SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Old Flame

JULY 30, 2008

Old Flame

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The presidential election has an oddly placid feel to it. Four years ago, the notion that George W. Bush would get another four years in office, actually ratified by a plurality of the voters, was more than any liberal could bear, and, after the election, there was loose talk everywhere about "Jesusland" and wanting to flee to Canada. This time, even though Democrats are extremely enthusiastic about Barack Obama, that life-and-death quality is absent. I think the reason is that a lot of liberals kind of like John McCain. I know I do.

Eight years ago, I was a hard-core liberal McCainiac. Here was a Republican saying things no other Republican would say and fighting, Teddy Roosevelt-style, to wrest his party from the hands of the plutocrats who controlled it. And, in the years immediately following that run, McCain established himself as perhaps the country's foremost progressive champion. He was an opponent, on moral and fiscal grounds, of tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefited the rich. He was also a fierce opponent of the extreme elements of the religious right. He was a proponent of global-warming legislation, the Law of the Sea Treaty, a moderate immigration bill, expanded public financing of elections, a tobacco tax, and many other liberal reforms.

Today, he is none of these things. McCain is almost never asked about his scandalous past. On those rare occasions when he is, he either dissembles (claiming to have opposed tax cuts on the grounds that there were no concurrent spending cuts) or interrupts the questioning with an angry outburst (in response to queries about his reportedly extended discussions about joining John Kerry's 2004 ticket). Today, McCain not only claims not to have altered his views for political convenience, he has preposterously made his alleged refusal to do so the central theme of his campaign.

Yet, somehow, I still feel some pangs of affinity for the old codger. Where Bush is peevish, entitled, and insecure, McCain's charming, ironic, and self-deprecating. Bush's path to public life was trading on his father's name to run a series of business ventures into the ground before being handed a baseball team. McCain's was an episode of awe-inspiring perseverance.

Yes, people put far too much stock in the candidates' personalities. (I'd vote for an obnoxious, pampered phony who shared my beliefs over a charming war hero who didn't.) But personality isn't completely meaningless, either. A president sets the tone for our public discourse, and McCain is pretty easy to take. His demagoguery comes with an awkward forced smile, which doesn't make it more forgivable but does make it less irritating.

As for his substantive views, they do (now) closely resemble Bush's. Yet the upside to a candidate who changes his philosophical orientation as often as McCain is that he could always switch back. While I certainly wouldn't recommend that anybody go so far as to vote for him on that basis, it still offers some grounds for hope. The Bush presidency is like being married to a sociopath. A McCain presidency would be more like being married to a drug addict--however badly he behaves, he could always sober up.

McCain's most longstanding conservative principle is his aversion to wasteful spending. But this has always sprung from an aversion to waste, not a Goldwater-esque opposition to government in principle. McCain's reformist impulses on spending are far more congenial to the progressive vision. If nothing else, his longstanding repugnance for pork-barrel spending would hold out the prospect of clearing away waste in the federal budget. McCain voted against the subsidy-bloated 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. He nobly opposes the farm bill, one of the few issues where McCain has a sensible position and Obama does not. If McCain could actually trim some corporate welfare from the budget, it would create more fiscal and political space for the next Democratic president to spend money on necessary things like health care.

The best aspect of a McCain presidency is that, while it would probably follow the policies of George W. Bush, it would put an end to the politics of Karl Rove. I went back and reread Michael Lewis's 1997 New York Times Magazine profile of McCain, which gushed (persuasively) over McCain long before McCain- gushing had become a media cliché. You can see in it that, even before his first presidential campaign made him persona non grata in the GOP, McCain really was a highly bipartisan figure. The article cites McCain working unusually closely with Democrats, and quotes Democrats lavishing praise on him. He impugns his own party's leadership as corrupt. He jokingly refers to his younger political self as a "freshman right-wing Nazi." Conservative ideologues, as a rule, do not liken conservatism to national socialism.

Liberals tend to view the press's love affair with McCain as a wildly unfair act of bias. They have a point. On the other hand, they should take some heart in the fact that McCain obviously cherishes the approval of the mainstream (and even liberal) media. His accessibility to the press and public is something small-d democrats should cheer. McCain has conducted interviews with very liberal publications like Grist. He's promised to undertake an American version of "Prime Minister's Questions," whereby members of Congress could spar with him.

Does McCain spin and dissemble? Of course. But the current administration's practices go far beyond mere spin. In Bush's Washington, critics are enemies to be dismissed rather than engaged. A McCain presidency would promise to dismantle the whole Rovian method that has torn open such a deep wound in the national psyche.

Beneath his wildly fluctuating ideological positions, McCain is an establishmentarian Republican. Unlike Bush, he cares about elite opinion. He is comfortable sharing power in the traditional postwar style rather than monopolizing it. He might not be another Teddy Roosevelt, but right now another Gerald Ford doesn't look so bad.

The idea that McCain could establish a reputation as a maverick by standing up to his party on numerous issues, win back his party's support by abandoning nearly all his heterodoxies, then prevail by portraying himself as an unwavering man of principle is nauseating. Yet somehow the idea of a McCain presidency itself doesn't terrify me. What can I say? Bush has lowered my standards.

 

Subscribe to The New Republic for only $29.97 a year--75% off cover price!

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 89 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

89 comments

Dear Captain McCain (I hadn't realized he was promoted and then actually refused flag rank...how odd, given his history) has changed his opinions many times. Looking at some of his reasoning, back before he was actively involved in the current campaign, it appears that he simply lacked logically-backed opinions. He believed in this piece of Republican ideology simply because it was Republican ideology; his ignorance of most of what he was voting on was a little scary. If someone he respected came up to him and offered him a logical reason to not support that ideology, he might indeed change his mind. And clearly for the best possible reason...he'd been convinced he was wrong. The problem here is that McCain lacks the intellectual background and structure to weigh such arguments. He's not, I think, intellectual dishonest (although some of his recent positions are quite unpleasant); he simply lacks sufficient context to recognize when his positions don't make sense...how else to justify the profoundly dishonest economic promises he's making? He is in many ways the anti-Bush: not pathologically sure he's right but simply incapable of determining what is right. The exact opposite of a great idea is a great idea; the exact opposite of a disaster is a different disaster.

- AlanK

July 16, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with your article on most points, but as far as getting rid of Rove, isn't he currently involved in the campaign as an "adviser"?. I believe there was an understanding reached between McCain and Bush/Rove where if McCain would campaign for Bush in 2004 he would get the support of Bush/Rove in this cycle. As far as the multitude of flip-flops that McCain has made, the impact they will have on the electorate will probably be much less damaging than the multitude of flip-flops we are know witnessing from Obama. We pretty much know who McCain is since he's been on the political stage since...well a long time. We know he's a politician and his political manuevers don't seem anywhere near as surprising, worrying or offensive as those of a candidate who claimed that the one unifying principle behind all of his positions was a rejection of cynical political calculations and tactics (he forgot to mention the "fierce urgency of personal ambition" exception).

- Paul

July 17, 2008 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The guy is the real deal. Quirky? Yes. Independent? Yes. Poor TelePrompter reader? Yes. But unlike the carefully scripted Obama, you know what you're getting. To me, this election is like going into my closet to get a shirt. The nice new metro sexual shirt my wife got me for Fathers Day or the old comfortable shirt my wife hates. I like the old shirt. It may not look the best, but it feels right.

- J Locke

July 17, 2008 at 1:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This affection for McCain is about as stupid as most "old flame" emotions. The stakes this year are HIGHER than in '04, not lower. Domestically, there the incredibly significant chance to make a great leap forward in race relations by electing a brilliant black president, who can have more positive influence on the mores and dreams of poor black children than anyone in American history. And in foreign policy, Obama offers us the chance to break the stranglehold of the neocons on American policy in the Middle East. Bush has been simply an awkward ventriloquist's dummy for his neocon handlers, and for Likud behind them. It's the neocons and LIkud who created the proxy war for Israel in Iraq which has been the greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy, as well as a much more universally unpopular debacle of a war than Vietnam ever was, and for good reason. Hillary was really the first choice of rich conservative Jewish supporters of Likud. They were the die-hards who refused to admit defeat. But when they had to face reality, their fallback position had to be McCain. These people and their very malign influence on America, have to go. Obama wiped them out in the primaries. Let's hope he can win America back from right-wingers in Israel and America in the general.

- jeanrenoir

July 17, 2008 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, McCain 1997 is dead. McCain 2000 is dead. You can't bring them back. McCain 2008 is the guy who killed them. Those horcruxes don't come for free. Doesn't his complete lack of real policy (Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina?!) bother you? It should. You know, there's this great book called "The Big Con" you should read ...

- Chris Mealy

July 17, 2008 at 2:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like McCain too, but my worry is that he might not be smart enough to be a good president. George W. Bush is clearly not and that has lead to his failures more than his ideology. McCain did get into the Naval Academy -- but his Dad was an Admiral and he finished fifth from last in his class. He never attended any graduate school, not surprisingly, so he really has no academic or technical training beyond the basics. Is that enough for a president? He also has never managed an organization or held and executive office, so we don't know how he would deal with this role. He has been in the Senate for a long time and has dealt with questions of national security there -- but he often confuses simple concepts like we he said Iran was supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. Not only was this untrue but showed his lack of understanding of the Sunnis and Shi'as. His lack of expertise deminishes the value of his experience. As president, McCain would likely have to defer to the better judgement of those around him. Would he rely on another Cheney or another Rumfeld? I'm afraid so. Obama's resume may not be very long but it certainly is stronger. Clearly he is one of the smartest and most thoughtful presidential candidates we have ever seen. He demonstrates a grasp of complex issues in many fields from environmental policy to economics to world affairs and certainly in constitutional law. Sorry John, this election is not a no-brainer.

- David S

July 17, 2008 at 3:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan, Alan, I must respectfully disagree. I think a McCain Presidency would in many ways be worse than Bush II. On the foreign policy side, Bush is/was an tabula rasa. He was easily swayed by the good (Gates) and the bad (Rumsfeld) so that in the current iteration is not doing so bad (see Iran, N.Korea). McCain, on the other hand, seems to be a neocon true believer. His advisors are all neocons through and through (Max Boot, Schueneman, et al) Taken at his word, McCain will try to kick Russia out of the G-8. How is that a good idea? Bush would never do this. I worry a lot more about war with Iran if McCain wins than I would if Bush had another term. Domestically, McCain may be better than Bush especially if he manages to get something done on climate change. At least the evangelical (fka fundamentalist Christians) fringe does not like him which is a good sign. He will anyway have to appoint judges favorable to the fringe. I do not think the small benefits of slightly better domestic policy will outweigh the unmitigated foreign policy disaster that awaits us if McCain wins. PS: Alan, he did not turn down a promotion to flag officer. This claim has been debunked. He was never on any promotion list. In fact, he left the Navy before he could have even been considered for promotion.

- Gennitydo

July 17, 2008 at 3:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"His demagoguery comes with an awkward forced smile, which doesn't make it more forgivable but does make it less irritating." This line is really precious: so precise a summation of my own feelings, so self aware in its ambivalence, a kind of masterpiece of damning with faint praise. I think it's perfectly judged, and encapsulates my feelings about McCain while reaffirming my conviction that Chait is a genius.

- emigdio

July 17, 2008 at 6:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article touched on something very important. The left is having a hard time ginning up the personal hatred of McCain. They can't call him a chickenhawk,bible thumper,racist or other catch words they use to demonize the right. Instead they have gone after his age,cancer,temper and now today his sense of humor (Politico).People might not be enthusiastic about McCain but they know what to expect. Comfort may trump chance in Nov.Obama's latest stance to takes nukes out of our military's hands will not play well over middle America.It's an insight to how just nieve this guy is.

- Spidey

July 17, 2008 at 6:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I definitely have that life-and-death quality more than ever this year. But I never had a crush on McCain.

- jstipich

July 17, 2008 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alan, if you are going to criticize someone's intellect, you should be able to make an argument to support your thesis. Just because you say "it appears that he simply lacked logically-backed opinions" does not prove that fact, let alone tend to persuade anyone about it, unless you explain why you make that conclusion. For example, the much maligned "flip" on tax cuts "appears" to be based in logic, as at least some economists believe that raising taxes (even on the rich) during the begninning or middle of an economic slowdown will exacerbate the slowdown (i.e. taking money out of the private sector during a time when the private sector needs that money). Thus, McCain logically could have changed his mind based on the differences in the economies in 2002 and 2008. You may disagree with my argument, Alan, but at least I have given you some grist upon which to chew.

- Philippe

July 17, 2008 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In a year the Democrats couldn't lose, they've nominated a candidate who can't win. At the end of the day, a lot of working class white voters are going to view the election like this: A less qualified black candidate vying for the same job as a more experienced white candidate. Now, what does that remind you of? (Affirmative Action?) And how do most Americans feel about Affirmative Action? (Not affirmatively.) But this isn't just about "race". For instance, I don't think voters would question Colin Powell's experience in a contest against Hillary Clinton. This is about race AND experience. In my opinion, the Democrats made a huge mistake nominating the most inexperienced major party candidate in 50 years... and they will pay the price for it on election day. On November 4th, when a lot of voters go into the voting booth, they're going to go with their gut instincts... and that will be bad for Obama. The Bradley Effect is real... and McCain will win.

- rinosaurusrex.com

July 17, 2008 at 8:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is exactly how I feel! Many of us on the left were rooting for John McCain eight years ago. There were actually articles in progressive magazines warning us about him - since there was such an afinity. Due to this history, I can't drum up hatred for the guy. There's nothing there not to like about him, except for some of his views, of course.

- no name

July 17, 2008 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bush's path to public life was trading on his father's name to run a series of business ventures into the ground before being handed a baseball team. McCain's was an episode of awe-inspiring perseverance." "Awe-inspiring perseverance?" Is that what we call leaving your sick wife and three children for a millionaire heiress? Maybe "awe-inspiring perseverance" refers to overcoming all of the "barriers" of being an admiral's son and getting into Annapolis where he proceeded to "persevere" in graduating fifth from the bottom of his class? Or maybe John McCain "persevered" in reinventing himself after he was caught taking bribes in the Keating Five scandal--isn't coming back from a bribing scandal the definition of a Great American?

- Keith C

July 17, 2008 at 9:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Obama's flip-flops are nothing compared to McCain's. What is Obama's Iraq war plan? Oppose the surge, saying it won't work. Now, he says everyone knew it would work. Is he going to withdraw troops immediately? That's what he said. Now, he says he will listen to commanders on the ground. Or, we he do a combo of listening to commanders and troop surge? He attacked Bush for not having a plan for withdrawal, but I find his "plans" to be easily as confusing and, worse yet, a great deal of insincerity along with being disingenuous. The man who pounded Hillary on Iraq is no better than her. Irony... What Obama's take on unfettered abortion? Wire-tapping? Faith-based organizations? Teacher merit pay? What about his pledge on public financing that he so easily dropped and for which he was not held accountable? No flip-flops there of course. Do some research instead of just rooting for Obama blindly. Oops, that is the media.

- poorly written

July 17, 2008 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This analysis neglects a pretty important consideration: For all its vaunted power and influence, the Presidency is a very circumscribed position. The sheer number of palms one has to grease, egos one has to soothe, and deals one has to cut to attain the office ensures that every president arrives unable to change about 75-80% of the status quo, no matter what principles they hold (or claim to hold) or promises they make. The idea that there's even a slim possibility that McCain, if elected, would pull off the "Bush + Half a Brain" mask he's been wearing since 2003 and once again become the hard-charging "maverick" who wants to remake the GOP that liberals and journalists (and especially liberal journalists) fell in love with ten years ago has nothing to do with reality. But then, infatuations rarely do.

- austinexpat

July 17, 2008 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

right, McCain is known and trusted right, McCain is the safer choice I'm voting McCain Thanks for the push for McCain.

- safe

July 17, 2008 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do not recognize the country abt which you're writing. The McCain I see in the media is not even remotely like the McCain you describe. Stop smoking those 'funny' cigarettes !!!

- EASELFUMES

July 17, 2008 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So you're okay with 100 more years in Iraq? Continuing the Bush borrow-and-spend-crazily in order to subsidize the top 2% most wealthy Americans and maintain the occupation of a country presenting us no threat? Appointments of right-wing activist judges to overturn established precedent on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion? No problem with McCain being so old or so prone to random fits of rage? No problem with his being a charter member of the Keating Five? No problem with him not knowing that Czechoslovakia no longer exists or not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shiah? No problem with him finishing 894th out of 899 in his college class and having his primary claim to fame being shot down and captured and his primary means of support relying on his wife's inherited fortune? I guess Bush HAS lowered your standards!

- Dolph T

July 17, 2008 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a boring article. You're voting for Obama anyway, so what the fuck are you talking about? McCain is more of a hawk than Bush (he wanted boots on the ground in Kosovo), but is a centrist as far as immigration, and, if his history is to be taken into account, judges and taxes. McCain helped nominate Ruth Bader Ginsberg, opposed the tax cuts, and voted for amnesty. Liberals have something there to look forward to. On the other hand, as Obama veers toward the right, he's essentially slapping America's left in the face. Telling them they're not important, ineffectual, and essentially a bunch of tantrum throwing nobodys. If John McCain is elected, Obama would be punished and the democrats might finally realize how important it is to keep their liberal democrats in mind when campaigning. Same deal as the 2006 elections when conservatives booted the repubs for massive taxing (future if not current) and spending. Liberals need to understand that insofar as they keep capitulating to the right leaning pendulum of the democratic party, they'll keep getting new democrats, you know those pro-globalization, civil liberty reducing hawks who have no interest in changing the nature of the israeli palestinian conflict, no interest in decriminalizing drugs, or reforming the racist justice system for that matter, no interest in ending funding to the Colombian government, or Turkey's repression of the kurds, in summation, no interest in ending the imperialist agenda. The left has settled for this, and that's why there will never be a vocal, effective left in this nation, because they let democratic elites run with the liberal stamp of approval no matter how undeserving they are. We need to develop outside the American mainstream, because mainstream politics is neither ready nor willing to hear this side.

- Tal

July 17, 2008 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It appears quite clear that the John McCain who ran in 2000 is not the one running this year. He might well have been a far better choice then, but we will never know. Perhaps he will shift his positions back to the center once elected, but I doubt if he will go that far, now that he has embraced the right wing. He clearly would not restore our badly damaged reputation around the world, indeed, he is probably the one person we could elect who would worsen it. Why? Because he is as stubborn as Bush is, and with a terrible temper and disdain for those who disagree with him. He is temperamentally unsuited to the presidency. The best way to restore our damaged international reputation is to rebuke the policies of George Bush, not to endorse them by electing McCain. His proposal to create a new world organization of democracies, a slap in the face directed at Russia, would only isolate us further, at a time when we need Russian and Chinese cooperation on critical issues (like Iran, climate change) more than ever. The prospect of a McCain presidency is simply a scary thought from a foreign policy perspective. We have already had eight years of presidential errors on critical issues, the result of electing a president who was simply not bright enough for the job. We should not compound that error by electing a president who brags about being last in his class at the Naval Academy, who admits he doesn't understand economics, and who simply lacks the intelligence, temperament, and judgment for the job. Not to mention the fact that the job ages its occupant ten years in the first six months, and McCain is already well past his prime. We don't want to see how he reacts under stress...we've seen enough to know he doesn't stay cool under pressure. His statements about "Islamic terrorism" being the "transcendent challenge of our time" demonstrate that he lacks any understanding of the nature of terrorism & its root causes. And while he claims to understand that global warming is a true threat, he refuses to back any proposals to deal with it in a serious way. And let's face it, climate change is the real transcendent challenge of our day, and a far greater long term threat to global stability and our way of life than a bunch of terrorist thugs. But McCain just doesn't get it. Obama, meanwhile, truly stands out as one of the most intelligent foreign policy thinkers of our day. I will sleep much easier with Obama in the White House.

- Sensible Centrist

July 17, 2008 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I too liked the "old McCain" and I might have even voted for him in 2000, but the contrast with the 2008 version is too stark. Either his lust for the Presidency has caused him to change his deepfelt beliefs (on tax cuts, the religious right, immigration, etc., etc. etc.) or they were mere 'maverick' posturing in the first place. In either even, this is a man who would be highly dangerous in the White House. Curb your adolescent crushes!!!

- twodox

July 17, 2008 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain is a 70 year old guy who won't even admit that the Vietnam War was a mistake - a mistake that put the names of 58,000 plus on a black wall in D. C. so that we may "honor" them. Today American companies are moving their manufacturing jobs out of communist China and into communist vietnam because - its cheaper!! Why not Thailand? Nah. Having a communist government means you dont have to worry about trivialities like labor unions for example. How do I look at those names on the Wall when my bedroon set was "Made in Vietnam"? Lots of those names were kids drafted off the streets, even if they didn't want to go, and dumped into a jungle - so they could "fight communism". I spent my teen years in Ike's administration and am old enough to admit my mistakes. There are many in this world who think dropping bombs on civilians from 35,000 feet in your silvery jet plane is a war crime. When McCain stops running on his vietnam "hero" status and opens his eyes I'll consider voting for him.

- toritto

July 17, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with your characterization of Obama as an "obnoxious, pampered phony." Is it his old positions or the new ones that are "shared beliefs?" How about using your platform to help us figure out what your candiate's positions are, rather than taking cheap shots at your "old flame?"

- bondf

July 17, 2008 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fyi ur dumb

- tal

July 17, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spot on Alank. More bumbling, confused old guy than inherently and calculatingly wicked. Still undesirable, but for different reasons..

- Backstage Betty

July 17, 2008 at 10:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your commentary makes much more sense if you replace the name "McCain" with "Obama" and replace "Republican" with "Democrat or Leftist"

- Dave

July 17, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Addressing a single point in this article: Opposing tax breaks for the rich? The wealthiest 10% already pay 60% of the taxes in the US. How much more do you want them to pay? How about the remaining 90% actually pull their weight for once?

- jwl2672

July 17, 2008 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could never understand why so many liberals were found of McCain in 2000. I always found him to be very socially conservative and kind of phony...and while a maverick in some areas like campaign finance reform...he waited until McCain -Feingold was passed before adopting any of those principles in running his senatorial campaign, unlike his cosponser Russ Feingold.(he came dangerously close to losing because of his strong principles) He seems like a not so bright,not so ethical and downright mean spririted man who I think might be just as embarrassing a president as Bush. His chance to appoint the next Supreme Court justice should be reason enough to be afraid.

- SusanW

July 17, 2008 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reading a chait article is like scouring your back with sandpaper. He is like an irritant with a lingering effect for at least 10 minutes afterward. A question for all the dead-enders who wanted to leave the country at the end of 2004: How has your life effectively changed as a result of Bush being president and not Kerry? And I don't mean some amorphous horseshit answer like "I feel my privacy invaded" etc. I mean, how has your life substantively been negatively impacted as a result of one president over another?

- jwl2672

July 17, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While Mccain has made changed(drilling in anwar) based on new facts, Obama changes and changes again based on who he talks to and where. What does he believe? Was the surge a failure and doomed from the start like he said last year or a sucess as we see it now. I may not agree with McCain on all his opinions but he has a set of principles which i agree with.

- chris c

July 17, 2008 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, Good article. It's nice to see someone from the left using a bit of common sense when analyzing McCain. Funny thing is, you could replace most of the nouns in the article and the focus to Obama and it would apply to him as well. I'm probably a minority within the republican party since I've liked McCain since day 1. I dont always agree with him; but, I think he tries to work with both sides to get things accomplished. I know the to compare them is passe, but he's our Libierman. Here's the thing, I think most right-wingers had resigned themselves to the fact that this was going to be a dem presidental cycle and had expected Clinton to win governing much like Mr. Clinton did. However, when Sen Obama looked to win the nomination, at first we were all excited until we started looking at his positions on previous issues. I'm one of those that most of you would categorize as clinging to God and guns and would probably think that all I care about is that Obama is half-black. Frankly, I could care less if he was purple as long as he isn't ultra-left. I was resigned to lay down the arms and let Hillary have it since I thought I knew how she would govern. However, Mr. Obama is much scarier to those of us on the right and he is worth fighting against.

- VGW

July 17, 2008 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John McCain frightens me. His thinking is muddled; he never discusses issues in detail like a Bill Clinton or Barak Obama. For ages, he has failed to differentiate between the Al Qaeda who attacked us and the Al Qaeda who emerged in Iraq after we invaded. Deliberate conflation or confusion? I don't believe he can grasp and retain complex concepts. I'm 73, a Phi Beta Kappa who graduated summa cum laude, very mentally and physically active, but my mental acuity is not improving with age. Also consider that Senator McCain graduated 894th out of a class of 899 at Annapolis. I don't believe that he can be trusted to lead this country.

- annieR

July 17, 2008 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a lifelong Democrat, but John McCain won my heart after I heard that not only was he utterly heroic in Vietnam (though I fiercely opposed that war and still do) but that he had adopted a Bangladeshi baby girl. Besides, how can a left-winger like me not like a man whose favourite novel is "For Whom the Bell Tolls"? I am voting McCain because I deeply despise the empty charlatan Obama but also because I like this maverick Republican very much.

- Ganpat Ram

July 17, 2008 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The New Republic shows it's right-wing leanings once again...this whole article is so wrong about the real McKrusty that it's pathetic! If you don't believe McCain would continue all the ugly policies of Bush...including the use of Rovian tactics, you're deluded. And he has pledged to appoint more judges like Scalia and Thomas to the Supreme Court...which would guarantee that this country would be ruled by far right policies decades into the future. The idea that McKrusty has any shred of integrity left after changing all his positions to throw some red meat to the Republican base and the Fundies is delusional...and in spite of this, he and his campaign are trying to peg Obama as a flip-flopper, and it seems to have some traction in the Corporate media. Please Mr. Chait, surely you have better things to write about how "a lot of liberals kind of like John McCain"...could you attach a list here in the comment section on who these "liberals" are? TNR continues on it's direction to render any of it's opinions irrelevant!

- wagonjak

July 17, 2008 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush won re-election with a majority, not a plurality.

- TexasGOPer

July 17, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I too in 2000 was a McCain fan - as a liberal who was not enthralled with Gore, I was considering voting R for the first time. Then he went and had to show he was as conservative as anoyone else and it all started to change. Now, he's gotten crotchety and stubborn, irrational at times and backward thinking. His sabre rattling is just gross - we've done plenty enough of that. And he now somehow reminds me of Reagan and his simpleton views of returning the US to it's 50's era Ozzie and Harriet days. I'm over it now. There's zero chance I'd vote for him. I'd vote for Chris Dodd over McCain (sorry Chris). You're correct though. If he wins, surely he won't be as bad as Bush.

- Robg9000

July 17, 2008 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I too in 2000 was a McCain fan - as a liberal who was not enthralled with Gore, I was considering voting R for the first time. Then he went and had to show he was as conservative as anoyone else and it all started to change. Now, he's gotten crotchety and stubborn, irrational at times and backward thinking. His sabre rattling is just gross - we've done plenty enough of that. And he now somehow reminds me of Reagan and his simpleton views of returning the US to it's 50's era Ozzie and Harriet days. I'm over it now. There's zero chance I'd vote for him. I'd vote for Chris Dodd over McCain (sorry Chris). You're correct though. If he wins, surely he won't be as bad as Bush.

- Robg9000

July 17, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's obvious that you're voting for the "obnoxious, pampered phony." My question is how do you know he shares your beliefs? Are those shared beliefs his new ones, or his old ones? You'd be using your space to more advantage to help us figure out your cnadiate's positions, rather than cheap shotting your "old flame."

- bondf

July 17, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK. Let's assume you are right and McCain is of average intelligence. He is susceptible to changing his mind and, over the years, there is some incongruity to his voting record. Which is worse - His somewhat unpredictable style of voting or Obama's knack for not voting at all if voting means taking a stand that might alienate some voters? Yes, Obama is intelligent and well-spoken. But he is not a leader. He is a politician, and those two things are nearly mutually exclusive these days. If one really leads, he must be prepared to upset some political friends. Mr. Obama has a long history of avoiding that at all cost. I'll take true leadership on tough issues any day (one that actually casts a vote) over platitudes and political-speak any day.

- SteveT

July 17, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jeez... maybe I need to get out of here.

- bdbd

July 17, 2008 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This column should be distributed to fifth-graders as a how-to on "damning with faint praise."

- MLH

July 17, 2008 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Senator McCain has supported free trade, not only in Colombia but in Michigan and Ohio. He has opposed ethanol subsidies in Iowa. He tells every audience, no matter how xenophobic, that we need comprehensive immigration reform. He supports bipartisan initiatives although they infuriate the ideologues on both sides. The possibility that he might come to some agreements with Democrats is one reason Rove and all the extreme conservatives opposed him until they had no choice.

- Laurent

July 17, 2008 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although McCain may have changed his positions on issues, he's at least done it over a 30+ year career as Senator, unlike first-term Sen. Obama. Again, unlike Obama, he's also actually VOTED on issues rather than just "present". Where Obama simply changes his position depending on which way the wind is blowing (i.e., what the poll numbers are showing on any specific day), McCain at least considers the issue at hand and adapts his position accordingly. After all, is not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results the definition of insanity? With President McCain, we at least know what we are getting ... a President, unlike Obama, who will actually think things through before he opens his mouth.

- OwenB

July 17, 2008 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Truly, I have never read for today at least a bigger pile of stinking offal than this column. McCain is not a maverick. He is a standard Republican with Republican views. He is anti-choice, he is pro-big business, he hates and wishes to destroy the public school system, he is anti-gay, he is anti-intellectual, he is pro-war. He is a dishonest hypocrit. He hates women, although he certainly like rich, nubile ones with nice firm tits and no broken legs. The shameful and despicable way that he treated his first wife - dumping her like so much broken corningware when he wanted a nice hot little twat which wasn't damaged. This conversion of his wife from a person who was changed to the functional equivalent of broken china is the tell of his character - he's a turd. As far as his programs and beliefs, none of his beliefs are the same as they were 6 months ago. Then, he was suspicious of religious fascists like Hagee and Parsley, now he embraces them and makes them part of his campaign. Before, he voted against Bush's disgusting tax program, now he supports it. Before he was modestly suspicious of the Iraq thing, now he wants to stay there 100 years. How could any normal person like this scummy little turd McCain? he is an utterly reprehensible politician.

- POed Lib

July 17, 2008 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan, I could not agree more with your article. I always admired McCain before his recent flops (I consider his "agents of intolerance" comment to be one of the bravest moves in American politics in decades). It's been very saddening to see his embrace of positions he formerly disagreed with so that he can solidify his base, but I still think that, if he gets elected, the old McCain may re-emerge. Regardless, anything/anyone would be better than what we have endured the last 7 years. Everyone's standards have been lowered.

- billp

July 17, 2008 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AlanK.. your comment is basically a list of unsubstantiated claims followed by an illogical conclusion. Your comment is essentially a collection of empty words. Oh really? It's odd that McCain refuses flag rank given his history? what history are you talking about? They offered him a rear admiral position and he decided to run for congress because according to him he thought he could "do more good." You argue that he "simply lacked logically-backed opinions" and that this explains his different positions in previous campaigns. Surely, not all of his opinions lacked logic.. that would be ridiculous. Many of his positions are based on logic, including his opposition to the farm bills. So exactly what positions are you talking about??? "The exact opposite of a disaster is a different disaster" ?? Not only is that not true logically (the opposite of a disaster is success or not a disaster), but it's practically meaningless. You argue that "he lacks sufficient context to recognize when his positions don't make sense" and your only basis for coming to this conclusion is basically that there is no other way to "justify the profoundly dishonest economic promises." 2 responses: 1) What are these so called dishonest promises.. maybe you should be more detailed so that readers can verify whether what you are saying is true 2) there are MANY other reasons to explain why he might (and I dont concede that he has) make dishonest economic promises.. aprt from "lacking sufficient context" (whatever that means) for example politicians including Obama and Mccain often make ridiculous promises for political gain.. to gain voters. AlanK, I wish you would take more time to write a comment and to be more precise.

- Youcrazy

July 17, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The thing I like most about McCain is that I'm convinced that he's a genuinely good and honorable man, even though I disagree with him. One thing about a McCain presidency, there would be no Cheney and no Rove pulling pulling his strings and making him dance. John McCain might be a lot of things but he's not a guy I'd care to try and manipulate.

- Mike R.

July 17, 2008 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My wife was a great fan of Sen. McCain during his first campaign for president. She even had me stop the car when we were heading to Michigan where she retrieved a water soaked McCain campaign sign, which we have saved and will display when the city ordinance permits. While my wife has some doubts about McCain this time, she still favors him over Obama. And so do I since I believe Obama is guiless when it comes to issues. He wants to win (who doesn't) but he uses his experience to fortify his argument that he should be President. Unfortunately, he has no real experience when it comes to leading our country out of the Bush years. Obama got a helping hand from older and, one would think, wiser politicans who thought he had merit. When Teddy heard the siren song and his niece, Carolyn Kennedy, likened Obama to her dad (Wow! That was a kick in the head for we JFK disciples) I knew I was a McCain supporter for better or worse. Thank you Jonathan Chait for your analysis. Like my wife and I, you have some faith, diversified by doubt, as Bishop Blougram (Robert Browning poem) did.

- Fred Sennet

July 17, 2008 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Have you forgotten that John McCain IS a recovering alcoholic?

- Margaret Drummond

July 17, 2008 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wait until November Jonathon... you are going to be surprised by just how many Americans still like John McCain!

- SpencerG

July 17, 2008 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with the article, actually. This is a race that has actually seen Americans praise equivocating and backtracking on Barack Obama's part as evidence that he's actually real, and not as naive to the extent many feared. McCain's backtracks underscore the thing about his candidace that mollifies the Democratic base: At least we ended up with a Republican candidate who will actually run the government. It's unlikely, under a McCain administration, that we'll get HUD chiefs resigning because they refused to give contracts to developers who happened to be Democrats (and then not seeing anything wrong with it!), or that the country will face another Hurricane Katrina post-recovery disaster. McCain is a Republican. He just wants to be President. When he appeals to his base, flip-flops, whatever, there's something honest in the "I just want to be President, please don't call me on this" honesty. For Democrats to think this about a Republican these days is really something. McCain is a pretty rare bird. After Gingrich, it became a lot easier to get into Washington circles being a partisan right-wing hack than being a Republican with a (if not moderate) pragmatic, pro-governance bias. I mean, we could have ended up with Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, or some other hideous personality more at home heading a pro-life or pro-fair tax 501c3 than running the country. However, another thing to consider: McCain winning is life-or-death to some parts of the Democratic base. I think African-American Democratic voters are pretty serious about seeing Obama win. Pro-choice voters are really down to the wire on getting a Democrat in to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices. If you're anti-war, you're a lot better off with Obama. I think that the members of the Democratic base who are just Democrats -- and don't have single issues that mainly draw them -- want to be part of a more mainstream party, and they're not really listening this year (and the media, picking up on this What's the Matter With Kansas frustration, is reporting the news accordingly) to the concerns of single-issue but reliable Democratic voters. This year, we really seem like we want to win middle America more than college students or African Americans or the NARAL vote. There's a positive in this that picking up some John and Jane Midwesterners could be that missing piece of another New Deal- or Great Society-consensus, and there's a negative in that if we alienate our reliable base voters we'll end up where John Kerry was in 2004 and Gore was in 2000: They couldn't get enough attention from their base to get a big movement swell and a critical mass to give their candidacy some inevitability. This seems a lot less of a problem for Obama, but it's something to think about before we give up on the single-issue Democrats out there.

- Pierce Randall

July 17, 2008 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was a huge McCain supporter in 2000--it was my first election, and despite my thorough liberal background and beliefs, he represented, at the time, an about-face from the present system. I didn't like Al Gore's inauthenticity, but growing up in Oklahoma meant I saw the disastrous effects of W's governorship. McCain was the "maverick." (Sorry for the cliche) However, now McCain is the establishment. He has retreated from platforms and planks that I used to love. He DOES seem willing to engage both sides of the political spectrum, but it still seems largely forced rather than a genuine desire for consensus. I'm still waiting for a candidate to acknowledge that our government's policies are crippling our country's economy. WE are operating under a "free" market where those who have money to spend use it to make themselves richer. OTHER COUNTRIES are operating as total competitors in the economy, sacrificing some individual freedom for collective wealth. I am not advocating for socialism, but there need to be checks and balances against large corporations in the same way our government (supposedly) has checks and balances on itself. Otherwise, we are bleeding away our resources, ideas, and wealth to other nations, and I think everyone in America would agree that's a bad thing.

- Cobb

July 17, 2008 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love the guy's patriotism and bravery, but -- like so many R*p*bl*c*ns -- he seems to have a very sick sense of humor. Also, throwing his ex-wife over for a 24 year old when he was 42 is just plain trophy hunting (what kind of "soulmate" does a 42 year old guy find in a 24 year old?). If this gets down and dirty, the Obama-side 527's are going to let voters know about this side of him.

- Mike

July 17, 2008 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article exemplifies McCain's still potent appeal with the media, most notably the shared appreciation for irony (something media personalities are embedded with and McCain likely picked up as a POW). Had McCain been given similar treatment by the New Yorker, everyone probably would have laughed about it on the bus. There's already cat-calls from the media for Obama to lighten up. Like the rest of the electorate, the media actually seems to like both candidates. But aside from a few boutique and increasingly irrelevant issues, McCain's appeal to it is in personality, not policy or identity.

- Rich Danker

July 17, 2008 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The National Review" laments McCain's candidacy because McCain with his expressed admiration of Teddy Roosevelt John is seen by "The National Review" also, as was Roosevelt, a progressive rather than a conservative. But from my posture as a social conservative, of the much maligned Christian Right (in my instance, Catholic), John's a conservative where it counts: on abortion & other pro-life issues, on national defense, with his opposition to wasteful gov't spending & his support for the 2nd Amendment. Granted, I who want the fence put in & employers of illegal immigrants punished don't entirely trust John on the issues of illegal immigration & open borders.

- Dave of El Paso County, Colorado

July 17, 2008 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The exact opposite of a great idea is a great idea;" --Actually, THIS statement is "the exact opposite of a great idea." It is nonsense. --"the exact opposite of a disaster is a different disaster." --No. Both are the same type of THING. Both are disasters, just of a different kind, or else one, or the other, is not a disaster. --Both statements are nonsense made in phrasing attempting to sound profound. Or, is the 'exact opposite of a cat, another cat?'

- p.

July 17, 2008 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great insights. Former Hillary supporter here. And BO just can't close the deal with me. And lots of those around me as well. This article goes far in explaining why.

- GC

July 17, 2008 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#33 Re BO discussing issues in detail? Where are you seeing that. With BO its all touchy feely, read from the teleprompter, make us feel good. Hilary was the policy wonk, BO the slick and pretty but empty suit. Look at the guys resume: basically nothing. Jeez, this is why I'm leaning towards McCain.

- MM

July 17, 2008 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#52 I take issue with the if yr anti war yr better with Obama quote. Doesn't matter if yr pro or anti Iraqui war: the genie is already out of the bottle. Which of the two will better contain the damage? I think McCain.

- MM

July 17, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LMAO at the lefties that want to drag McCain's ex-wife into this. I've got two words for you, Bill Clinton. You defended him when he had an affair with an employee all the while he was preaching to me and every other male employer about sexual harassment. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

- VGW

July 17, 2008 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for the changes we see in McCain, there can be no doubt. Having said that where's Obama? Who is the guy they replaced him with? I'm waiting for him to say that "I was against the war before I was for it". Not much left to change.

- Paul Charles

July 17, 2008 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it that Barack Obama can admit to smoking weed, blowing coke, and being a semi-regular smoker - and that's apparently just fine; Yet John McCain, a 5 year Viet-Cong POW admits to a drinking problem that he has since overcome and suddenly that's an issue to some people on here? I would go on to chronicle the idiocy of Barack Obama, but I doubt many people read this far down on the 'comments' section and I simply don't have the desire to write a term paper for readers of a neo-communis...oops, I mean "progressive"... periodical. Go back to fawning over Andy Warhol or contemplating the robust aroma and nutty undertones of your own shit, and feel proud of yourself for voting for an ethnic minority (he's so well spoken!) who shares in your embarrassment of living in a free society when confronted with a European. You know, really FEEL it

- Andrew

July 17, 2008 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow – Great piece Jon. I’m a lifelong Democrat who decided last summer that McCain was going to be my first vote ever for a GOP presidential nominee. I actually sent him a check back in August when he was flying middle seats in coach. Nothing that happened during the Dem primary death march changed my mind. It’s less about liking McCain (he’s tolerable at best) and more to do with the horrible field of candidates the Dems offered. We knew this campaign would come down to Hillary and Anyone But Hillary and Obama was the last man standing. Edwards had no reason at all to run, Biden, Dodd, et al were never going anywhere. I tell my Dem pals that we can do 4 years on McCain standing on our heads; that he will right the ship; that I trust him on judges assuming Senate Dems show some spine and throw back any knuckle-draggers; that divided government can word, and he will be a marked improvement over Bush. It will give the party 4 years to look for a real candidate to pick off McCain in 2012. The next 25 years and a progressive realignment is far more important than an Obama band-aid for the next 4.

- Travers

July 17, 2008 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I actually think your musings on this point, Jonathan, should be between you and your therapist. There is no logic in this piece, only a "gut" reaction that you don't dislike McCain as much as W. The rest is peculiar rationalization. He's now for Bush tax cuts, for torture if you're in the CIA, for offshore drilling, against even a timetable for Iraq, and I heard him say that he was for the death penalty for teenagers (he was quoting Justice Thomas's opinion on the case approvingly, which in itself is rightwing code.) TNR itself has noted fighting within his campaign that he would not fix, until he brought in a Rove lieutenant. The Maverick, if he ever lived, is dead. Or are you simply a beta male? He was a fighter pilot war hero with a super rich blond trophy wife, a Senator, and he's self-deprecating to boot, until you cross him, when I hear he has a temper. You are merely responding, I think, as a more submissive male primate to a greyback. I can't think of any other reason to vote for McCain.

- Brian

July 17, 2008 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "Obama voting present" is a red herring, pure and simple. In his time in the Illinois Legislature, he voted present 165 times out of more than 4000 votes cast (about 4%). Most of the votes he voted present were part of a strategy he was pursuing with other legislators. McCain is currently the most-absent Senator this session (even beating the Senator who missed most of last year due to a medical problems). He has not cast a single vote since April despite coming to DC on multiple occasions; he did not vote on the updated GI Bill (a bill he opposed and, the day after it was passed with veto-proof majorities, had the gall to take credit for); he did not vote on the FISA bill (instead deciding to declare his support for it from 1000 miles away); he has not voted on any of the housing bills currently in the Senate (since the economy's problems are all "psychological," why should he, I guess?); he did not vote on the recent Medicare bill where Congress recently overrode Bush's veto (the one where Kennedy -- against doctor's orders -- came in to defeat a filibuster). Would his votes have mattered? We will never know especially in the close votes like the one defeating the filibuster on the Medicare bill. As his party's new standard-bearer, he has chosen not to lead on anything that is remotely controversial that is pending in the Senate. McCain is currently displaying the signs that he is a coward. I don't care what he was in the past as that has little to no bearing on today; today, he is a COWARD feebly staying away from his responsibilities in the Senate, coming on his hands on knees to those people who he publicly bashed only a few years ago, and changing a lot of his positions for crass electoral gain.

- pgbsan

July 17, 2008 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stop knocking McCain about Wife #2. If you've got a crippled wife, are hitting your mid-life crisis, and a beautiful, well-connected blonde with a $100M fortune that can buy you a seat in Congress comes alone, what are you going to do? Anyone who says they would have done differently than McCain did is a liar.

- broyer

July 17, 2008 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are ok with MccAin despite the fact that he will allow more soldiers to die by staying in Iraq indefintely (the deaths will continue as long as we are there), he will not do anything about the health care crisis, he will keep the Bush tax cuts in place ensuring bigger decifits, he will continue our arrogant foreign policy and do nothing to improve education or reduce poverty. He is ok with you because he cares about what the "elite" think; the same ones who supported Bush in the Iraq War fiasco and many other failed policies. You really do have a perverse inside the beltway world view.

- Kevin

July 17, 2008 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow...what a nice surprise. A balanced, well-thought-out article that treats McCain fairly. I am a moderate who will probably vote for McCain (for reasons I won't enumerate here) and am really getting somewhat sick of being hectored by right-thinking columnists that a vote for McCain is a vote for war, racism, recession, and a return to politics-as-usual. The analysis provided is fairly reasonable in that it gives all of the reasons that people like me have been somewhat disappointed with McCain recently, while given him his due (even if, as should be clear, the writer clearly will not vote for McCain). If this is marks the beginning of the end of the free pass Obama has hitherto received from the moderate media, then bravo.

- Ken Harvey

July 18, 2008 at 1:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't comprehend the left's issue with McCain and the Bush tax cuts. McCain opposed them originally for the reasons he stated. You respected that. Now he opposes letting them expire because he states that he opposes raising taxes. The left claims that it isn't *really* raising taxes, it's just correcting a mistake that he opposed originally. Yet the fact is people will pay more in taxes than they would otherwise -- that is called raising taxes, regardless of the spin. It doesn't matter whether the taxes in question were cut a year ago or fifty years ago. More > less. Is that so hard to comprehend? I suppose it can just be chalked up to partisan blinders and group-think.

- Larry

July 18, 2008 at 2:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like many I've encountered, I was an Obama supporter until I actually read up on his policies, which differ sharply from his rhetoric. Let's see. He wants to 1. Revise NAFTA, while claiming to support free trade and open markets? 2. Support corn ethanol subsidies, while wanting to relieve third-world hunger? 3. Oppose nuclear plants and offshore drilling, saying 10 years is too long to wait for lower energy costs, while laying out 30-year plans of his own for global warming reduction? 4. Reform education while pandering to teachers' unions? Obama was able to be all things to all people throughout the primaries. No longer. McCain is different. You know where he stands today, and if he changes his mind next year, it's because the facts changed, not the criteria of the next election. I don't agree with him on everything, but on the most important issues he's the clear winner. On the economy he'll keep taxes low, trade lines open, and pork barrel spending under control, and in Iraq he's best equipped to control the damage that's already been done.

- Amwidkle

July 18, 2008 at 4:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing you McCain supporters forget: this "war hero" bombed the bejesus out of thousands of innocent civilians. Being a POW is no credential for leading the US. McCain might be a good adviser to Obama.

- John W K

July 18, 2008 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You don't have to hate McCain to hate the idea of him running the country, appointing judges, and dying in office and leaving us with a crackpot rightwing hack as President.

- stgla

July 18, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#72 Whatever you freaking hippie. Go back to your bongo drum and flower power.

- jwl2672

July 18, 2008 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why no backlash against the Democratic leaders who equally believed in the WMD story? From above article: "One of them was Charles Schumer: Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States. Another was Hillary Clinton: My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. John Edwards was still another: Every day [Saddam] gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability. Howard Dean, then the governor of Vermont, was of a similar mind: There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. and our allies. More than half of Senate Democrats, including John Kerry and Joseph Biden, joined with Republicans in authorizing the President “to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and in so doing to enforce all the relevant but ineffectual resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. In the House, 81 Democrats (out of 209 in total) concurred. Later, many would claim that they had been tricked or misled or even lied to. In fact, the vote reflected nothing more than an affirmation of the old Clinton-era position, now urgently reinforced by the experience of 9/11.2 It was, after all, California’s Nancy Pelosi who had warned the nation on December 16, 1998, during Operation Desert Fox, that Saddam’s “development of WMD technology . . . is a threat to countries in the region.” During the House debate in October 2002, Pelosi sounded the same urgent theme, summing up a threat whose imminence the Democrats had been insisting upon for years. “Yes,” reiterated the tireless Pelosi, “[Saddam] has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.” That said it all."

- jwl2672

July 18, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Note to John W K: please learn some facts before spewing your ignorance all over this website.

- Ken Harvey

July 18, 2008 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Awe inspiring perseverance. Bull! I've lived in Arizona the entire length of McCain's tenure. I cannot name one, not one, thing he has done for Arizona. He is a carpet bagger that moved to Arizona to get elected and to marry money. He's done that. Nothing else. He says he knows how to win wars. Name one war he has won. A prisoner of war is not a winner of wars. It seems more like he is a loser.

- R. Becker

July 19, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where were those who could recognize a pampered and incompetent rich boy eight years ago? I am one of those who have continued to remember and appreciate that McCain stood up to the Bush juggernaut when the so-called experts and conventional voices said the 2000 GOP primary was a done deal. Just as Obama -- and, to be fair, Edwards -- stood up to the massive fundraising and name recognition of the Clintons. Neither McCain nor Obama is the cookie-cutter representative of his party's extreme wing. Obama has been disappointment to the hardliners of the left and McCain is lukewarm at best in repeating the most cherished talking points of the right. Thank goodness on both counts! This election will have to be about which candidate more voters think will do a better job governing, not which one scares us less.

- Viejita del Oeste

July 20, 2008 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How has my life effectively changed since 2004 because Bush was reelected over Kerry? Top 3 answers: 1. My gas prices doubled (Bush/Cheney focus on government welfare to oil companies and lack of energy policy). 2. My health care costs doubled (Bush/Cheney pandering to insurance companies and failure to establish universal health care). 3. My portfolio down by 50% (Bush/Cheney deregulation of SEC and Fed failure to supervise financial system).

- S. Rosenthal

July 21, 2008 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this a joke? The author can't be serious-it must be comedy. After listing all the things bad about the man, the author says he kind of likes the "old codger." The article must be facetious, or the author is out of his mind. That's all I can think at this point.

- Nicholas Soter

July 21, 2008 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jesus, Chait. Do we really need another "he's a panderer but he does it so ineptly you just KNOW he's a straight shooter" article. The guy has shown repeatedly that he will say absolutely anything, and, furthermore, that he has no idea what's going on. If the media treated him with Al Gore rules, he'd be absolute toast. The Steeler-pander was Exhibit A for my argument. Can you imagine what the "press" would have done to poor Al had he said something that stupid? Please, no more!

- terry benoit

July 21, 2008 at 6:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How dumb do you think that we are? Do you really expect us to believe that the man who hired most of Rove's staff to work on his campaign (to the point of even replacing his campaign manager), and who then also pulls Rove himself in as an advisor could be said to "put an end to the politics of Karl Rove"? All I can say is: Wow.

- Adrian

July 22, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are we really discussing McCain the reality or some fig newton of our media imagination? As an old and very hip republican political activist/archivist I say McCain is a disgusting fraud. The article is wretchedly inaccurate and weasels away from any real discussion of McCain's actual record.

- LMAO!

July 22, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I registered Republican in 2000 so I could vote for McCain over Bush in the close PA primaries. That doesn't make me feel this article any less excusable. Anyone with an ounce of analytical ability knew in 2004 the choice was between going in the shitter and hoping to bob along with a mediocre, instead of historically, appallingly, awful president. Well, we're in the shitter. McCain's been selling out what he believes in in service of career advancement since he came back from Vietnam. Ditching the ill wife for the younger, ultra-rich heiress? And just because McCain doesn't seem personally to be quite so evil and sociopathic as Bush and Cheney, if anything he's even more of a warmonger. If McCain wins, it will be people like you who can feel responsible for seeking the fastest possible route from Ceasar to the Goths...

- goodepic

July 22, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is the perfect example of what McCain means when he refers to the press as "my base".

- Kerry Moorman

July 22, 2008 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jeez, jon, don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

- benjoya

July 22, 2008 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...but right now another Gerald Ford doesn't look so bad" Ahhh, that Gerald Ford who empowered Kissinger, Rumsfeld & Cheney to run roughshod over his Administration. If Gerald Ford was so smart he would have metaphorically strangled those 3 babies in their cribs. Mr. Chait is suffused with the worst kind of juvenile nostalgia for a past McCain that was killed by the current McCain, which he likens to a drug/alcohol addict, forgetting the concept of a dry drunk. And McCain hasn't strangled Rove, either.

- theod

July 23, 2008 at 1:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Despite his strong temper and maverick status, Candidate McCain's persona as perceived by voters is grandfatherly, if not quite Eisenhowerish, then calmly insistent and convincingly made of sincere convictions. But sometimes I wonder if he's acting with social graces that mask the pugnaciousness and belligerency of his dark side. His primary campaign opponents underestimated his remarkable persuasive ability to overcome the skepticism of many conservatives and moderates, even if doctrinaire right wingers loathed his legislative legacy. The price he paid as a tortured prisoner of war gives him the wisdom of experience for today's controversies about war as an instrument of national security and the humane treatment of detainees being held as enemy noncombatants. Many Obama supporters sympathize and admire him. To disagree with his policy positions does not carry the animus that has made President Bush's poor leadership and dishonest subterfuge so destestable. McCain has a conscience. Bush's deceptive salesmanship of the war has been more than deceitful, but a stubborn dereliction of duty as cocommander-in-chief. McCain has a humility that doesn't advertise religious self-righteousness the way Bush does. Where McCain sees tough calls on complex problems, Bush proclaimed easy choices because he has an easy conscience that prevented his access to what politicians really need--wisdom.

- davidissent

August 20, 2008 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RE: MCCAIN I thought as Daviddissent did that "The price he paid as a tortured prisoner of war gives him the wisdom of experience for today's controversies about war as an instrument of national security and the humane treatment of detainees being held as enemy noncombatants." Then I started paying attention to his positions. They are not wise for today's world. They are pugnacious and belligerent, the Bushworld view. We live in a flatter earth, much more competitive than even four years ago. Wake up. McCain is a war hero, no doubt--and a genuine patriot. But he is too combative. What happens when we need to fight enemies who are threatening our borders---unlike Saddam Hussein? No More Bush Presidencies please.

- Barbara Ross

August 24, 2008 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close