"McCain!"

As I sit here in my office chair, I can turn slightly to the left and see John McCain on a television set across the newsroom floor. He's discussing something or other on Larry King, I don't know I can't hear them.

But it reminds me that McCain's star has risen quite high since the first time I heard of him. It was January 2000 and he was whooping Bush's butt in New Hampshire. My senior government class was doing reports on presidential candidates and I had picked McCain because I didn't want to do Gore, Bush or Bradley.

Suffice it to say, I was a lazy Senior a few months from graduation and I did a short bio thing without getting into his real policies. Even if I did, it would be hard to call him a punk after learning that he spent years in the Hanoi Hilton. No matter what I think of him as a politician or adversary, I've got to respect him as a man and a fine American.

But Matt Stoller reminds us exactly what positions he has taken recently:

John McCain voted to convict Clinton on two counts.

John McCain supports teaching creationism in schools.

John McCain supports a ban on gay marriage and civil unions.

John McCain is strongly anti-choice.

John McCain is strongly pro-war and defends this administration's conduct whenever possible.

One of the greatest things that ever happened to him was that he got hammered in the South Carolina primary. After that, he became the golden boy, a martyr for his "straight talk" and a moderate by comparison. He has never been a moderate, he has always, always been a staunch conservative.

He has pulled out a PR campaign the past five years that boggles the mind when you really think about it. He is never written about as a whacko conservative, but a Maverick or an independent. Even people like me that get fooled into hoping he would accept the Democratic nomination and join the Kerry ticket.

Those kinds of things are foolhardy. No, we need to recognize that McCain is no moderate and he isn't the best of alternatives. When he runs, we need to go at him full force.

Interesting programming note, I may actually get to meet the enemy next month. I'll be attending a taping of Texas Monthly Talks where editor Evan Smith will be interviewing said senator. If I get the chance, I will shake his hand and, if I have any balls at all, say something like "Sir, I really respect you and am thankful for your service to your country, but your positions, uh... you're a bit of a douche." And I'll be thinking of all of you when I'm sitting in Travis County jail.

Comments

[Greg Wythe]

That's about as insane a reading of history as I've read, Nate. But I guess we're at that point in time when Democrats realize that John McCain is, was, and always has been ... a Republican. Look, just because a few wingnuts think that McCain's too moderate doesn't make it true. He's a Republican with a mind of his own, a conscience, and a hell of a lot more intellectual consistency than a ton of other Republicans in this world.

When you suggest that he defends Bush on Iraq "whenever possible" methinks you've pretty much napped during the entire debate on his torture amendment ... or when he was calling for more troops at the outset ... or a handful of other times that pretty much negate the concept of "whenever possible."

There's plenty to admire about McCain on a personal level as well as on a political level (something Stoller glosses over). This is a Republican who voted against many of the Bush tax cuts, who believes in counting tax cuts and spending increases as both deficit-inducing causes, who has been a worthwhile voice on environmental issues, who refuses to buy into the practice of the politics of personal destruction (even while being a victim of said game), who's spoken openly about the ill effects of the religious right, and who - had we gone into Iraq under McCain's plans - we'd likely be out by now, witnessing the early years of a free and safe Iraq.

There's ample room to disagree with him as well. But it shouldn't really surprise anyone to learn that he's a Republican or that he's conservative. I mean ... what next, the shocking discovery that Joe Lieberman is hawkish on foreign policy?

[Nate]

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest he's for every aspect of the White House policy regarding Iraq, but he certainly does advocate a pro-war position. Being anti-torture has very little to do with with previous appearances on TV where he backed the White House and the Iraq War.

This post, and many previous posts, about McCain is about him not being a moderate. But I mention the PR that surrounds him and how he is most often portrayed because the average person views him as the Maverick moderate. I've said before that he never claims to be a moderate, but other people sure do.

It's hard to deny that the really vicious smear campaign that was launched against him in South Carolina didn't later turnout to be a blessing in disguise. He was smeared by the guy who won the presidency, and his own national public profile was raised significantly. He may have won New Hampshire, but he certainly wouldn't have gotten the nomination in the GOP of 2000. Now, he's really well-positioned for a run in 2008, and Stoller mentions how he might also be positioned to clean house and repackage the Republicans.

I can see we are probably going to split hairs over what constitutes "whenever possible" (not even my words) on the Iraq issue, but we can at least agree that he is pro-Iraq war, pro-Intelligent Design and does not support any recognition for gay couples. I think the point in all this is that most Democrats, and possibly most Americans don't support these views.

Possibly, if we had done everything McCain thought we should do Iraq may be a functioning democracy today. Or maybe not. Some of us thought it was a stupid idea to go in beforehand, regardless of the number of troops or what the strategy for victory was. Not only is our complaint that the war has been prosecuted incompetently by the administration, but it was unnecessary to begin with. Most polls show that large groups of Americans are coming to the same view that the war was a mistake to begin with.

[Greg Wythe]

I can see we are probably going to split hairs over what constitutes "whenever possible" (not even my words) on the Iraq issue, but we can at least agree that he is pro-Iraq war, pro-Intelligent Design and does not support any recognition for gay couples. I think the point in all this is that most Democrats, and possibly most Americans don't support these views.

Without splitting hairs, this is policy literalism at it's worst, though, Nate. Last I checked, the sitting President also holds a view or two that's widely unpopular. But he still won.

Point being that, by ignoring the personal traits of the individuals in question, we tend to suffer if we think all we have to do is lob a bunch of worthwhile ideas that everyone loves out and we win. Miniature American flags, puppies, affordable health care for all ... whammo!

This is what Stoller and a slew of other bloggers seem to be missing ... present company not necessarily excluded. Doesn't mean you should just up and love the guy or even share the same sense of healthy respect for him that I do. But ... well, there really doesn't seem to be a "but" about it. Basically it just comes down to Matt Stoller identifying why Democrats should disagree with a Republican. We'll just call it Reason #5,765,348 shall we?

PS - Chuck Hegel's also a pretty conservative guy. Just so ya know. ;-)

[Nate]

I think I've mentioned before that I have a lot of respect for Sen. McCain. I definitely respect him for the sacrifices he's made. But I lose respect for him as a politician everytime he says he supports intelligent design being taught in science class.

We may suffer if we ignore personal traits, but we also suffer when we focus completely on the personality and not on the policy. There has to be a happy medium.

Yeah, this is all much ado about Democrats writing why we should disagree with a Republican, but I think we would be amazed how many Dems and independents would vote for McCain in a heartbeat without a real understanding of where he stands on the issues.

The only time I ever mention Chuck Hagel is when he goes on MTP and says something I agree with. I'm not really sure that is pertinent to the conversation.

[Greg Wythe]

Funny, I could have sworn that the entirety of progressivism stood for far more than opposition to teaching intelligent design in schools.

[Nate]

Really Greg, I've thought about it all day, and I can't really figure out what you're arguing for or against here. Are you upset about the way I view Sen. McCain, or are you upset that it took me so long to realize that he is indeed a conservative Republican?

I don't know what Chuck Hagel's conservatism or whether or not all of the mighty kingdom of progressivism stands against creationism being taught in science class. I just know that I'm a liberal Democrat and the good senator's views stand in stark contrast to the way I see the world and the path our country should be taking.

And I think it is important that people like Matt Stoller remind us that he is not the "maverick moderate" that the media portrays him as. If that costs him even one Democrat's vote in the 2008 election, I think that is worth the time it takes to write the post that does it.

I like Senator McCain. I'm eager to meet him and shake his hand. I still think he is a douchebag for believing some of the things he does.