This kind of blatant pandering led conservative Hispanic leader Rosanna Pulido to complain, “He’s one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he’s a different John McCain in front of Hispanics.”

On gun control, where ironically McCain has criticized Obama for shifting his position, McCain has radically altered his own to get in line with the NRA. In 1999, McCain supported banning certain assault weapons and “Saturday night specials,” as well as requiring safety locks and background checks at gun shows. He co-sponsored the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill of 2003, which would have closed the gun-show loophole. Through 2004, he had a C+ rating from the NRA, who described McCain as their “Judas goat — leading the sheep to slaughter,” and as “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.” Yet by 2007, his position had changed again. After the Virginia Tech massacre, McCain said he believed in “no gun control.” McCain’s new position as a gun rights advocate will reap great financial benefits: The NRA has pledged to spend $40 million on this year’s campaign, including at least $15 million to smear Obama.

McCain’s radically changed position on taxes is probably the most outrageous example of not adhering to straight talk. He is seeking to curry the favor of people such as Grover Norquist (one of his oldest foes in Washington), who is lucky he’s not in jail for helping launder money for Jack Abramoff. In 2001, McCain was one of only two Republicans to vote against President Bush’s tax cuts, saying he could not “in good conscience” vote for them. He argued in a speech on the Senate floor that the bill gave “generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”

However, in 2006 McCain’s concerns with the Bush tax cuts has seemingly vanished, as he voted to extend tax cuts that would have expired before 2010. During the campaign, he pledged to permanently extend the rest of the cuts, leading Norquist to note that McCain had “moved to a position where we are very comfortable.’’

It’s hard to imagine someone changing positions on so many fundamental issues as McCain. The list goes on and on. McCain’s flip-flops on Social Security, oil drilling, campaign financing, the use of torture, the GI Bill, immigration, abortion, and appeasing the religious right, are serious examples of a man pandering, not progressing.

But the largest difference between the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008 is the philosophical approach to the election. John McCain in 2000 ran not just to win, but to make a broader point that the system in Washington was broken and needed to be changed. Consider this quote: “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” My, how times change. The McCain of 2008 is running for one reason: to get himself elected. If that means promising to perpetuate the broken system in Washington and continue the failed policies of George W. Bush, so be it, as long as it leads to McCain winning on Election Day. This ultimate difference between the two McCains is best illustrated by early American statesman Henry Clay’s famous declaration, “I’d rather be right than be president.”

John McCain in 2000 probably would have agreed with that statement. Would the John McCain of 2008?

Judging from his ever-changing campaign positions, we doubt it.