|
||
What Happened to McCain the Reformer?
Why is John McCain running such a fumbling, cautious, and message-free campaign when the message is right at his fingertips?
If I were McCain, upon sealing up the nomination I would have aggressively focused my campaign around domestic issues, building on my brand as a government reformer. Even if you don't care much about the details of, say, tax or fiscal policy, reform in the broadest sense clearly has a potent political appeal this year. From national security to environmental protection, the government has been badly misused by the Bush administration. Thanks to Iraq and Katrina, to many it appears all but broken. Moreover, even if you could erase the disasters of the past eight years, the government simply isn't set up to handle many of the problems engulfing us now. So reforms are not just politically appealing, but necessary.
McCain has credibility in this area -- he fought for campaign finance reform against his party and won. He recognizes the pernicious effect Washington's "permanent class" of lobbyists and trade organizations have on legislation and the executive branch. He really cares about these things too, for instance repeatedly making a point of stressing his personal horror at the big government breakdown in New Orleans. So all of this fits together very naturally for him. Even his strong advocacy for the surge in Iraq, seen in this context, was a reformer's move in the face of massive blundering. It was an tactical innovation that got things working right -- and showed they could work (work militarily, that is, as opposed to working politically or strategically -- but that's another argument).
The point is, if you're John McCain it shouldn't be hard to come up with a simple, compelling message that is a credible alternative to Obama's. Yet it's not happening.
Instead, McCain seems to be betting the farm on his politically inadvisable "stay in Iraq" policy, while in the domestic arena he has become an ever-more conventional Republican in a year when Republicanism is clearly on the outs. And he's constantly haranguing the media and Democrats for accurately reporting his own, inconvenient statements. Today, for example, he's pushing back against the idea he supports "privatization" of Social Security. Set aside the mind-numbing semantic debate. Why does McCain put himself in this position of supporting an idea that George W. Bush pushed so aggressively, and which was an utter political flop, and which was never a serious policy solution to begin with? Because he's bought the standard suite of Republican policy positions, most of which have already been tested in the political-electoral marketplace and failed. This may be the easiest way to get a position paper up on your website, but it actually makes the case against McCain: he doesn't know what the hell he's going to do if he wins.
Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am waiting for Obama to call McCain on his straight talk claim of being a reformer while refusing to return the $300K donations from his sleezebag supporter who makes fun of raping women.
Money talks BS walks. McCain may claim he is the straight talk reformer but his actions prove what he really is ... for sale to anyone with the money, including those who mock rape victims.
It's ironic that on a day when people can't say enough wonderful things about Tim Russert, people are saying, correctly, that McCain was never a reformer, a myth that Russert was one of the greatest promoters of.
He has apparently decided it's more important to pander to the extreme right-wing of his party. The maverick is no more. The reformer has embraced the status quo. And the Straight Talk Express has been sent to the scrapyard.
How can McCain improve ANY platform by removing faults and abuses when HE is in cahoots with the ASSAILANTS?
Can this country afford a leader who is NOT astute enough to correct the blunders endured by the previous leader? Everyday on the trail, McCain proves he cannot. If there are no "plants" in his audience ---- McCain has a serious problem (of which the GOP consistantly "glosses" to make McCain appear to be intelligent). In the meantime, these SELFISH actions by the GOP help the top 1% and repeatedly HURT the poor and middle class. Reform? That will not happen.
Age? Let's not fall into an ongoing conversation of possible dementia. McCain needs to prove to this country that he is capable of leading it. This distraction IS NECESSARRY because there are Supreme Court Justices doing a fine job and much older. If McCain's judgement, knowledge, and ability to assess this country and the world falter -- WE, as a nation will worsen with the economic disarray we endure at the present.
Our deficit cannot afford a flinch. The blunders on the trail speak volumes. It is a shame that there will be some who will vote for McCain JUST because he's a Republican. NOONE can afford to be selfish and hurt the majority of people in this country.
Perhaps BEFORE heading to the polls this November --- voters sincerely need to understand the definition of reform. McCain clearly told this country JUST yesterday --- The Supreme Court is wrong
What happened to McCain the reformer? What happens to a mirage when you approach it? McCain has only been a lame imitation of Barry Goldwater because he knew that was his ticket to election in Arizona.
And we ALL know the sentiments of Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott. My, my, my --- amazing what your predecessors bring out in you!
hmmm...
Goldwater --
(1) Lifetime member of the Sierra Club.
(2) Extremely accomplished (environmental) photographer.
(3) His wife, Peggy, started Planned Parenthood in Arizona.
(4) Responsible for doubling the size of Grand Canyon National Park.
(5) Admitted that Glen Canyon Dam was one of his greatest political mistakes.
(6) Favored non-discrimination of gays in the military.
(7) Lifelong advocate for Native American populations.
How is that similar to those other thugs? And how, exactly, is McCain one of my predecessors? In (3?) elections he has never received my vote. My statement was that, as an Arizonan, I have seen McCain gain his limited success here by imitating Barry. It has been a very poor imitation at best but Arizona politics has favored his load of bull.
Now let's talk about where his wife got her money... Or July 29, 1967 and the U.S.S. Forrestal.
John McBush is having trouble generating excitement on the campaign trail. In fact, just thinking about him makes me want to take a nap.
Snooooooooze....
Any republican who claims to be a reformer will prove it by switching parties and embrace the philosophies of the Democrats: "All for one and one for all" is one of our major tenets, which contrasts so well with that of the republicans, namely "All for me and none for you." McCain can sign the Social Contract, switch parties, and stop spewing BushCo. crap propaganda; then I will believe that he wants to aspire to the vague and questionable (anyway) title of reformer. We Democrats think about things, and have logical arguments for and against things, whereas McCain et al. are screamers without rationale and reason as an aid to supporting their insupportable positions. McCain is not too old, he's just too immoral, greedy, thoughtless, self-centered, dishonest, stilted and... well, just too republican.
"We Democrats think about things, and have logical arguments for and against things,"
I know it was unintentional, but thanks for the laugh! This current Democratic Congress has been none of that, and they've been spineless to boot.
Don't judge Democrats by the people in Congress claiming that affiliation.
JimR, I couldn't agree more about the elected officials. I was talking about me and others who aren't motivated by the greed for power, and who haven't ascended to our lofty heights of incompetence (see The Peter Principle.) So, no, it was not unintentional, and you stand corrected, as I thank Bettysdad, too, for his astute remark; we Democrats are not all fools, the way so many in the government have proved to be.
I'm sorry but I never did get the maverick bit when it came to mccain. He talked a lot but when it came to voting, he did just as the rest of the republicans did. Torture, habeas corpus, you name it , even on his OWN immigration plan he ended up voting against. mccain is the same as he's ever been.
Political pandering nothing more nothing less. maverick------NO.
Not true. He often reached across the aisle to co-sponsor legislation both sides could agree on. But that John McCain seems to be gone now.
Don't call him a reformer, he's not. He just pushed campaign reforms to cover his ass from the Keating Five scandals, counting on the ADD of the American public to forget all about that. He was right.
Isn't it blatently obvious that this man doesn't have a clue. He cannot even read his own speeches from a teleprompter, properly. He openly admits on National TV that he "knows nothing about the economy"
John I have to ask this question. If JM is as big a threat to your countries stability as he appears why are you giving this screw up ideas on how to win? Are you certain that he is too stupid to use them? Or do you think he is a viable leader for the US?
Not that I think the Democrats are any better but why would you try and give this misfit a chance at ruining your country. War hero or not, he is not fit to lead a Scout troop let alone a country.
McCain is no reformer. He has thrown in his lot with the devil, and I just hope that the devil comes calling for his pound before McCain can do any further damage to this country.
"McCain seems to be betting the farm on his politically inadvisable "stay in Iraq" policy."
That's because it's ALL he cares about!
Mc Lame is so far up Bush's ass he only hears an echo....
When he gets air he doesn't remember that's his problem.
touche !!
"Big governement" didn't fail during Katrina. This is a fallacy you base your post upon.
The response to Katrina was tragically hampered by political maneuvering by the conservatives running the government.
http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/06/06/rove_katrina/
Here is an article explaining exactly how the Bush administration and Karl Rove played politics instead of responding to the disaster. And how the rampant cronyism that runs through conservatism is one of the prime factors in crippling the effectiveness of government.
Remember, FEMA under Clinton was stellar in dealing with these types of emergencies. Effective and efficient. Under conservative control, it's pure incompetence. Conservatives want to see government fail, so to fulfill their ideology, they make it fail. At the expense of others.
The big federal government failed. The big Louisiana government failed. And the big New Orleans government failed. Government failed at every level. Trying to pin it all on Bush and Rove is ridiculous.
Were you born yesterday mourningdude?
It was INCOMPETENT gobvernment not big gov.
Hello??? Bush apointed a comissioner of the international arabian horse association to head FEMA. A man who was forced to resign from the IAHA
Hello???? mcfly
That is incompetent gov, not big gov
Pinning it all on Bush and Rove is not possible; there was failure in other areas. But to deny that they played politics and waited, calculating as to when and where to act, would be wrong on the facts. Why they did so hardly matters. The fact that they did is criminal.
You must be right.
Why would anyone think that Rove and Bush were part of the government?
The response to Katrina was not a failure. It was the result of right-wing ideology of demanding "personal responsibility." Righties hate FEMA because it was created by Carter, and made into a great organization by Clinton. One of the first things Bush did was cut FEMA's budget. You gotta keep in mind that Republicans aren't in office for anything other than the upwards redistribution of wealth.
Its clear he is not his own man anymore. It crystallized when he recently went back on passionate issues he once stood against such as tax breaks for the rich & torture. Look at yesterday. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of habeas corpus for detainees. John's 1st and gut reaction was to say what he thought. Which was that the court had decided and we had to move on. Then he added that he thought Guantanamo should be closed. Fast forward to today. Now he's spouting the rights fear points by saying this is the worst decision ever. And that the courts will be flooded with Habeas Corpus cases, like thats a bad thing. Its obvious his campaign won't let him speak for himself. In 2004 Kerry was touted as a flip flopper. I think in 2008 McCain should be exposed as a sellout. The younger generations know this term and will identify with it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
