The John McCain Scam
One of the danger signs for Democrats that a Bush collapse doesn't necessarily mean much for progressive gains in policy are the polls showing that John McCain could step up and poll almost twenty points more than either Hillary Clinton or John Kerry in 2008.
Of course, a lot of this is due to the McCain image of "moderation", but it highlights why Dems can't depend on "clean government" as their whole rhetoric, since there will be GOPers like McCain happy to grab the anti-scandal banner. So Dems need more than scandal; they need to take down the whole GOP agenda and make it clear that folks like McCain, despite his media image, is ultimately down with the whole conservative policy agenda.
Luckily, The Nation has a nice piece this week detailing McCain's hard-right record:
McCain has always been far more conservative than either his supporters or detractors acknowledge. In 2004 he earned a perfect 100 percent rating from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and a 0 percent from NARAL. Citizens Against Government Waste dubs him a "taxpayer hero." He has opposed extension of the assault-weapons ban, federal hate crimes legislation and the International Criminal Court. He has supported school vouchers, a missile defense shield and private accounts for Social Security. Well before 9/11 McCain advocated a new Reagan Doctrine of "rogue-state rollback."And as conservative WorldNetDaily detailed:
He voted to impeach President Clinton and supported every item in the Contract with America. He fought efforts to raise the minimum wage and opposed protections for gays and lesbians.So this is the basic reality. If the country is voting on issues like the minimum wage and health care, John McCain will lose.
So progressives have three years to keep hammering on policy, not just scandal, or else they can say hello to "reformist" John McCain as President in 2008.
Good point, but I can't stress enough that what the Democrats need are leaders. McCain, whatever we think of his policies, has that characteristic--he seems to speak his mind and do what he believes in (for the most part at least). The Democrats are a bunch of weasels in comparison. But maybe I'm being unfair to mustelids . . .
November 23, 2005 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Puple State
I totally agree with you. McCain's appeal, especially to Democrats and especially Independents, is based on his positions. It is based on the grounds of his positions. It is hard to argue that a man who was tortured and who now and then goes against his own party's positions is solely motivated by expediency. The very charge level at Democrats by TMPCafe participants.
November 23, 2005 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
they need to take down the whole GOP agenda and make it clear that folks like McCain, despite his media image, is ultimately down with the whole conservative policy agenda.
This is one of the biggest tasks Democrats have ahead of them. Not only does McCain have this reputation of a "maveric" and an "independent" among people, but the media just fawn over him.
Two things we have going for us. First, as The Nation points out, he's been making lots of friends with the conservative right, like with his newfound support for teaching intelligent design.
But his biggest liability is how much he has supported George Bush:
Play that in a TV ad or two.
November 23, 2005 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a telling sign of the trauma we have been put through for these past five years that McCain is seen as a moderate.
It's a "moderate" posisition nowaday to be against torture.
It is a danger we face, if Bushco falls through incompetence and corruption, there will be McCain, or some other "moderate" to bear the mantle of competence and honesty, all the while carrying on with the class warfare and culture war.
November 23, 2005 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain might have a great image, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the GOP will never choose him as their candidate. They prefer presidents in the Reagan-Bush mold: easily controllable, appealing figureheads. GOP leaders could have had McCain in 2000, but they let the Bushies kneecap him instead. The GOP can't control McCain well enough, so they don't trust him.
November 23, 2005 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. It's sad.
McCain is much more conservative than any Democratic candidate would be, and in most of the issues that have to do with war and foreign policy, he would not be much different than we have now. (With the possible exception that he would probably hire competent people.)
Here's a scenario that worries me, though, and would make me, an independent-leaning, centrist Democrat, have to seriously consider McCain in '08.
If I assume that BushCo's 'happy idiot' adventure in Iraq decays, as it seems likely to do, and we pull back without dealing with the terrorism the NeoCons have created there; if the economy is as burdened with crushing debt as it seems likely to be; and if our government continues to turn a blind eye to transnationals outsourcing our standard of living , then I'm going to be looking for someone who's a leader, someone who's going to have to be pretty darned tough to get us out of the unholy mess Bush has left us in. I have two sons, and I'm frankly very worried about the future they have here.
I'd rather see a Democrat step into this role, but I don't see any right now. Hillary is one sharp and capable person, but if my worst fears come true, we'll be deeper in the middle of a shooting war than we are now, and her lack of military experience is a real handicap. And, i'm not sure I trust the DNC and the primary system to get us the best leader, just the person who can suck up to all the interest groups the best. Who is there on the progressive side that could match up to McCain in such a possibly bleak future?
McCain seems likely to be very conservative, true. But his entire life's record is of someone who is at least honest, willing to take on powerful interests and fight corruption, and who has the qualities that might be required to lead during what may be one of the darkest times in our history.
I don't see anyone comparable on our side right now. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone.
November 23, 2005 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain mirrors the neocons. He's running around saying we need 20,000 MORE troops in Iraq. He's also a liar. when asked about ghost prisons on Larry King, he said, "I've just recently learned about that (parphrase)". Heck, I read about it a year ago at least, and i'm supposed to believe that the sponsor of the torture bill hasn't a clue? I don't like McCain. Smarmy.
November 23, 2005 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding folks of what I wish was obvious -- McCain's issues with the Bush administration aside, the guy is no moderate and certainly no lefty.
McCain is, and has been throughout his career, a steadfast Republican. Any issues he has now arise from the extremism of the Bush White House and, as much as I respect McCain for having the guts to ask some hard questions, he's still, in the end, more on the Bush side thatn not.
As much as it makes sense to suppot him in asking questions, it doesn't make sense for people who are center and to the left, to support him as an elected leader. He really is, his questions and guts aside, to the right of the American mainsteam.
November 24, 2005 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
but it highlights why Dems can't depend on "clean government" as their whole rhetoric
November 24, 2005 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
but it highlights why Dems can't depend on "clean government" as their whole rhetoric
How can you say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton is you candidate for clean Government? Are you guys completely retarded? You will be eaten alive if that is your best shot in '08'. "Send a Clinton to clean up Washington" you guys are unbelieveable.
November 24, 2005 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say with a straight face
I'm not particularly a Hillary fan at this point, but you seem to have forgotten that the infamous Clinton Scandals came to nothing. Nada, negatory, zippo, res nullius. (Well, Bill did turn out to be a naughty boy, but the blue dress doesn't stain Hillary.)
After three upcoming years of Jack Abramoff, Boss Tweed would look like a clean-government guy by comparison, let alone Hillary. Sure, the mouth foamers on your side will get all het up, but so what?
-- Rick Robinson
November 24, 2005 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does it matter that McCain was eating cake and in general was very merry with George W. exactly when Katrina was demolishing New Orleans?
McCain also was a member of "Keating 5", intervening with regulators on behalf of a corrupt S&L operator whose bancruptcy cost taxpayers a billion or two.
With Iraq, he was steadfast imperialist and denier of falsehood, he made an honorable exception for torture.
With transnational corporations hollowing our economy, obsolete system of financing healthcare, deficit etc. conservative policies offer no answer, even if not applied with total dishonesty. McCain is on a wrong side here.
November 24, 2005 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
<i> Sure, the mouth foamers on your side will get all het up, but so what?</i>
My feeling exactly. The Republicans are going to foam and stomp their tiny little feet about the vileness of the Democratic candidate no matter who gets nominated. Alleging all sorts of sham misconduct has worked well for them in the past and there's no reason to believe that they'll do anything different. Were McCain to be nominated, I have all confidence that he would run exactly the same kind of campaign.
November 24, 2005 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, who we got as strong chances that people would respect?
And it isn't Clinton. Seriously, she won't win.
So who else is good right now, who do democrats have to offer that has presented a public capacity for strong leadership committed to progressive (more or less) values?
I mean ya'll just have to keep going till Obama's ready to run. So who in the meantime?
November 24, 2005 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, but I can't stress enough that what the Democrats need are leaders. McCain, whatever we think of his policies, has that characteristic--he seems to speak his mind and do what he believes in (for the most part at least). The Democrats are a bunch of weasels in comparison. But maybe I'm being unfair to mustelids . . .
How do you know the Democrats don't speak their minds? Are you clairvoyant?
November 24, 2005 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the "mouth foamers" as you refer to them (of course you call the rabid ones on your side "leadership") were the only ones who went after Hillary, most of us said "It's the guy's wife even if she is crooked it has nothing to do with him." Now I'm sure the whole law firm billing records that showed up under her bed, may pop up. Oh and the indicted law partners... and wasn't she involved in the "travel gate" and "FBI file-gate" and I almost forgot about the "accidental" loading of Government property into the moving van... then there was the vandalism on their way out... and that's just me thinking about it for a minute or two. Just think what a mouth foamer with a Lexis-Nexis account can do. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are probably having wet dreams thinking about this. It would be fun to watch though.
November 24, 2005 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see John Edwards run and win the nomination. When the American people hear John Edwards debate and give speeches they will have no doubt of his competence to lead this country. John Edwards appeal will overcome McCain and he would be able to beat him. Other candidate I would like to see that I think could beat McCain are Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, or Wes Clark. If we are still in Iraq Wes Clark on the ticket as VP or President would be a wise decision. Those polls are so early they do not really account for America's true feelings. Clinton is the most recognizable name of any politician and that is why they vote her. Her approval rating is very low, especially amongst Republicans.Edwards has the highest approval rating amongst Republicans. Biden, Bayh, Warner, and Clark are relatively unknown the the American public, even John Edwards is relatively unknown, and that is why they do bad in current polls. John McCain is very well known, with many books, frequently on talk shows, news stations, and is on movies. So he is very recognizable. Once the primaries get rolling, other Democrats will overcome Hillary, as well as other Republicans like Mike Huckabee take over John McCain for their party's nomination.
November 24, 2005 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
nobody wins elections on issues, so it really doesn't matter how conservative mccain really is. people vote for people who look like themselves, talk like themselves, and are trustworthy. mccain has a lock on the third, and has the first two with most of the middle, southern, suburban, and rural parts of the country.
hillary and kerry also have the third, but they are both political suicide because they lack the first two with people outside new york city, boston and san francisco, and its amazing dems don't get that. its like we all forgot about hilary getting slammed when she was 1st lady, and the failure of the dem's capable but robotic candidates to beat a complete idiot in the 2000 and 2004 elections. mccain is a strong candidate and democrats need to take him seriously by providing a strong opponent.
November 25, 2005 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner and Wesley Clark would be my favorites. Americans like to vote for governors and generals, not senators. I think Virginia was ranked the best governed stat when Warner was governor. They would also help in the South.
The problem is how do they get national attention since neither are not doing public jobs now.
November 25, 2005 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arthur Andersen ripped off many a churchgoer in Arizona with McCain and Ashcroft watching it happen. The Arizona Baptist Scandal was the precursor to Enron.
Baptist Foundation of Arizona v. Arthur Andersen, LLP - Bernstein ...
$217 million recovery from Arthur Andersen on behalf of retirees and investors
in the Baptist Foundation of Arizona.
www.blbglaw.com/cases/bfa_v_arthur_andersen.html
You really wanna try to ride the high horse when mcCaion let this shit go down in his state with not so much as a peep out of him?
Salon.com Technology | Arthur Andersen and the Baptists
... Arthur Andersen accountants nor the pious Southern Baptist salesmen who ...
Currently, Andersen faces action by the Arizona Board of Accountancy and ...
<span>www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/02/07/arthur_andersen/</span>
AZ AG: Victims' Rights: BFA: Five individuals indicted...
A civil lawsuit was filed against Arthur Andersen accounting firm last year, over
allegations ... FACT SHEET ON BAPTIST FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA CRIMINAL CASE ...
<span>www.azag.gov/victims_rights/BFA/caseinfo.html</span>
BFA was founded in 1948 by the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention (ASBC) as a not-for-profit corporation to benefit Southern Baptist causes. The organization raised funds through a variety of investment vehicles that it marketed to Southern Baptist churches, pastors and church members.
BFA sold different types of investments and marketed Individual Retirement Accounts, most of which were supposedly back by collateral. Investors were told the accounts paid interest greater than most banks, said an Arizona Attorney General spokeswoman.
Investors were also told some of the profit would benefit Baptist causes.
By 1999, more than 13,000 individuals had invested approximately $585 million with the not-for-profit.
However, according to records, it has contributed only about $1.3 million to such groups over its half-century of operation.
By contrast, in 1996 BFA spent $16 million on staff salaries and $329,000 on staff automobiles.
Most of the Foundation’s upper management were paid six-figure salaries and received generous benefits.
It has also been reported that BFA had invested in a long series of shaky loans and skeptical real estate deals, primarily with companies controlled by members of its board. The deals left the organization facing huge losses.
However, BFA stayed afloat by getting new investors to help meet its financial obligations, according to police reports. BFA officials allegedly transferred nonperforming assets and bad investments into "bad banks," hiding losses from investors.
Investigators with the Arizona Corporation Commission and the Attorney General’s Office began looking into BFA’s dealings in 1998, when allegations surfaced that BFA was misrepresenting its true financial condition to potential investors. The Commission issued an order Aug. 10, 1999 requiring BFA to stop selling investments in violation of the Arizona Securities Act.
Three days earlier, BFA had written to its investors that it faced possible bankruptcy and was placing "a temporary freeze" on the redemption of investments.
The foundation did say it would continue to make some payments to certain IRA investors.
On August 26, 1999 the foundation terminated its longtime president, "Bill" Crotts, along with Grabinski, general counsel, and controller Deardoff.
On November 9, 1999, BFA filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, following the discovery of accounting improprieties, making it the largest nonprofit bankruptcy in US history.
In January 2001, the Arizona Corporation Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Arthur Andersen Accounting Firm alleging that the company misrepresented BFA’s financial condition by giving the Foundation a clean bill of health. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy filed an administrative complaint against Arthur Andersen in December 2000 seeking $600 million in restitution for BFA’s victims, alleging that the company’s failure to reveal the true nature of BFA’s financial status cost investors millions of dollars.
"The BFA case is one of the largest affinity fraud cases in US history," said state Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
"The majority of BFA’s victims reside in Arizona, however, there are investors from 50 states and approximately 10 foreign countries. Arizona received investigative assistance from the National White Collar Crime Center in this case. The investigation into BFA continues."
Civil suits are pending.http://usaenews.com/news/May%2022%2001/Three%20Baptist.htm
BFA officials did not return phone calls.
Crotts & Grabinski grabbed all they could, have a nice ethical cloud over their heads and longstanding ties to the AZ political machine...
November 25, 2005 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like Hillary as a candidate, because I don't like her positions. I don't think she is honest, (in the political oppurtunist way her husband was honest) and I won't vote for her (in the primaries or general election). But if you think that the Republicans are going to get any mileage out of supposed scandals that didn't get any significant interest a decade ago when they were first aired, then you are politically naive, or too wrapped up in your sides ideology to be realistic. When you add to their inherent lack of appeal as scandals the fact that by bringing up scandals like this the Republicans are just begging the Democrats to bring up Abramoff, Cunningham, Plame and the other scandals for which people have actually been indicted, convicted and will serve time (unlike any of the supposed scandals that plagued the Clintons), there is no good reason to bring it up. If Clinton is nominated the Republicans will go Rove and hint that she is a lesbian, will say that she is a radical leftist and things like that, but I don't think they are stupid enough to say 'Remember ten years ago when we told you that something fishy happened and nothing came of it? That is why you shouldn't vote for her, but should vote for me, regardless of the pending indictment against me.' (I am imagining Frist saying this)
November 30, 2005 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who thinks McCain might take his maverick role to the max and run as a third party candidate?
Since he pulls from each Party he might see the independent position as a way to keep his freedom and avoid the handling of the GOP which will certainly try to shape him to fit their new mold.
December 2, 2005 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it takes more than not being a Republican. Republicans used to run on not being Democrats from 1936 to 1964 before they figured out they figured out they had to be something, not just not be something. Are we really gonna run on not being Republicans until when? 2012? 2020? Gimme a break.
Since Bush has been in office the Great Society and the New Deal have been systematically demolished. Conservative Democrats like Clinton are worthless; they want to win, they don't care the least about social policy. Meanwhile the party is mess of competing idenity groups, rather than a united group caring about the big social issues.
Now idiots like Como want to suck in the biggest idenity group into the Democratic Party. That's right, they want the Christian right. Why? The public answer is consensus building. The real answer is: who cares what idenity group as long as we win?
What will that do to the other identity groups? The Christian right dwarfs them all. If the Democrats keep on playing identity politics, it is the way of the future. The Republicans have their one idenity group married to their old style banker Republicans, the Democratic strategy is to drive a wedge?
Not for me, no thanks!
Lets focus on the problem, not the captain at the moment. The problem is that the Republicans hold the House, the Senate, the President, and by summer, the Supreme Court. This is what they have been looking for since 1932. Based on what they have done since the election of Bush, their plan is to take public policy other than presidential power back to 1932.
Do Democrats care? Why? What has been good about the last 73 years?
December 29, 2005 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink