Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxBuck
I have no clue why so many right-wingers see McCain as being something other than conservative, because he is pretty much down-the-line conservative. The fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn't care for him probably has something to do with it. That, and the fact McCain doesn't trot out a Bible every time he has a news conference.
|
Actually, that answer is pretty simple. It is his media driven image as the "maverick." McCain actually has few areas of interest. That is the main reason you see him shifting on many of his positions. It's not that he isn't principled, he just doesn't care and will take the politically convenient position. If you look closely at his record, you can discern the two main areas where he truly has a strong conviction, and both are the results of his experience.
As I mentioned above, McCain seems to have adopted a never capitulate, never surrender, win at all costs stance toward foreign policy from his experience in Vietnam. On the positive side, I think he would have followed the Powell doctrine going into Iraq and we would not be in the same situation we are now. On the negative side, I don't think we needed to go into Iraq in the first place and McCain thought we did. I think he'd be quicker to intervene in Iran than Obama and I'm pleased that Bush seems to be taking North Vietnam off the table. As for Iraq, I think he might push us to make some fast gains, but has the potential to stay much longer than necessary. I really want to know his objectives and if/how he would compromise.. specifically, how does he define success/victory and surrender.
His other major concern is reform. He was strongly influenced by his participation in the
Keating Five scandal. Like his experience in Vietnam, this incident moved him to an extreme position. You can see this on his stance on pork spending:
Paul Abrams: FoxNews' Morton Kondracke Outs McCain: "Not White House Material" - Politics on The Huffington Post
Quote:
The encounter Kondracke describes was a meeting with McCain to ask him to co-sponsor, along with Senator Paul Wellstone, an amendment to write $100 million into the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, for Parkinson's research because NIH had been refusing to increase Parkinson's funding. That is, he was telling McCain that making the appropriation was not enough, Congress needed to direct NIH to do the research.
Kondracke describes McCain as becoming "irate", claiming this amounted to pork (although it was going to the NIH), so Kondracke asked him, "if you believed the United States needed a certain weapon to protect the nation's security, but the appropriations committee had refused to fund it, you wouldn't fight on the Senate floor to get the money?"
McCain said, "that's right. That's pork, I would never do it".
So, Mr. Security himself, John McCain, would not even fight on the Senate floor for a weapon he thought necessary to protect the country.
Kondracke went beyond the substance of the matter to make an astute observation on the nature of McCain: "I decided then that McCain, despite his virtues, was simply too rigid to be a good president." Note also how easily and quickly McCain became "irate".
McCain seemed unable to distinguish a bad fight from a good one, pork (bridges to nowhere to serve a hometown interest) from national policy (improving treatment for a devastating illness that strikes randomly and costs the country billions).
|
[note: Mort Kondracke is a pretty big conservative on FOX.]
McCain has changed quite a few positions during this campaign from his run in 2000 (abortion, immigration, view of religious right leaders, drilling, etc). However, he as a few issues (war, pork) where he is stalwart to the point of reckless stubbornness. His maverick image seems to be as much due to his tendency to go off half-cocked as it is on his ability to work on bipartisan issues. I think too many confuse "maverick" (which he is) with "moderate" (which he is not).