Reformer? Not Quite.
Hi TPM Cafers,
Thanks for having me here for the balance of the week and joining in what I hope will be a lively discussion on Senator John McCain. For some quick background, my book, The Real McCain, was released May 1, 2008. Due to some initial buzz it became a political and non-fiction best seller at Amazon. Which of course made my mom proud and shocked guidance counselors who have consistently written me off--with good cause--during each of my too many stops through academia.
After researching the man and writing the book over about 15 months' time, I came to a few main conclusions, all of which I think are evident in his recent pick of Sarah Palin to be his VP. First, he most certainly lacks the temperament to be President of these United States.
McCain, in both his personal and political life, has shown the kind of explosive anger, impulsiveness and Divine Right Of Kings type of certainty in his own beliefs (until, as with the cases of offshore drilling, abortion rights, foreign entanglements, tax cuts, balanced budgets, Creationism in science class, he changes them on a whim) that should very simply disqualify him from being the leader of the free world. My book quotes scores of Republicans on this subject, not even needing to dig very deep into what Democrats think of him.
Additionally, he has never been a reformer. All hat and no cattle, I am afraid. Sure, he pushed campaign finance reform when it was useful to rehabilitate his image from his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, but he continued to ride on corporate jets with lobbyists (see Vicki Iseman) in the years afterwards, and whether bringing on over 100 lobbyists to toil for his campaign, putting the indicted Rick Renzi on his campaign team in Arizona or choosing to fundraise with Jack Abramoff's BFF Ralph Reed, McCain has shown a willingness to break bread with the very people and interests he has spent the past decade supposedly condemning. Most recently, he has come out against his own past legislation on campaign finance reform, tobacco and immigration and supported President Bush 100% of the time this year.
Look, is McCain all bad? No. Is he pure evil? I am not saying that either. In the book I just try to portray the man for who he actually is, which inevitably requires punching a hole in years of false branding, to point out that he has enormous political ambition and a penchant for unstable behavior, both of which determine what legislation he supports on any given day much more readily than do a couple of cliches such as "reformer" "straight-talker" and "maverick,"--which simply do not comport with reality.
You can find more of my thoughts on McCain here, here and here. And once again folks, thanks for having me. I hope we'll have a fun week.
I think the key is unbounded and unfulfillable ambition. It was unfortunate for McCain that the Navy had become professionalized and his forward-leaning aggressiveness was no longer sufficient qualification for him to follow in his father's and grandfather's footsteps. He wasn't terrible as a Senator, but he sold his soul after South Carolina, 2000. The Greek word is hamartia -- a character excess (can even be a virtue) that is unsuitable for the hero's circumstances and leads to the tragic denouement.
September 2, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, McCain's father *was* his qualification for being in the Navy, from the beginning, when he received a plum carrier commission, despite being 894th out of a graduating class of 899, to the end:
http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/why-didnt-john-mccain-make-admiral/
September 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cliff --
Has the MSM read your book?
If so, has it had any effect? If not, why not?
September 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you're here.
McCains temperament, impulsiveness and general unsuitability for President have been the topic of several recent threads. On them it was asserted that McCain impulsively selected an unqualified Sarah Palin.
The New York Times (or WaPo or both) ran an article which indicated that was not so. But today, they've run another article which is much harder to analyze. It appears that McCain was unable, for political reasons, to select eitherof the two candidates he most preferred...and was running out of time. He did the best he could...with a far from perfect vetting process. The article - an my own research on another issue - highlighted the shortcomings and limitations of what the FBI offered...although that may not be the only reason for the seeming failures; the campaign strategists were trying to preserve an element of surprise. Nowhere do I see evidence of impulsiveness. Do you agree?
Second. How do you place your analysis in context? Joshua Green wrote an article in Atlantic Monthly which clearly showed Hillary to be unfit for the Presidency (possible, unfortunately, only after her candidacy was defeated). What else are we missing? Isn't much of this an unavoidable gamble?
Third. It's so easy to write very partisan assessments. Any thoughts about that?
September 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou, you wrote: "It appears that McCain was unable, for political reasons, to select either of the two candidates he most preferred...and was running out of time."
He's known he was the party's nominee for how many months now? And he's left himself in a position where, on the first very public important decision he makes, he is "running out of time", to the point where he no longer has time to have his eventual pick properly vetted? What does that say about the man and his ability to get his act together to meet what is, arguably, the deadline of his life?
You wrote that "Third. It's so easy to write very partisan assessments." Agreed. But what, then, do you make of Cliff Schecter's statement in his post that "My book quotes scores of Republicans on this subject, not even needing to dig very deep into what Democrats think of him."?
September 3, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ American Dreamer
I don't know why he found himself in that position. I asked myself the same question. I don't have enough information about the selection process to answer. But, as of now, it's not a good sign.
I keep referring to Joshua Green's article on the reasons for Hillary's defeat. That was such a shock to me. A person as well-known and seemingly competent as Hillary turns out to be grossly incompetent with terrible character flaws. Sure, there were rumors about it but look how close she came to the Presidency despite them. Fact is, there's a lot we don't know and can't know.
What do I make of Schechter's statement? It doesn't change anything. McCain was not popular with many Republicans and, even if he were, it would still be possible for a partisan author to create a negative image.
Recently I read the Wikipedia article on Patrick Buchanan. It was interesting to see how much and what evidence his friends needed to decide he was an anti-Semite. A lot...and some of it was not of the sort I would hold against him; his statement that Hitler was brave and clever, for example. He was.
It's hard to judge other people and even harder to predict their behavior.
September 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain did make an honest admission when he said there was corruption in the GOP. You have to give him credit for that. We need to hear the same thing from Pelosi and Obama, because it's true -- along with a commitment to clean it up. Pelosi made a pledge for the "most ethical Congress ever" when she took over. Does anyone on this board think she has succeded?
September 2, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brook, Brook, Brook - Some nuance please. Out of the 22 most corrupt members of Congress, four are Democrats. The 22 doesn't include Larry Craig and David Vitter, who got away with dishonorable mentions.
Why so hard on Pelosi and Obama? Pelosi pushed through approval for a new ethics panel last March with a final vote of 229-182. Opposed were 159 Republicans and 23 Democrats:
More nuance - less partisanship please.
September 3, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit on a pet peeve of mine with your reference to "the leader of the free world." The president of the US is the leader of the US and ONLY the US. Certainly no other country considers the president of the US their leader. So are we (the US) the entirety of the free world? I don't think so.
September 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you watch the Europeans try to deal with the Russians this week? Leader of the free world is an appropriate title, because the Europeans want nothing to do with actually leading on foreign policy when it comes to solving tough issues.
September 2, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see. And how did our beloved President do in his attempts to deal with said Russians?
September 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has very little record of being a reformer. I think he has more of a record of being a maverick...which is completely different than being someone trying to refprm government. McCain has showed a penchant to go against the leaders of his party. But the 'maverick' stances he takes seems very self serving. For one he opposes his party when there is no chance his positions will prevail. Then when push comes to shove he supports, changes his mind on offshore drilling, changes his position on immigration and now is for torture. The one issue where he could possibly call himself a 'reformer' was campaign finance...on that issue there was very little reform and just some tinkering around the edges...and now is a big beneficiary of money he said he wanted no part of.
An erstwhile maverick when it suites him? Sure. A reformer? Not on his best day...he is the epitome of an establishment politician.
September 2, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
no more avatars. Now I can sleep at ease
September 2, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left out his reversal on anti-smoking legislation (he was for it before he was against it). I know that any short list needs to be incomplete, but this reversal really shows for me the lack of morality in his political proteanism.
September 3, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You left out his reversal on anti-smoking legislation (he was for it before he was against it). I know that any short list needs to be incomplete, but this reversal really shows for me the lack of morality in his political proteanism.
September 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
Check out http://www.progressivepunch.org for reporting and drill down on McInsane's voting record. You will find that Senator Wackadoo is neither a pony or non-supporter of knee-jerk right-wing ideology . . . He only plays one in the eyes of the press.
Voting according to Bush43's desires 95% of the time makes one a 'Toadie' not a pony.
September 3, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
Check out http://www.progressivepunch.org for reporting and drill down on McInsane's voting record. You will find that Senator Wackadoo is neither a pony or non-supporter of knee-jerk right-wing ideology . . . He only plays one in the eyes of the press.
Voting according to Bush43's desires 95% of the time makes one a 'Toadie' not a pony.
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not defending McCain in the slightest. I am agreeing that he is not an reformer and only is a 'maverick' when it doesn't make a difference to the outcome of a vote.
September 3, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really and truly, John McCain has a lot in common with George Armstrong Custer. Can you see Custer in the oval office?
September 3, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I look @ that picture, I swear it looks like McCain is trying to give Bush a hickey on his neck.
Windancer
September 3, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I look @ that picture, I swear it looks like McCain is trying to give Bush a hickey on his neck.
Windancer
September 3, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I look @ that picture, I swear it looks like McCain is trying to give Bush a hickey on his neck.
Windancer
September 3, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry drew a contrast between Senator McCain, who he considers a friend, and Candidate McCain, who's like a whole other person.
Maverick gets all the attention, but the results are all Candidate.
Consider the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. As you mentioned, Maverick needed to rehabilitate himself after his Keating Five membership. But also, Candidate McCain knew full well that his law would give Republicans a
fundraising advantage. And it did, for a couple of cycles. Part of Obama's brilliance lies in negating that advantage.
Maverick voted against the Bush tax cuts. Candidate wants to make them permanent. Maverick made a bunch of noise against torture. Candidate's soul mate thinks Obama's too worried about reading people their rights.
I think Maverick is the phony one; John McCain has always been what Mayor Rudy called him: a loyal foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution.
September 4, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maverick Shmaverick --
The issues of tax cuts for the billionaires, being AGAINST torture and not caring who knows it, etc were not really so dangerous as positions as the press has SYSTEMATICALLY been making them out to be for years.
I would like to hold the sycophant press (who are, Schmidting aside, the main SOURCE of McCain's greater popularity than the Repuglican Party that the New York Times and others rightly note McCain is running AGAINST (w/awfully mysterious unity and enthusiasm from all those rebelled against GOPers, no?) responsible for the inflation of John McCain. It isn't a matter of the "record" maverick McCain and the "candidate" McCain, but the marketing of McCain by the media and increasingly by his own campaign.
Real mavericks have REAL enemies. They don't have praises lavished on them -- as mavericks -- by all those who they were supposedly bucking.
I am reminded of the many so-not-privileged so-not-creeps within the Left, as phony as leftists as McCain is as a maverick, whose asses are routinely and mandatorily kissed, more reliably than the pope's ring, PRECISELY AS the authentic progressives that they aren't. It is part of the whole culture of "justifying the lying" and, my friends (to use a McCainism), we're never going to get out of this kind of politics for real, even with an Obama victory in November (which liberal pundits are suddenly awakening to the fact that it isn't anywhere close to being inevitable) until we really challenge the enforced stereotyping, the mandatory hagiography, and the who culture of justifying the lying that defines what our civilization is today, down to the astroturf roots.
As a hat that I purchased on the web put it:
"Liberal media my ass!"
September 5, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maverick Shmaverick --
The issues of tax cuts for the billionaires, being AGAINST torture and not caring who knows it, etc were not really so dangerous as positions as the press has SYSTEMATICALLY been making them out to be for years.
I would like to hold the sycophant press (who are, Schmidting aside, the main SOURCE of McCain's greater popularity than the Repuglican Party that the New York Times and others rightly note McCain is running AGAINST (w/awfully mysterious unity and enthusiasm from all those rebelled against GOPers, no?) responsible for the inflation of John McCain. It isn't a matter of the "record" maverick McCain and the "candidate" McCain, but the marketing of McCain by the media and increasingly by his own campaign.
Real mavericks have REAL enemies. They don't have praises lavished on them -- as mavericks -- by all those who they were supposedly bucking.
I am reminded of the many so-not-privileged so-not-creeps within the Left, as phony as leftists as McCain is as a maverick, whose asses are routinely and mandatorily kissed, more reliably than the pope's ring, PRECISELY AS the authentic progressives that they aren't. It is part of the whole culture of "justifying the lying" and, my friends (to use a McCainism), we're never going to get out of this kind of politics for real, even with an Obama victory in November (which liberal pundits are suddenly awakening to the fact that it isn't anywhere close to being inevitable) until we really challenge the enforced stereotyping, the mandatory hagiography, and the who culture of justifying the lying that defines what our civilization is today, down to the astroturf roots.
As a hat that I purchased on the web put it:
"Liberal media my ass!"
September 5, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maverick Shmaverick --
The issues of tax cuts for the billionaires, being AGAINST torture and not caring who knows it, etc were not really so dangerous as positions as the press has SYSTEMATICALLY been making them out to be for years.
I would like to hold the sycophant press (who are, Schmidting aside, the main SOURCE of McCain's greater popularity than the Repuglican Party that the New York Times and others rightly note McCain is running AGAINST (w/awfully mysterious unity and enthusiasm from all those rebelled against GOPers, no?) responsible for the inflation of John McCain. It isn't a matter of the "record" maverick McCain and the "candidate" McCain, but the marketing of McCain by the media and increasingly by his own campaign.
Real mavericks have REAL enemies. They don't have praises lavished on them -- as mavericks -- by all those who they were supposedly bucking.
I am reminded of the many so-not-privileged so-not-creeps within the Left, as phony as leftists as McCain is as a maverick, whose asses are routinely and mandatorily kissed, more reliably than the pope's ring, PRECISELY AS the authentic progressives that they aren't. It is part of the whole culture of "justifying the lying" and, my friends (to use a McCainism), we're never going to get out of this kind of politics for real, even with an Obama victory in November (which liberal pundits are suddenly awakening to the fact that it isn't anywhere close to being inevitable) until we really challenge the enforced stereotyping, the mandatory hagiography, and the who culture of justifying the lying that defines what our civilization is today, down to the astroturf roots.
As a hat that I purchased on the web put it:
"Liberal media my ass!"
September 5, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink