Real Americans and Lobbying

Former Rep. Thomas G. Loeffler resigns as national co-chair of John McCain's campaign rather than step down from his lobbying gigs. The most interesting part of the story is, I think, this blind quote:

“No one in real America cares,” said one key Republican. “But McCain cares.”

I think it's true that no one in real America cares about this per se. But real Americans do care about hypocrisy, so the fact that McCain has made anti-lobbyist crusading the center of his public persona means he'd damn well better care. The other thing is that in real American the Bush administration is horribly unpopular, the Republican Party is horribly unpopular, but John McCain remains reasonably well-liked. That's based on the perception that he's not a business as usual corrupt Republican, which means that when he gets caught acting like a business as usual corrupt Republican it's in his interests to move swiftly.

As for how much McCain really cares about this stuff, well let's say he doesn't care enough about keeping his campaign lobbyist-free to have avoided putting lobbyists in tons of key positions, but he does care enough to take action ex post when people complain.

Comments

Can I get a visa into "Real America?" Can I use my frequent flyer miles to get there? If I was born in a purple state, am I already a citizen?

Posted by Reality Man | May 18, 2008 4:16 PM

So the syllogism is :
P.Real Americans don't care about lobbyists in campaigns
P.John McCain cares
C. Therefore John McCain is not a Real American?

Wow. That was easy.

Posted by MR Bill | May 18, 2008 4:19 PM

If McCain decides to go after Obama on Wright, Ayers, or who knows who else, the Dems must have a tit for tat retaliation file that's several inches thick by now.

Whether it's the people running his campaign, embracing Fallwell and Hagee, his flip flopping on issue after issue, his sleazy campaign loan, and so on, the "Straight Talk Express" is shaping up to have all the brand quality of "compassionate conservative" and "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Posted by LFC | May 18, 2008 4:20 PM

I'm guessing you mean, when people complain . . . in an election year.

Posted by ferd | May 18, 2008 4:32 PM

Seriously?

It's a sign of McCain's break with the status quo that when a lobbyist refuses to take a 6 month leave of absence from representing special interests to help run his campaign for free, he fires them?

And this is the guy who wants to be seen as the clean government maverick?

Even for Washington, this is setting the bar a little low, isn't it?

Posted by anonymiss | May 18, 2008 4:44 PM

In much the same way that Obama didn't care about Wright's hate until it became a campaign problem.

Congratulations: you've finally noticed that McCain is a politician, not a "maverick". Now, if you can wrap your head around the idea that Obama is also a politician and not a "post politics savior", we'll be getting somewhere.

Of the three, Hillary might actually be the most intellectually honest - she's a politician who isn't trying to play at being something else.

Posted by James Robertson | May 18, 2008 4:47 PM

If he has staff that lobby for Airbus, and he had a hand in pushing Airbus over US manufacturers, then that'll no doubt hurt him where US aerospace jobs are important.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/the-politics-of.html

Posted by riffle | May 18, 2008 4:48 PM

It's rural America. It's where I came from. We always refer to ourselves as real America. Rural America, real America, real, real, America.

Dan Quayle

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/danquayle102926.html

Posted by El Cid | May 18, 2008 4:52 PM

Now, if you can wrap your head around the idea that Obama is also a politician and not a "post politics savior", we'll be getting somewhere.

Okay, you got me. Obama is a politician. And he's a much more appealing politician than McCain.

Posted by southpaw | May 18, 2008 4:56 PM

A "post politics savior"? Sounds like you've been picking up sound bites from Faux News.

McCain says that lobbyists have too much influence in gov't. Then he says everybody uses them, brings them all in to run his campaign, allows them to lobby from his bus (yes, that occurred), but says that they won't have any influence on HIM. That's either bulls*** or a crackhead's reality. I'm still undecided as to which I believe is the cause.

Obama says that lobbyists have too much influence in gov't. He says he won't take money from PACs, and he doesn't. He doesn't say PAC money is bad and then turn around, take the money, and say that everybody else does it too, but it won't have any influence on HIM.

It's a difference that's about as subtle as a brick to the forehead. McCain talks the talk but doesn't back it up with action. That's called hypocrisy, and it's not generally considered a strength in a president.

Posted by LFC | May 18, 2008 5:04 PM

On this issue, as with many others, McCain is a clear hypocrite.

Of course he knew he was bringing in all these lobbyists to run his campaign. In fact, I've never seen a campaign so dominated by lobbyists.

Either McCain knew, or else he really is as dumb as Bush and is a horrible judge of picking people for his senior staff.

John McCain is unfit for the presidency, and the media need to burst his bubble quickly. We all need to apply pressure to the media so that they finally expose McCain.

Posted by cm | May 18, 2008 5:29 PM

Actually, people in the "real America" do care about politicians being beholden to lobbyists, although they may not think that most Democrats are completely clean from this sin. By "real America" I assume you mean the more than 50% of the population that is not exactly poor, but who work VERY hard, and are having trouble paying for soaring health care and college costs, not to mention gas.

The reason we care can be summarized from the parables of Jesus. A man may not serve two masters. If the politician serves lobbyists, he CANNOT serve citizens. Thus, the lobbyist gets the gold mine, while the the "real American" voters get the shaft.

When you think about it, it's kind of funny that the Republican values crowd never noticed this little contradiction with the teachings of the Gospels....

Posted by Tim Connor | May 18, 2008 6:22 PM

A February report in the Washington Post refers to Charles Black as McCain's "chief political advisor." Black has lobbied for some of the most unsavory clients imaginable. McCain's "caring" apparently has its limits. Or did I miss news of Black's being let go, too?
(Incidentally, Black is obviously an extremely talented and well connected operative, and I doubt if his advice is at all influenced by his past endeavors. But the standard has been set by McCain, not me.)

Posted by Caretaker | May 18, 2008 6:50 PM

A February report in the Washington Post refers to Charles Black as McCain's "chief political advisor." Black has lobbied for some of the most unsavory clients imaginable. McCain's "caring" apparently has its limits. Or did I miss news of Black's being let go, too?
(Incidentally, Black is obviously an extremely talented and well connected operative, and I doubt if his advice is at all influenced by his past endeavors. But the standard has been set by McCain, not me.)

Posted by Caretaker | May 18, 2008 6:52 PM

The McCain campaign’s stringent approach to the issue is provoking a bit of grumbling from some of its Washington allies, who point out that a lobbyist’s function is enshrined in the Constitution.

Really?

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 18, 2008 7:32 PM

This is a really unfair post. John McCain is crusading against lobbyists. Why his anti-lobbyist crusade led to the firing of five in the past week alone! I don't think Obama can come close to approaching that.

Posted by Client #11 | May 18, 2008 10:37 PM

What's with these bizarre euphemisms? "Ties to lobbyists" and "lobbyist related departures"?

Loeffler doesn't have "ties to lobbyists." Loeffler IS a lobbyist. The people with "ties to lobbyists" are the people who hire him.

Loeffler, like all the others, was a registered lobbyist when he became staff on the McCain campaign. Not only was he a registered lobbyist, but that was his full-time gig. Now they're firing him because he refused to take a leave of absence from the job he's held all along?

It's not like McCain has suddenly discovered he's surrounded by lobbyists--all through the primary, Charlie Black was literally making lobbying phone calls on his cellphone on the campaign bus. It was reported on in the newspaper (the Washington Post, I think). And McCain has already said he's FINE with what Charlie Black was doing, so clearly he knew.

What is McCain's new position? That it was wrong for his primary campaign to be run by lobbyists who were actively lobbying, but in the General it's OK for his election campaign to be run by lobbyists who take a leave from lobbying?

Why was this OK in the primary and not OK in the general?

Posted by anonymiss | May 18, 2008 10:52 PM

"Of the three, Hillary might actually be the most intellectually honest - she's a politician who isn't trying to play at being something else.

Posted by James Robertson"

Yeah, I tend to agree. But you don't have the most street cred here James.

Posted by Andruw | May 18, 2008 11:04 PM

I like to think that one of the reasons why Ambinder chickened out on having comments was because I kept pointing out how he (probably intentionally) flubbed the story about one of McCain's staff members who used to be a cabinet level official with a foreign government.

Just being a paid hack for a foreign government is one thing, but actually being a cabinet-level official with a foreign government, that's a whole different thing altogether.

Just remember: Ambinder could have pushed a bit story, but chose not to for one reason or other.

Posted by TLB | May 18, 2008 11:07 PM

Of the three, Hillary might actually be the most intellectually honest - she's a politician who isn't trying to play at being something else.

Can we acknowledge how crazy this kind of thinking is? For James Robertson, a politician is by definition intellectually dishonest, and therefore intellectually honest for not trying not to be intellectually dishonest.

Look, either you're basically intellectually honest or you aren't; I would love to see the proposition that Hillary is, defended in good faith.

Obama strikes many as being basically intellectually honest, i.e. a person with a more or less normal sense of accountability - wherefore everyone inclined to suspect the notion of perfection in a politician, which they unfairly ascribe to Obama's supposed myth, falls all over himself to make it the enemy of the good. Even to the point where "good" means "good at being dishonest" apparently.

Posted by Bill | May 19, 2008 7:38 AM

This isn't change, just more of the McSame

http://www.changeyoudeserve.wordpress.com

Posted by MsSwin | May 19, 2008 8:48 AM

i keep thinking that these kind of actions will cost mccain the all-important lobbyist vote.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 19, 2008 11:50 AM

It's kind of funny that this is being compared to Obama's situation with Rev. Wright.

First of all, Obama does not employ Rev. Wright. Secondly, when Rev. Wright's views became popularized, Obama clarified how is views differed. But he was still espousing the same thing. Wright did not have to get 'thrown under the bus' until he started claiming that Obama was lying. And so Obama responded to that claim when it was made.

It's not as if Obama had kept Wright on as a consultant until he had to dump him. McCain's situation is one where his ongoing conduct does not match his political rhetoric, thus making it hypocritical (not to mention distasteful in its own right). For Obama to be hypocritical, he would have to be talking about how inappropriate it is to be involved with (in your past) pastors that you disagree with. Some people have tied McCain to Hagee, and this is more similar, but it is still different. Fundamentally, McCain is endorsing Hagee's current political views, while Obama has never actually endorsed Wright's political views.

Posted by mpowell | May 19, 2008 1:34 PM