The Unknown McCain

Elisabeth Bumiller does us all the service of focusing some attention on McCain's flirtations with becoming a Democrat, first in 2001 when considering switching parties to flip control of the Senate, and then in 2004 when considering running as VP on John Kerry's ticket. McCain naturally decided to sweep all this under the rug when he decided to hug Bush and start positioning himself to run as a Republican in 2008 but his staff was taking this stuff seriously by most accounts.

I think it's pretty clear that McCain's been less-than-totally honest about this stuff, but beyond that, what's the point? I'm not really sure what the point is, myself. On the one hand, to some extent it highlights McCain's unseriousness about the bulk of domestic policy issues that he's drifted around so much on those topics and was willing to consider basically jettisoning his entire record. But at the end of the day, he didn't do it and (especially in 2001) domestic issues were presumably at the center of that. He really does have a conservative record and a conservative self-conception, and wanted to stick with that.

Comments

There are actually Republicans who are going to vote for the man who was almost John Kerry's Vice President?

Posted by Monster | March 24, 2008 9:55 AM

Sounds like a rare, open-minded politician. Maybe that's what we need instead of another four years of hyper partisanship.

Posted by Juan | March 24, 2008 9:58 AM

He's a Maverick. He thought about being Kerry's wingman. No problem. CHOMP. Let's play volleyball.

Posted by billysumday | March 24, 2008 9:58 AM

Maverick = No Self Except Ambition

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 24, 2008 10:02 AM

The point is, I think, that McCain's flirtation with Democrats has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with a bruised ego.

Posted by The Vega | March 24, 2008 10:06 AM

Why not just ask Mr. McCain? We could ask him about other unresolved issues:
Did Mr. McCain ever say that he was not very good with economics?
Are people like the very powerful Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell still agents of intolerance?
Did Saddam Hussein kick out the weapons inspectors in 2002 or 2003?
Aluminum tubes?
Mohammad Atta in Prague (pretty well confirmed)?

Posted by ed | March 24, 2008 10:08 AM

You're crazy, Matt. First, it shows character. Republicans are nutty about loyalty (that thing Obama displayed last week) and so this will remind some Republicans that McCain has a spotty history on that score. Second, even beyond that, party affiliation either means something or it doesn't. Lieberman was reviled by Democrats even before he started actively endorsing Republicans etc., and so it's worth finding out whether McCain is subject to the same forces. Third, as you say, it demonstrates that he's unserious about policy.

If it's a virtue, it's up to him to make that defense.

Posted by Martin | March 24, 2008 10:41 AM

Also, even if it's not a big negative point, it forces McCain to choose whether he's the Bipartisan Hero or the Defender of the Republican Faith. The more we hear about him doing both things, the more likely he'll lose votes over it.

After all, you ask whether it matters, but McCain himself sure as hell thinks it matters -- judging from his argument with the article's author last week.

Posted by Martin | March 24, 2008 10:47 AM

There is not that much difference between "mainstream" dems and "independent" reps. IMO these are the two large groups well conditioned voters tend to herd with when being guided down the various voting chutes during election day.

McCain can justify himself to either group well. He really does not give 2 damns about the politics part of being a politician.

Posted by So | March 24, 2008 10:50 AM

This kind of story might have hurt McCain before he clinched the nomination, but it only enhances his "maverick" credentials in the general electorate. I don't think the "McCain isn't thoughtful about policy" message is going to gain much traction. Partly because it requires the media to actually pay attention to policy and partly because McCain seems serious about policy, at least sufficiently so to distinguish himself from Bush. As shallow as McCain can be on the substance, one can't picture him in the "heckuva job, Brownie" role. That may be just enough to put him over.

Posted by Chris Conway | March 24, 2008 11:18 AM

I really wish that when John Kerry offered McCain the vice-presidency McCain agreed, Kerry put out his hand to shake on it, and then when McCain reached out to shake Kerry pulled back his hand and said, "PSYCH!!!!!"

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 24, 2008 11:33 AM

This kind of story might have hurt McCain before he clinched the nomination, but it only enhances his "maverick" credentials in the general electorate.

Well put, Chris.

While there is most definitely a point, it's one I'd like to see Limbaugh, Hannity et. al. preach to their audiences as a way of dampening McCain enthusiasm on the right.

What it's not is a terribly effective liberal talking point, as it may increase Dem-leaners’ comfort level with McCain. If you're, say, an Independent who voted Dem in '06 over disgust with Bush, and you think the Dem nominee is too green (Obama) or too calculating (Clinton)...the Bumiller story assures you that Johnny Mac is an independent thinker and most assuredly not George Bush.

Posted by Bart Acocella | March 24, 2008 11:37 AM

This sort of helps explain why McCain gets along so well with Lieberman. They're really almost mirror images of each other.

Posted by dcbob | March 24, 2008 11:40 AM

Does it matter? Of course it matters! I can't believe you're even asking this question.

Republicans distrust McCain not because of any specific policy position, but because he has a long history of attacking his own party and "poking in the eye" the people he most needs to suck up to. That's part of why non-republicans like him, of course, but he can't win without enthusiastic base support.

My uncle, a staunch republican, hates McCain so much that he is planning to vote for Nader as a protest vote.

Furthermore, McCain is way behind the democrats in fund raising. Why? A lot of reasons, certainly, but a lack of enthusiasm amongst the republican faithful for their candidate has to be one of them.

An article like this (even though it is in the "liberal" NYT) reminds the republican base why they don't trust him. Presidential elections have tended to be very close the last few cycles. It really hurts McCain to have his base dislike him. It may win him a few independents but it hurts him with core republicans. I suspect that turnout on the republican side will be depressed this year.

Posted by bigNowhere | March 24, 2008 11:45 AM

I read recently that McCain is going to use the "he/she is a LIBERAL" attack against the Dem nominee. You know that scares the bejesus out of the Repubs and even some moderate Dems because liberal has turned into a dirty word these days. But it would be an interesting comeback for the Dem candidate to remind the voters of McCain's, gasp, LIBERAL leanings.

Posted by S | March 24, 2008 12:09 PM

Considering Bumiller already got yelled at by McCain on his plane for bringing this up, I think it's a safe bet she's off the traveling party for good.

Posted by Mike P | March 24, 2008 12:59 PM

What's funny to me is that Matt never wonders what this says about the Democratic party. What kind of party offers up Joe Lieberman as the VP nominee in 2000, and then four years later tries (and fails) to offer up McCain? What is the consistent vision of foreign policy reflected in those picks?

Posted by Thomas | March 24, 2008 1:14 PM

The POINT is less than four years ago the Republican nominee for president almost became a Democrat. Maybe Yglesias is trying to say that McCain's almost switcharoo isn't that serious and in substance I understand that. But it's the little things like this that Democrats have been terrible at formulating over the years. McCain, who is having demonstrable trouble with conservative voters, can't really afford any more dents to his conservative credentials. And to conservatives, especially right wingers and neoconservatives, there's nothing worse than being a Democrat except for maybe being a Republican who wishes he was a Democrat. Remember, being a Democrat is just a step above being a terrorist and here you have the Republican torch bearer voting against the precious tax cuts and almost switching parties. How much more of a terrorist sympathizing liberal commie could this guy be?

Sure this isn't something the DNC or Obama needs to stump with but this is just a story the MSM would love if the roles were reversed. Not to mention, Hillary would have her Camp distributing all kinds of Benedict Arnold emails, mailers, text messages, whisper campaigns and the likes. And the Clinton's do know a thing or two about winning presidential elections. Yglesias is too smart not to realize how much this hurts McCain in the conservative Republican base.

Posted by Chris | March 24, 2008 2:58 PM

I think people like Matt who poo-poo this issue are confusing two things. Sure, to a thoughtful centrist it really shouldn't matter that McCain almost left the Republican party not once, but twice. It might even enhance his rep in that area. And there's nothing inherently wrong with considering a party switch.

But that is not the sum total of the political calculus here. If this story were to spread amongst Republicans and right wingers it would be very bad for McCain. He needs the right wing to turn out in droves to even have a prayer of getting elected. A smart strategy would be to target this message--McCain almost became a Democrat, TWICE--in conservative circles leading up to the election. Make conservative voters think they really can't trust him and you've got something.

Really, it doesn't help when people like MY try to suppress anti-McCain stories before they gain any traction. This is at the very least the second time MY has done this (the other I can think of is the lobbyist/shag story from a month or so ago). Sure it's nice, when you get invited to those New Republic parties in Georgetown to be able to point out how even-handed you are. But wouldn't it be nicer to win?

Posted by Rob Mac | March 24, 2008 4:42 PM