Losing His Base

by hilzoy

Today, two major mainstream pundit-types called out John McCain in ways I can't recall seeing for quite some time. Possibly ever. And neither of them are flaming liberal types, either. First, Tom Friedman:

"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power. (...)

That [ed.: clean renewable energy] is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t."

Second, Joe Klein, writing about Jerome Corsi's new book:

"Back in the day, John McCain was the sort of politician who would stand first in line to call out this sort of swill. (As, I'm sure Barack Obama or John Kerry would do, if some hate-crazed, money-grubbing left-winger published a book claiming that McCain had been successfully brainwashed in Vietnam--as Kerry did indeed do when a group of spurious Bush-backing Vietnam vets tried to claim exactly that about McCain during the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina.)

But we're not seeing those sorts of claims being made about McCain this year...because Democrats tend not to do that sort of thing. They are the sorts of claims that Republicans--Bush Republicans--make. They range from the blatantly extra-curricular, like Corsi's book, to the official McCain-sanctioned introduction made by Joe Lieberman--of all people--yesterday: that Obama doesn't "put America first."

I know that people like me are supposed to try to be fair...and balanced. (...) But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the "putting America first" front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce."

***

I never planned to cover this campaign the way I have. As far as I knew as of, say, March, McCain was a conservative, though at times unpredictable, Senator with a record of personal heroism, who had recently, and I imagined reluctantly, had to swear fealty to his party's right wing. Because he was, as far as I knew, more or less honorable, I imagined that this campaign would be, mostly, about issues.

We face enormously serious problems as a nation. We cannot afford to decide who will be President on the basis of vague accusations of un-Americanism, or who has most in common with Britney Spears, let alone flat-out lies about raising taxes and solving our energy problems armed with nothing but a tire gauge. It is worth stepping back from this campaign every now and again and thinking: it didn't have to be this way. And if McCain were serious about putting country first, it wouldn't be.

Comments

[Dallas]

But David Broder says that the reason everything has gotten so negative is because Barack wouldn't debate St. McCain. I mean, what choice did St. BBQ have? A pox on everyone's house but mine, says I!

[Ben Alpers]

While I certainly agree with this Joe Klein piece more than I agree with most Joe Klein pieces, his argument about the Bush administration seems to me to be a subtle form of special pleading:

Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency.

Bush's tactics against McCain in 2000 were vile. But they did not cause the disaster of the last eight years. George Bush was not a competent, moral, and upstanding leader prior to the 2000 SC primary.

In fact, many people understood just what kind of a leader George Bush was likely to be even before the SC primary. But for those too slow to figure it out earlier, that primary contest should have been an important early warning sign of what a Bush presidency would bring.

Joe Klein, on the other hand, took a very, very long time figuring out that the Bush administration was a disaster. It's kind of sad that, at this late date, he feels the need to conjure a "slow-acting spiritual poison" to explain a presidency that was rotten from the moment it came to office.

[now_what]

In fact, many people understood just what kind of a leader George Bush was likely to be even before the SC primary

Define many.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because he was, as far as I knew, more or less honorable,"

It's remarkable how many liberals couldn't tell the difference between a Republican being honorable, and being willing to suck up to Democrats for good publicity. Pretty shallow of you, I think, to make this mistake.

Of course, it was equally shallow of McCain to think that Democrats would still love him once he was running in the general election against one of their own, rather than in a primary against one of HIS own.

[liberal japonicus]

Brett, it sounds like you are suggesting that McCain was dishonorable because he occasionally worked with Democrats.

[cleek]

Pretty shallow of you, I think, to make this mistake.

McCain had a huge assist from the press, who worked hard to present him as the honorable maverick war-hero. for the past 9 years, everything from his constant Daily Show appearances to his Biography episode were framed to make him seem like the Last Honorable Republican. up until the last month, i don't know that i ever heard a negative word about him in the MSM.

a lot of people fell for it, sure. but they did so after being told by approximately 100% of the big-time media, for 9 years straight, that McCain really was the honorable maverick of the myth.

but of course thinking McCain was a good guy until he proved himself otherwise, much to the shock and dismay of Joe Klein et al, is nowhere near as shallow as electing GWB. twice.

[hilzoy]

Brett: I wasn't paying a lot of attention to McCain. What registered was: (a) his history as a POW, (b) the fact that after the Keating 5, he didn't just apologize, but actually tried to do something about corruption, (c) his speech about 'agents of intolerance', which I thought was good, and gutsy, and conservative in a good way.

Also, of course, some of his other views, which precluded my ever voting for him. (Insert caveat about possible situations in which his opponent is David Duke or Hitler or someone.) But I respected him.

[jonnybutter]

I had a little default respect for McCain until I started looking more closely at his record. Turns out he was always a phoney, and fairly lazy, too. He is a careerist. Goldwater didn't think much of him (nor the Reagans, ultimately), and neither do some of the other Senators in his caucus - not so much for ideological reasons as for personal ones. Shallow and emotional. Very bad combination. At least Bush - shallow as he is - is not what you'd call 'overly emotional'. McCain (as Commander In Chief) would be really dangerous, folks. I'm glad to see that Klein, at least, is willing to do what other pundits and journos aren't: make himself vulnerable to ridicule for revising his assesment, and calling McCain what he is.

[low-tech cyclist]

What Dallas said.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Brett,

So you're saying McCain is dishonorable?

[liberal japonicus]

I thought this article on McCain's early years was devastating.

[cleek]

this is a really nice ad.

too bad Obama didn't have anything to do with it.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

The McCain camp no doubt hopes the Georgian-Russian crisis points out Obama's inexperience.

But I would hope McCain's "We Are All Georgians" eagerness to antagonize Russia would do the opposite and give one pause before they vote for someone who boasts, "I know how to win wars."

McCain's over-reaching has made George Bush look like a model of restraint and presidential -- no wonder the White House hasn't told him to shut up.

[rawdawgbuffalo]

McCain is one step from senility, I don’t want an old jones running my country, do you?