That sums it up for me too. It seems to me that there’s something akin to confirmation bias going on: the electorate is aching for a pol that will stand up for principles; McCain makes those waves occasionally (which receives a lot of play), but somehow, his unprincipled actions get lost in the shuffle.
I’m sure he thinks he’s only going to reverse the first part. The thing is, the press likes to paint him as a moderate and an independent, but if you look at his position on the issues, he’s pretty darned conservative. And I mean socially conservative, not just fiscally so. Plus, he’s even more of a hawk on Iraq that Bush is (in the sense of wanting to send in more troops, rather then draw down the ones we already have over there.) My guess is he’s going to try and woo that RR vote by demonstrating his (socially) conservative side, throwing in a few references to God to keep them happy.
Yep. Ain’t politics fun!!??
You are both correct, but my WAG is that the expectations for honor or mavericks have been set so low, that people like McCain still stand out. Look how much play Feingold gets, he gets media attention for bucking the party. Of course he doesn’t appeal to Moderates or Conservatives, but I know many Moderates that at least respect him.
Jim
I’m only surprised that LIBERALS are now surprised by McCain’s actions.
Has the Left only NOW figured out that John McCain is an opportunist who’ll abandon his principles to curry favor with whoever he thinks can help him get into the White House?
Conservatives figured that out nearly seven years ago, which is the main reason a relative lightweight (Bush) got the Republican nomination.
I don’t know where the idea comes from that McCain is abandoning his principles. He has never identified as a moderate. he has always said he was a conservative, and a great admirer of Ronald Reagan. He supported the war from day one.
I’m not likely to vote for him either (barrng the Democrats nominating Cynthia McKinney), but I don’t see any substantive change in his policy positions. He’s just not poking powerful Republicans with a stick any more, and is making nice with them to show that he doesn’t wish he could.
Actually, the main reason was Rove’s dirty tricks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Race_for_President_2000
He would say he disagrees. He can’t give commencement speeches if he disagrees with the university president?
Exactly.
Count me as someone who has never liked McCain’s politics, even while having a certain respect for him. But if he continues to pander to the far right of the party, even those who like him are going to realize that he’s not the saviour of moderates that he has often been portrayed as.
Watching the Daily Show interview, i was of two minds about the whole thing.
My first reaction was that this is, in fact, little more than pandering to the religious ultraconservatives.
But then it occurred to me that the true test of whether or not he’s pandering will be not in his appearance at Liberty University, but in the content of his comments. It will be interesting to see a transcript and compare it to his more general positions. After all, wouldn’t we all change our tune if he went in there and told them that their divisiveness was undermining America?
Of course, i’m not naive enough to believe that this is actually what is going to happen. And McCain’s sucking up to Bush over the past few months, at a time when even many very conservative Republicans realize that the Administration looks pretty bad, suggests that he’s not about to rock the boat with the religious right.
Personally, i’m actually quite heartened by his current shift to the right, and i’d be happy to see it continue. It might cause all those liberals who saw him as some sort of saviour to realize that he was always conservative, and that he is no substitute for a good Democratic candidate.
Not sure where we’re going to find one of those, though.
None of those positions sound traditionally conservative to me, let alone “pretty darned conservative.” It sounds like he’s conservative on some issues, and more liberal on others. Wouldn’t that make him, overall… moderate?
It cuts both ways.
The Democratic Party has a good number of culturally conservative Christians in its ranks, and has shown that their tent is big enough to accomodate them. Indeed, without them, they wouldn’t win.
The majority of union rank and file members, black voters, and Hispanic voters certainly can be described in this way.
George Will gets something right occasionally, and even he’s noticed a growing chill in the air.
But then Will loses it again:
Um, in short, no.
WHy not? That’s the reason so many Democrats gave for nominating Kerry. Even if they didn’t like him, they thought he had the best chance of beating Bush. I see no reason that Republicans won’t react the same way-- whatever it takes to beat Hillary (or whomever). IOW, it’s more important to get a Republican in the WH, whoever he is, than to allow the Dems to win. Isn’t that the very argument you have used wrt to a Democrat-- anyone but Bush?
Like John Mace, i’m not quite sure why you dismiss Will’s analysis so readily here.
It seems to me that Will is making a fairly straightforward and common argument about pragmatic politics, about people’s tendency to support the person who they feel can ensure their party’s victory.
I’d respect McCain a lot more if he would own up to despising Bush. If someone had run that kind of smear campaign against me, I wouldn’t be sucking up to him for love nor money. Now he’s trying to tie himself closer to Bush, which seems not only unnecessarily humiliating but political suicide. He was a deficit hawk, now he says that letting the temporary tax cuts expire is the same as a tax increase and he won’t go for it. The maverick no more, he’s just a common politician and a Republican one at that. Why so many are enamored by him is beyond me.
I think Will might be right also. We know some people who weren’t crazy about Kerry voted for him because they loathed Bush.
Okay, what do moderate/conservative Republicans mostly hold against this administration? Its unethicality, or simply its incompetence? I’d suggest it’s far more the latter, and they’ll be looking for a candidate who can run the shop. Okay, how about the Religious Right branch - are they disaffected at all? If they were, would it be because of his morality compared to the other possibilities, or because of his inability to defeat the heathens?
How about historical precedent, then - who has ever been elected President on the grounds of his virtuousness? Carter, maybe, but there too I’d suggest it’s mostly because he was of a different party than Nixon or his pardoner.
So who’ll get the 2008 GOP nomination? Certainly not anyone closely involved with this Administration, which, granted, already means we’re outside the range of precedent, unless you can point to another Administration which has been so repudiated by its own party. If you’re sure it will go to the most virtuous-looking non-Bushite rather than the most competent-looking non-Bushite, you’re welcome to. But I don’t see where those votes are going to come from.
I think it’s left over from his last run. In 2000, he didn’t look ethically compromised, he did say what he meant, he did clearly base his positions on principles, and he did have a compelling background. That honest principledness led a surprising number of people to think he couldn’t really be a Republican at heart, or even a conservative. Some of that gullibility (or is it simply hopefulness?) remains, despite all of his recent pandering.
I’m amazed at Rove’s ability to convince so many people to sacrifice their intergrity and credibility in the cause of this administration’s approval ratings (and savage the ones who have refused). McCain and Powell are only the most notable examples of those who’ve given in.
I think I see the source of your confusion now - Will is talking about Republican candidates. Are you suggesting that the main consideration for Republican voters, hoping to hold the White House, will be how different a Republican candidate is from what they see as the defining characteristics of this Administration? That’s what Will is suggesting.
If, however, they see “contrasting with the Democrat” as the most important consideration, then they’re in trouble until they know who that is. The Dems will have the political luxury of picking a candidate based on how effective and wise a leader and administrator he’d be, not on how he’s different from the other guy. The Reps will be stuck with finding one based on his NON-connection with Bush, his apparent REAL Republicanness, his promises to sweep away all of this failed Republican administration and only way down the list will his “virtuousness” come into it - because almost any Democrat will win that comparison just by not being a Republican.
Is your argument now “anybody but Hillary”? You really think it’ll come to that? Do you really want to get into the commonness and origins of your party’s and faction’s obsession with her, once again?
So very true. I know a lot of people who vote for Kerry because we loathed Bush/Cheney. As usual, I await the results of the primaries. In 2000 I had hopes of McCain vs Bradley and I got Bush vs. Gore. Instead of two politicians I respected I got two I did not.
Jim
I don’t understand that.
It’s clear that Will is saying some Republicans who don’t care much for McCain will find him more attractive if they see a resurgent Democratic party that might take the the WH. It doesn’t need to be the main consideration, it just has to be an important consideration for enough voters.
I don’t know that it even needs to be Hillary, although I think that helps the Republicans rally their base.
And it ain’t my party. I’ll tell you right now that I will not vote for the Republican candidate for president no matter who he is if the Republicans control both houses of Congress in '08. I want a split government, and while my preference is generally to have a Republican as president and the Dems in control of Congress, I’ll take the reverse of that over one party rule any day.