By
Hunter Kincaid
May 23, 2007
Watching the Republican candidates debate on TV, you can see the charisma and power that John McCain has at the podium. McCain always comes off as likeable; even in interviews with people like Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, he has held his own.
Long before George W. Bush was president, John McCain was considered the prime candidate to beat Al Gore in 2000. McCain was well known as a moderate and able to attract attention from both Republicans and Democrats as being a great politician.
So where has this moderate McCain run off to? All we hear now is about McCain wanting to stay in Iraq and his undying support of Bush's Iraq policies. Most of the Republican Party at this point has trouble supporting Bush's Iraq policies, and the country is downright tired of his decisions.
McCain is sticking to his guns and supporting the war to try and get that Republican conservative base that views him as a moderate. It's understandable since he wants to win the primaries with the base before he starts appealing to the broader public. If McCain is so pro-war, though, where has he been when it's time to vote and voice his opinion?
McCain is the only presidential candidate to have missed a vote on the Iraq War. McCain has only showed up for four out of 14 votes in the Senate. With such a split Senate and Republicans in the minority, you would think McCain knows the importance of these votes — or is it just that he isn't as gung-ho about this war as he claims?
The spokesman for Majority Leader and Democratic Sen. Harry Reid brought up that very question. "Sen. McCain has spent considerable time defending the president on Iraq and catering to the Republican base on immigration, but has only managed to show up for four of the last 14 Iraq votes and parachute into [yesterday's] immigration press conference at the last minute. Who is the real John McCain?"
So just who is the real McCain? Conservatives have jumped on him for supporting Roe v. Wade many times, yet he tries to claim he has never waffled and is opposed to a woman's right to choose. Way back in 1999, McCain gave this statement to the San Francisco Chronicle: "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. ... But, certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
McCain now claims that he has always held a consistent position and that as president, he would work for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. He even attacks fellow candidate Mitt Romney for switching positions on many issues such as abortion.
The abortion debate certainly makes me wonder where McCain really stands, or if he's just willing to say anything to get a vote.
When McCain started buddying up to Bush in the past few years and during the 2004 election, I know I was surprised. I had always respected the man and was upset at what Bush allegedly did to him during the 2000 primaries. For those of you who may not know, I'll tell the story.
Ron Suskind wrote a great article in Esquire magazine in 2003 after McCain's book had been published which mentioned the details that were already well known in Republican circles. McCain had great popularity and had won New Hampshire. In South Carolina however, McCain ran into trouble. "Push-polls" were taking place in South Carolina that asked about McCain.
Push-polls are when questions are posed to respondents under the guise of polling, but the questions attempt to lead them in a certain direction or spread lies. This push poll tried to insinuate that McCain's wife was a drug addict, and asked the respondents if they would be less likely to vote for McCain if he fathered a black child with a prostitute. The push-poll hit home because McCain and his wife had adopted a little girl from Bangladesh, and when people saw them in the media with their little girl after taking that push-poll, it affected votes.
Most people assume that it was Bush and Rove that instigated that push-poll; who else would have had something to gain that night by doing such a thing? After all, Karl Rove does have a reputation for playing dirty.
McCain being friendly with Bush and supporting all his war policies seems a bit disgusting, and I don't believe that's McCain's real position. I think the votes really show that someone as war hungry as a Bush follower wouldn't miss 10 votes concerning the war, especially not in an election year when they want to show off their voting records.
McCain may still be a moderate in hiding, but if that's true, it means he's willing to say anything and be friends with anyone to get into office. That's not my idea of a great president.
Reach columnist Hunter Kincaid at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.
3 Comments
#1 CPT Nicholas R. Turza
on May 23, 2007 at 3:24 p.m.(Lawton, OK | Unverified Name)
I have read few politics columns that are so sophomorically oblivious to, well, politics.
First, Senator McCain has taken a very unpopular stand supporting the war. He has also challenged the base of his party his party on immigration, to say nothing of how over the past eight years, all of which he has essentially been laying the groundwork for his presidential run, he has also gone against the "dittoheads" of the GOP on issues like tax cuts, patient's bill of rights, and global warming. Why does Mr. Kincaid not give him any credit for being a member of the "Gang of 14," the highly lauded moderate group that prevented the "nuclear option" in Senate with judicial appointments? I can tell you that maneuver to the middle did not help him amongst primary Republicans in my home state South Carolina, and I can tell you John McCain was smart enough to know that risk, but he believed it to be the right thing to do anyway.
"Smarter" politicians -- who care less about winning wars than they do about winning elections, to say nothing of how few have any true consistency on issues outside of consistency with the most recent polling data -- have quickly gained on Senator McCain in the GOP horserace, precisely because they fit the author's template of one "willing to say anything and be friends with anyone to get into office." If that applied to Senator McCain, why then, Mr. Kincaid, does he not only take a staunchly pro-war position, but make it the centerpiece of his campaign? Alone with the character Stephen Colbert plays on TV does Hunter Kincaid believe this to be the popular, vote-getting position. Likewise, on what planet does working hand-in-hand on the immigration bill with Senator Ted Kennedy help Senator McCain with the conservatives needed for the primaries? Planet Reverso? Mars maybe?
Then there is the accusation McCain has "buddied up" to Bush. How so? Because he wasn't a sore loser after 2000? Because he didn't switch parties in 2004, instead loyally supporting other Republicans. No doubt he also wanted to start collecting chits, hoping to take over the party that he has been very vocal has drifted far from its Reaganesque principles under the big-government conservatism of Bush. Did he buddy up to Bush when he opposed his tax cuts? When he called for Rumsfeld's resignation after Abu Ghraib? When he so publicly challenged Bush on torture? How exactly did THAT make President Bush look good, especially coming as it did right before the mid-term elections? In fact, it has only been recently, when the lone issue left to define President Bush is Iraq, and thus when President Bush's poll numbers are at all-time lows, does Senator McCain stand closest to the White House. Is this because Senator McCain is a political moron, or -ghast- does America actually have some senators that despite the overweening cynicism of the American electorate, stand for things they believe in? And do note, Hunter Kincaid, even as Senator McCain fights so visibly, so publicly, to be a voice for what he believes in (whether you agree or not) amongst a GOP field that, outside of him would rather, in all political convenience, not talk about Iraq where tens of thousands of my brothers in uniform are putting their lives on the line (oh! what political courage), he may, yes, miss more minor votes in the Senate. But while I applaud you for your research there, perphaps you could also read the newspapers once in a while, for there you would see such articles like the Feb 22nd issue of the Los Angeles Times headlined "McCain slams Bush on global warming, Iraq policy", wherein McCain calls the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war a "train wreck." So in short, McCain believes withdrawl would come at a greater cost than supporting Gen Petreaus tenure in Baghdad, he recognizes the risk in continuing our involvement as it will likely lead to his own son, a Marine, getting sent into theater, but like many others he has been highly critical of the management of the war up to this point.
Finally: abortion. Yes, Senator McCain, who regularly speaks off the cuff and allows far more access to himself than far more polished candidates (which is to say just about all the others) once made that remark about abortion. But in addition to not reading newspapers or poll numbers, columnist Kincaid also does not apparently read voting records in the Senate past those taken this year. If he had, he would see that John McCain, to include when he was congressman McCain, has a VERY consistent pro-life voting history.
Maybe Hunter Kincaid can write well, and as columnist, he can certainly string together his thoughts better than I. But his analysis is so blatantly incorrect, all I can imagine is that he is willing to read only tidbits of information, lacking any substantial background knowledge, fairness, or comprehensive research, and then type anything to get published. That's not my idea of a respectable columnist.
#2 Allen
on May 23, 2007 at 7:36 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Well said Captain.
Senator McCain doesn't want to "stay" in Iraq, he wants to WIN in Iraq. McCain also has said in every debate that the War was mismanaged and needed a new course. Obviously he supports the current push in Baghdad, but because he believes it will succeed and because he believes that succeeding in Iraq means securing free and democratic state as well as possibly saving lives here in the U.S.
There isn't much to add because the Captain here said pretty much what I wanted to say.
#3 Eric
on May 23, 2007 at 7:44 p.m.(Granada, Spain | Unverified Name)
I'm just impressed that somebody wrote a comment that was even longer than the column.
Post a comment