What makes an effective Senator doesn't make a good Presidential candidate

Brendan Miniter in today's WSJ takes on the good Senator's image. To summarize, what makes an effective Senator doesn't make a good Presidential candidate.

Miniter starts out with the simple proposition that McCain is swimming upstream when attempting to buck conservative Republican ideas and policies: What the McCain Myth ignores is that for now a majority of voters nationwide embrace conservative principles. Talk of being a "compassionate conservative" notwithstanding, it wasn't maverick moderatism that handed President Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. Nor has the McCain Myth been responsible for padding Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Indeed, Republicans have been winning by sticking to their principles and not bucking their party's ideas on tax cuts, national defense or reforming the judiciary.

From there Miniter makes the point that the time-honored tradition of seeking out moderates in the middle just don't cut it anymore. Using the Democrat's 2004 numbers as an example, the conclusion is clear: there are fewer such moderates to find, and when you do they are already likely voting for your party. Which of course means, if you've tee'd off the base...

So where does this leave McCain and his maverick moderatism?

As for Mr. McCain, this all leaves him in the unenviable position of offering a political philosophy--no more tax cuts, moderate reforms to entitlement programs and, among other things, moderate judges--that is actually costing Democrats votes. Paradoxically it's a political philosophy that helps him wield tremendous power in the Senate, where there are plenty of mushy moderates. But the idea that it's a political philosophy that will propel Republicans into the White House is a myth that this President Bush has long since dispelled.

Faith of my Fathers

Here is the Arizona Republic's review of A&E's adaptation of the Senator's memoir. Having not watched it last night, I am in no position to argue about what it did or didn't say about the Senator's experiences and personal character.

In fact, I love Bill Goodykoontz's close here: Think what you want about McCain the politician or the person, but give him his memories of his time as a prisoner of war and his experience of them.

He has earned it.

As I've said before, I question none of that. It's his judgment as a Senator and a Republican that I'm left to wonder about.

Misunderstanding of the Right

The filibuster fight may help cast midterm elections and give McCain a boost in the next presidential race.

So reads the sub-head under Linda Feldmann's piece in the Christian Science Monitor's May 25th edition. It should read, "We don't have a clue about the Conservative base of the Republican Party."

Among those who appear to be actively considering a run, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona emerges a winner, analysts say. Senator McCain played a significant role in crafting the compromise announced Monday evening by a bipartisan group of 14 senators. And he is no stranger to the spotlight - or the public. In the 2000 presidential race, he nearly knocked off heir-apparent George W. Bush for the GOP nomination.

The agreement on judges "certainly burnished his credentials as an independent thinker and someone who's a problem-solver," says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron.

Linda needs to get out more. The Conservative base of the Republican party (read: those who re-elected George W. Bush and sent 4 new Senators to Washington) do not think anywhere near this highly of John McCain. First off, he didn't nearly knock off W in 2000.

He won one primary, in New Hampshire. Other Republican luminaries to similarly win right out of the gate include Pat Buchanan in 1996 and, if we step into the way-back machine, Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964. Neither won his party's nomination. Neither did McCain.

As for the Great Compromise of '05, the conservative base certainly couldn't care less about what it does or doesn't do to McCain's "credentials" as an indepent thinking problem-solver. It's not his competency or abilities that we question, but rather his judgement. And the Great Compromiser has shown poor judgement in the eyes of many Republicans.

Letters to the Editor

Scottsdale resident Lowell Ziemann in yesterday's Arizona Republic:

Sen. John McCain has succumbed again to his maverick ideology and all-too-common arrogance. He apparently learned nothing when he reached out to Democrats on the campaign finance reform debacle that was quickly rendered useless by their explosive use of the 527 loophole. Now he has led the compromise that has Dems agreeing not to apply their unprecedented use of the filibuster to stop judicial nominees unless there is "extraordinary circumstances." What a joke!What will be the basis of a nominee labeled "extreme" by the Dems? Somewhere in the past the nominee will have spoken against abortion, mentioned the Bible, advocated individual responsibility or stated a belief in smaller government.

Will Republican senators have the gumption to challenge the Dems' definition of "extraordinary circumstances" and accuse them of acting in bad faith? Certainly not those of Sen. McCain's ilk.


Michael Brown of Surprise takes it to the next level with his letter published today:

Sen. John McCain needs to just step across the aisle and join his Democratic comrades. First, McCain and Teddy Kennedy come up with a ludicrous amnesty bill for the illegals that are invading our country. Wouldn't some heavy-duty punishment and extradition be in order? Now the Arizona senator backstabs the Senate majority leader with 13 other Democrats and Republicans over the filibuster.

I am not a political expert, but this guy is definitely a Democrat for whom I will never vote again.

The Doctor is 'IN'

Peggy Noonan writes today for the WSJ about the narcissism of the 14 Senators responsible for the Great Compromise of '05. Technically I suppose some could take exception with some of what she says by pointing out that she is a writer, not a psychiatrist nor psychologist and thus unable to make anything resembling a diagnosis of these men and women and their behavior.

I would not be one of them. Sometimes a basic understanding of human nature and Washington D.C. suffices.

Back to the senators. Why did they put on that performance the other day? Yes, it was sheer exuberant egotism; it was the excitement of the TV lights; it was their sly conviction that if they laud themselves they will be appearing to laud the institution; and it was, no doubt, the counsel of their advisers that in the magic medium of television, if you declare you are a "hero" often enough people will come to associate the word "hero" with you. Advisers, you must stop telling them this. Please.

I think everyone in politics now has been affected by the linguistic sleight-of-hand, which began with the Kennedys in the 1960s, in which politics is called "public service," and politicians are allowed and even urged to call themselves "public servants." Public servants are heroic and self-denying. Therefore politicians are heroic and self-denying. I think this thought has destabilized them.

People who charge into burning towers are heroic; nuns who work with the poorest of the poor are self-denying; people who volunteer their time to help our world and receive nothing in return but the knowledge they are doing good are in public service. Politicians are in politics. They are less self-denying than self-aggrandizing. They are given fame, respect, the best health care in the world; they pass laws governing your life and receive a million perks including a good salary, and someone else--faceless taxpayers, "the folks back home"--gets to pay for the whole thing. This isn't public service, it's more like public command. It's not terrible--democracies need people who commit politics; they have a place and a role to play--but it's not saintly, either.

I don't know if politicians have ever been modest, but I know they have never seemed so boastful, so full of themselves, and so dizzy with self-love.

McCain-Feingold: the Sports edition

The NY Times reports that Senator McCain along with co-sponsors from the House Mark Souder of Indiana, Thomas Davis of Virginia and Democrats Henry A. Waxman of California and Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, unveiled the promised anti-steroid legislation yesterday. The stated goal is to create as stringent a testing regimen as that in place for the Olympics.

God help us, the maverick strikes again! One day after playing facilitator and enabler for the Great Compromise of 2005, the good Senator quickly darted backstage for a costume-change and has now ridden out in his white-hat and best good-guy suit to save the day!

The Republic's piece is far more revealing in this sense than what the Times reports. It first points out that the Senator along with some of his co-sponsors have been warning the Big 4 generally and MLB in particular, for a year that they must "crack-down on steroids" or face Congressional action.

From there, it turns almost absurdly flattering: "Despite my clear warning and the significant attention that I and others in Congress have given to this stain on professional sports, baseball and other professional leagues have refused to do the right thing," McCain said Tuesday. "By introducing this bill, I am once again asking the leagues to shore up the integrity to professional sports."

McCain's demands rarely go unheeded. He is arguably the most powerful member of Congress, someone whose influence was underscored earlier this week when he helped broker a filibuster compromise that most colleagues assumed was impossible.Now that McCain has carried through on his threat to intervene, the players union has little choice but to come to the table to renegotiate its policies on drug testing.

The players union has little choice but to come to the table to renegotiate its policies on drug testing. Got that? The maverick has spoken!

Why is this a problem? Why should anyone care about Congress imposing it's own requirements onto professional sports?

This is why: Under considerably less pressure late last year, baseball union chief Donald Fehr voluntarily agreed to renegotiate the portions of the players agreement dealing with banned substances. The result was a new policy, which went into effect in January and was scheduled to last until 2008, calling for random, mandatory drug tests and suspensions escalating from 10 days to 30, 60 and a year for the first through fourth offenses.

As recently as March 5, Commissioner Bud Selig said he was "very comfortable in what we've done." But that was before Selig and Fehr were called before two congressional panels to explain why they haven't done more.

Is it, or is it not an internal matter that those who govern the body are empowered to deal with? To wit: Selig since has said he wants the union to come back to the bargaining table again and approve a "three-strikes-you're-out policy" that would suspend first-time offenders for 50 games, second offenders 100 games and ban players for life for a third positive drug test.

Fehr and his most outspoken followers have balked, making it clear they don't necessarily oppose stiffer penalties but question how many times they are going to be forced to rewrite what already was a mutually negotiated collective bargaining agreement.

Something I doubt the Curt Flood Act of 1988 would have foreseen when MLB's anti-trust exemption in matters of labor relations was revoked. MLB cannot act against the competitive interests of it's teams and players; that is in part why we have collective bargaining agreements!

Apparently our members of Congress know more than the collective heads of these organizations. Fehr's objections are well founded in my opinion, and I am no lover of Donald Fehr.

The fact though that he has publicly acknowledged the need for more stringent testing regimes as regards steroids is proof in-and-of-itself that the game is moving closer to where it ought to be. It doesn't need threats and intrusive acts from Capitol Hill.

The Root of the Problem

The online edition of The New Yorker features a Q&A with writer Connie Bruck who has a featured piece in the print edition entitled McCain's Party. Fellow New Yorker Ben Greenman's questions are about typical for such things--mostly obvious ones, a couple that dig at something interesting.

It's not news necessarily, but this just underlines the nature of the problem:

How unpleasant is his dilemma: to be a team player when he might, deep down, desperately want to be an iconoclast?

I think that it will be hard, because McCain loves being an iconoclast, or a rebel, or a contrarian—it’s just so much a part of who he is, and it brings him the attention that he loves. He will be oh so boring as a team player, so he will never restrict himself to that completely.

Hugh Hewitt got the word out on the printed piece on yesterdays radio program. He points to the money-quote this morning on his blog:

"When people are in close races, I am the first Republican who is asked to come and appear for that person. I am the most sought-after of all Republicans. In this last campaign, I was the one asked by the President to travel and campaign with him.... When you look at the rank and file of ordinary Republicans, I'm extremely popular--it's some of the party apparatchiks who still harbor bad feelings toward me. But it is a little hard for them to do that now, because of my strong support for Bush....Particularly since the 2004 campaign, there has been a great softening of dislike for me."

"It's all about me, the maverick from Arizona!"

Fired for Cause

I open my Webster New World dictionary and look up 'maverick.' This is what it says:

1. an unbranded animal, esp. a strayed calf, formerly the legitimate property of the first person who branded it 2. a person who takes an independent stand, as in politics, refusing to conform to that of his party or group

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona fancies himself such. Reliable on national security issues to traditionally conservative Republic notions, on others he could seem hardly less Republican.

His legacy, to date, includes the travesty known as Campaign finance reform. His facilitation and enabling of this senate compromise now gets added to the list.

Senator McCain sits as part of a 55-seat Republican majority only because the party's base went to the mat in '02 and '04 to increase the majority over this issue. The base went to the polls over judges and delivered. All we asked was that the majority hold up it's end of the bargain. It has not.

McCain was one of the first members of the Pansie Caucus to declare. In his April 14th appearance on Chris Matthews' Hardball, the Senator said the following:

MATTHEWS: But bottom line, would you vote for what's called the 'nuclear option,' to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships?

MCCAIN: No, I will not.

MATTHEWS: You will stick with the party?

MCCAIN: No, I will vote against the nuclear option.

MATTHEWS: You will vote...

MCCAIN: Against the nuclear option.

MATTHEWS: Oh, you will?

MCCAIN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: So you will vote with the Democrats?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I think we have got to sit down and work this thing out.

Tipping his hand more than a month ago served to put the Senate leadership in a bind and didn't allow Senator Frist to work from a position of strength in negotiating with Harry Reid.

Additionally, his position stands in direct opposition to the party's leader, President Bush who has asked straight up for votes on all of his judicial nominees. The Pansie Caucus has betrayed those wishes by willingly tossing some nominees over board and ending their chances for a vote. Yet those nominees aren't the only ones who were tossed over the side--the base that sent 4 new Senators to Washington was slapped in the face with a cold fish.

Why fire John McCain? After all, he just won re-election to another 6-year term in November. Simple: I am a conservative Republican living in Arizona. He is my senator, to vote for or against; to work for or against.

This issue is the tipping point. In the past I've had no major reason to actively work against the Senator. I thought McCain-Feingold was a horrible idea and last year's election proved it. That having been said, it's just bad legislation and if every member of Congress were to be drummed out for writing or supporting such the body would be much, much smaller. It's not a crime.

Abandoning me and the party over an issue I care about and that the party wants and needs, however, is another matter. I intend to chronicle the senator's statements and actions and to build and foster relationships with like-minded bloggers and citizens of my state with focus on seeing him retired from the US Senate.

John McCain needs to be fired.