I used to view McCain and Giuliani in an almost equally favorable light, but i've lost some respect for the senator over the past few months. he seems to have followed up his embrace of Bush in the 2004 election w/ the rejection of Bush-ism in congree. i guess it may win him influence in the senate, but it's hard to see how it helps him win the republican nomination in 2008, assuming that's his goal. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006757 -- The McCain Myth The moderation that makes him a Senate powerhouse will keep him out of the White House. BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Having helped broker the Great Senate Compromise last week, Sen. John McCain is back in the media limelight, winning the usual accolades for bucking his party. But the deal by 14 "moderates" doesn't just preserve the judicial filibuster and allow confirmation of a few of President Bush's "extremist" nominees. It also reveals that the myth the McCainiacs hoped would propel their man into the Oval Office in 2000 still endures, despite evidence of successive elections to the contrary. The myth is simply that the only way to win elections is to draw voters from the other party by bucking a few of your own party's principles. Call it "maverick moderatism," but this belief has been the foundation for Mr. McCain's strategy for achieving national office and has given us great ideas like the recent iteration of campaign finance reform, opposition to some tax cuts and dogged attacks by Mr. McCain on some military expenditures. It's also the foundation of many pundits' advice to the president that he pick more "moderate" judges, give up on using payroll taxes to create private Social Security accounts, and trim his sails on fighting terrorism by spreading freedom. It's not clear how far Mr. McCain would have gotten without his honorable military record and compelling POW story. But in 2000 this myth was at least plausible. Republicans had just lost two presidential elections, even though President Clinton never topped 50% of the popular vote. Meanwhile the party has long been split on the question of whether it needed to nominate moderates from the "establishment" wing of the party if it was going to win. In 1976 the establishment candidate and sitting president, Gerald Ford, narrowly won the nomination, but lost the general election. In 1980 the "Reagan revolution" swept the Gipper into office and empowered conservatives. But even Reagan's victory didn't settle the issue. The 40th president appointed plenty of true-blooded conservatives to his administration. But there were plenty of moderates on hand too, for the very practical reason that they had the experience and know how to work the levers of government. The most senior among the "establishment" Republicans was Vice President George Bush, who, while campaigning for the presidential nomination in 1980, had coined the phrase "voodoo economics" to describe Reagan's insight that lower taxes would spur growth. Now, however, the answer to the question is obvious: Conservatives can and do win elections for the Republican Party. What the McCain Myth ignores is that for now a majority of voters nationwide embrace conservative principles. Talk of being a "compassionate conservative" notwithstanding, it wasn't maverick moderatism that handed President Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. Nor has the McCain Myth been responsible for padding Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Indeed, Republicans have been winning by sticking to their principles and not bucking their party's ideas on tax cuts, national defense or reforming the judiciary. What's changed since 2000 is that it's become clear that the conservatives have become the Republican establishment by being able to claim credit for almost every ballot-box victory since 1980--including that of Vice President Bush, who in 1988 had the support of the conservative wing, which hoped--futilely, it turned out--that he would continue the Reagan revolution. After Mr. Bush's 1992 defeat, conservatives took over Congress in 1994, and a moderate Republican lost the presidential race in 1996. No one represents the changing of the guard better than George W. Bush himself, who is now pushing revolutionary conservative ideas in every arena from defense to Social Security to tax reform. Having come this far, what Mr. McCain and the other Republican Senate "moderates" in last week's compromise would have the party do is give up on the very principles that is winning elections. All in the name of appealing to the "middle" of the electorate that is already voting for the party. This is really a lesson better served up to Democrats, who have been losing elections despite record turnouts among base voters. The Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate group that helped elected Bill Clinton in 1992 as a "new Democrat," is doing just that. In the current issue of the group's bimonthly magazine, Blueprint, former McCain aide Marshall Wittmann, now a senior fellow at the DLC, urges Democrats to use the Arizona senator as model in bucking the party's principles. He's surely right that the party would be well served by putting the nation's interests ahead of the party's ideology. Other articles in the issue spell out a few specific areas in which Democrats who bucked party orthodoxy would likely be rewarded for it: national defense, religious faith in politics, even Social Security reform. The most interesting advice the DLC is doling out these days has to do with suburban voters. President Bush beat John Kerry in 97 of the 100 fastest growing communities in the country. The Democrats can win urban areas with record turnout but still lose elections. Joel Kotkin notes that Minnesota, traditionally a progressive state that gave us such liberal icons as Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Sen. Paul Wellstone, may now be turning Republican. It was the only state Ronald Reagan lost in 1984, but Democrats can no longer count on carrying the state. John Kerry had 60% of the vote in the Twin Cities last year, but the suburbs went to President Bush by a similar margin. "Two decades ago, these results might not have been so disturbing. But now the suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul are three times as populous as the Twin Cities themselves," he writes. The problem is Democrats have for too long denigrated suburban dwellers and even fought new suburbs from going up with "smart growth" restrictions, so suburbanites return the favor by voting Republican. As for Mr. McCain, this all leaves him in the unenviable position of offering a political philosophy--no more tax cuts, moderate reforms to entitlement programs and, among other things, moderate judges--that is actually costing Democrats votes. Paradoxically it's a political philosophy that helps him wield tremendous power in the Senate, where there are plenty of mushy moderates. But the idea that it's a political philosophy that will propel Republicans into the White House is a myth that this President Bush has long since dispelled. Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Good comparison. Personally, I like McCain. He is my kind of Republican. McCain employs the philosophy of looking at issues for what they are instead of being a company man for the GOP, which most of the GOP is today. I certainly do not compare McCain to Reagan, but McCain seems to be the first Republican since Reagan to do that. That is why Reagan was as successful as he was. In my opinion, no President in history was more successful in achieving their objectives than Reagan. You can certainly debate the merits of his objectives, but he was successful in doing what he set out to do. Reagan exposed the importance of issues over party allegiance like none other. Carter was a Democrat president who was in office with a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate. In spite of this, Carter couldn't pass jack. Reagan was a Republican who was in office with a Democrat House and a Democrat Senate, yet he managed to pass just about everything with minimal difficulty. If McCain runs for office in 2008, I will go back to voting GOP. Actually, as long as any semi-moderate gets the GOP nomination, he/she will have my vote.
How deceiving!! Reagan did not lose Minnesota in 1984 because the state was "traditionally progressive." He lost because Mondale was from Minnesota, and people vote for people from their state more times than not. I'll grant that Reagan lost DC in 1984 because it is a Democrat haven, but not Minnesota.
"Bush-ism??" What the hell is that. Please give us a coherent summation of "Bush-ism," basso. Really. I'm wondering just what the hell that is. Keep D&D Civil!!
speak out loud, about faith, hope, love and trust...and carry a really big stick. EDIT: and i'm really disappointed nobody got the uriah heep reference. the generation gap on the bbs is larger than i thought!
More like "speak out of both sides of your mouth as loudly as possible about faith, love, and democracy while flailing madly about with a big stick without consideration for the consequences."
Maybe because out of all the bands that that that have ever acheived minor noteriety over the last 40 years, Uriah Heep would rank at the bottom of the list. They are sort of Deep Purple wanabees. John McCain is about the only honest politician left in America. I would elect him emperor if he wanted the job. Wonder if Colin Powell would accept the Vice-emperor position?
Lets not forget though that McCain fully supported the invasion of Iraq and even did a campaign style swing to support it. Campaigned for and with GW Bush in both 2000 and 2004 even though he called out Bush for the dirty push polling in SC. Also on most social issues is actually very conservative. McCain has had the benefit of being a a contrarian on a few issues but more often than not is a company man. If I recall Reagan had a lot of difficulty getting most of his legislation passed and didn't get much legislatively done in his second term and also had a Supreme Court nominee voted down in the Senate. I also believed he had the most vetos of any President and the most overriden. Considering your history I'm also surprised you admire a president so much who had a secret cell in the Admin. running a foreign policy against Congress trading arms for hostages. Whether this was done intentionally or through negligence isn't a sign of a succesful presidency.
McCain is Dubya's b****, no question about it. If any Dem or independent out there still has illusion about McCain, just remind yourself how he attacked Kerry before the 2004 Republican Convention. To McCain, it was a fair game to brush off Kerry's valiantness in Vietnam while ignoring Bush's cowardice. Among other masterpieces of Reagan's presidency: banking deregulation and collapse of S&L which cost US 600 billion dollars.
If McCain switched parties, his effectiveness as a moderate flatlines, and his popularity among Republicans in Crisis would crater as well. The irony is that Democrats want him to be more like one, but if he became one, nobody would care. His popularity stems from being a dissenting Republican, and he knows that very well. Therefore, he'll follow the party line, perform some damage control to whatever the Conservatives produce, and bid his time, even if he has no real chance of winning the Presidency.
That's a good point. The one thing McCain hasn't had to deal with is a serious attack from the left and if McCain were a general election candidate there's no telling how well he would handle attacks on his socially conservative stances.
perhaps, but since he doesn't have a real base, i wonder if special interests from both sides would run roughshod over him.
You've answered your own question Its one thing to win on conservative issues when running as conservative its another to try to win running on conservative issues when running as a moderate.
A Mccain nomination in 2008 will both benefit and hurt the republican/moderate to conservative base. If he runs, at least in 2008 and then 2012, he will win, at least the firs term. It is a way to get the party another 4 to 8 years. However, since the reality is that the more conservative branch of the party "steers" its fate, you have to wonder if this is alienating this group and the future repercussions of that. That being said, I like the idea of Mccain because I think that by the time he gets in their, he will turn "it" down a notch and conform a bit more to the right. Im not sayin he is gonna 180, but I bet he turns it down. I think that he also will not be tempted to deal with major touchy issues that would polarize his political status while in office. I. E. mar1juana, abortion. I think that Mccain is the strongest horse in the stable and he is probably technically past his prime already.
If McCain wins in 2008 and Congress stays largely as it is I predict McCain's presidency will look a lot like Clinton's first term.
