Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Why is McCain trying to get elected on such a conservative agenda?

I read this column in Washington Post, and it raised a question I have been asking myself. First, though, let me say that I don't agree with everything that is said in this column, which is full of harsh words and a downright sexist attack on Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

But the columnist, Eugene Robinson, does have a point, or so I think anyway. This is what he says about McCain:

I'm not asking you to agree with Robinson's choice of words here, when he talks about McCain's 'slavish devotion to Republican orthodoxy'. Nevertheless, McCain's rightward drift during this election campaign is puzzling to me. He does want to get elected, doesn't he? Does he really believe that presenting himself as a pretty hardcore conservative will endear him to American voters of the fall of 2008?

I remember when McCain won his own party's nomination campaign. He quickly and easily defeated all the other GOP contenders. And why was that? The way I remember it, almost all commentators said that most Republicans are aware that their own party is at a disadvantage after eight years of Bush, and they were looking for a candidate that was as far away from Bush as possible. Not only that, but a lot of people seemed to think that McCain was a sort of 'cross-over' candidate, one that could appeal to a number of Democrats as well as to Republicans. Several commentators pointed out that McCain had voted against his party on important issues - once, for example, he had apparently objected to President Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and on another occasion he had championed the case for illegal immigrants. So all in all, at the beginning of this presidential campaign, McCain could be seen as a 'leftist' representative for his party, or, if you will, he could be regarded as a 'centrist' politician.

And McCain won the GOP nomination precisely because he was seen as so relatively centrist. So why, then, has he drifted rightwards so much since then? I'm not saying that hardcore Republicans don't like McCain better now than they did when he tried to come across as a centrist candidate. But surely they don't expect very many independent voters to be attracted to a candidate who now comes across as very conservative?

Compare McCain's 'evolution' to that of Obama's. I think both have drifted rightwards during the last few months - Obama has agreed to some off shore drilling, for example. But Obama has drifted rightwards from a liberal position, so that he now comes across as fairly centrist. McCain has drifted rightwards from a centrist position, so that he now comes across as a pretty hardcore conservative. At a time when the American electorate seems to be rather tired of strongly conservative politicians, after eight years with Bush, how smart is John McCain's strategy?

Ann

Well, I think this is about not being like Obama. If both candidates represented basically the same ideas, where would be the point in voting for one of them?
Perhaps Mc Cain hoped for terrorism to help him get elected. Unfortunately for him, the financial crisis came up and helped Obama, rather than Mc Cain.

In addition to that I can't really imagine a candidate like Mc Cain not being conservative. How convincing would he be if he was behaving like Obama? If I was to vote for a president (which I can't, because we only elect a party, not a particular person) I'd chose someone I could trust in. Like many Germans and Europeans I'd rather see Obama as a president. But honestly, I'm not sure if he'll really be able to change all the things he's talking about.

Perhaps Mc Cain doesn't want to promise that he'll change many things, because he's afraid he won't be able to be successful anyway.

I cannot read McCain's mind, but I can give you my opinions and impressions.

First, regarding "get as far away from Bush" - I think many Republicans were disappointed with Bush precisely because he departed from his conservative agenda and increased federal spending.

As to McCain, although he did win the primary rather easiliy, that was for a myriad of reasons, but it certainly was NOT because most Republicans preferred McCain. In fact, specifically for the reason you mention (he was seen as leftist or centralist), there were many, many Republicans who had decided to sit out the elections and not vote. One very vocal voice was Focus on the Family's Dr. Dobson, who said he simply could not bring himself to vote for McCain. Another frequently heard opinion was, "I am going to go into the voting booth, hold my nose, and vote for McCain."

Then, McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running mate. Suddenly, there was a renewed energy and enthusiasm in the Republican Party. Dr. Dobson reversed his view, and now says he will vote for McCain. In the Sarah Palin thread on these message boards, other conservatives have expressed the same thought - they were not happy with McCain, but they will enthusiastically vote for a McCain/Palin ticket.

I think the reaction of the Republicans to Palin got the message across to McCain. Based on the overwhelming response of the party to a true conservative, McCain has realized that this is what his party wants. They want a conservative, not a moderate, not a centralist, not someone who is liberal-leaning.

In my opinion, another incentive for McCain to lean right is the ever-growing wealth of evidence showing that Obama is extreme left. To the degree that Obama is on the very far left (boardering on or actually crossing the line between "liberal" and "socialist" - at least as defined by Americans, if not by Europeans), McCain can lean a great deal more to the right than one might ordinarily expect and still be closer to the center than Obama is. Thus, he can corner the Republican market, so to speak, while still representing a viable option to right-leaning/centralist Democrats who simply cannot agree with Obama's vision for America.

Obviously, from what I've written, you can see I disagree with your opinion that Obama comes across as centralist. Obama comes across as someone who will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. His true views, however, are very, very left-wing, and it is becoming harder and harder for him to hide them.

Hmmmm. It seems that you really agree that McCain won the primary so easily precisely for the reason I stated, namely that he was seen as the most centrist candidate, who, therefore, had the best chance of winning the presidency for the GOP. And for that reason many Republicans voted for him, even though they had to hold their noses while doing it. After all, what other reason could they possibly have had for voting for a candidate they didn't like? Why didn't they come out in force to vote for a more reliably conservative candidate, like, say, Mike Huckabee? Indeed, Vicki, the way I read your post, you really agree with me, although you can't bring yourself to say so. Let me put it this way: I myself have never voted for someone or something I disliked so much that I had to hold my nose while doing it.

I quite agree with you that Sarah Palin has certainly energized the GOP, and Republican voters undoubtedly like McCain a lot more now than they did before he picked Palin as his running mate. The question is, does the American people as a whole like McCain better now than they did during the primaries? During the primaries McCain had to persuade the Republican base to vote for him, but now he has to persuade the independents to come out in force to support him. And he has chosen to play this game of persuasion of the undecided by becoming ever more uncompromisingly conservative.

You say that Obama is very far left. This is so staggeringly different from my own view of Obama that I find it meaningless to try to discuss this question with you. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree. Whether or not the American people as a whole agrees with your assessment of Obama is something we will know on November the fifth.

Ann

I wasn't clear in what I said.

I didn't mean they held their noses to vote for him in the primary.

I meant to say that Republicans who did NOT vote for McCain in the primaries said said they would hold their noses when they vote for him in the general election.

Our primaries are strange things. The vote is spread out over time, state by state. As the primary evolved, candidates dropped out - many would argue that some candidates dropped out prematurely, others held on long after it was clear they had lost. The long and short of it is, I think it is safe to say McCain was not the first choice of the majority of Republicans.


Edited to add: Ann, I understand we disagree as to whether Obama is far left or not. That is why I clarified that his views cross the line over to what Americans call "socialism". I fully understand that you do not consider him radical at all. This difference in view also explains why you are so surprised at McCain's "conservative agenda", when a great many Americans do not consider him conservative at all. (The far left does, of course, as do most of the left-wing media. But a great many Americans do not.)

I didn't vote for McCain in the primary, but I think that some Republicans who aren't McCain fans did because they believed he had a better chance to beat Obama/Hillary [not knowing who would win the Dem nomination] and while... Huckabee might be preferable to McCain, he wouldn't be able to beat O/H and McCain is better than O/H if that makes sense... The lesser of about 18 evils or something... And the only one, they believed, who would have a chance to beat O/H and O/H is unacceptable to them.

Carol

More on whether Obama is far left. I don't mean to beat a dead horse or to prolong the discussion unnecessarily. I perfectly understand that to Europeans (and even to many Americans), Obama is NOT considered a socialist, or even unusually leftist.

My goal here is not to prove that Obama's ideas are "socialist". My only goal is to compare Obama's words to the words of America's Founding Fathers, to show that his ideas can with all validity be considered "radical" to the extent that they differ from the intent of our Founding Fathers and from the basic tenets of our Constitution. Again, I am not asking that anyone *agree* with the words of our Founding Fathers, only that you admit the degee to which these words differ from those of Obama.

Obama (when questioned if owning a sucessful plumbing business, grossing more than $250,000/year, would result in higher taxes): It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Thomas Jefferson: To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

Thomas Jefferson: A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

James Madison: The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the [federal] government.

James Madison: I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

John Adams: The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

Benjamin Franklin: When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

McCain -- conservative? Mwa-ha-ha...

I suppose it worked out, though, because in the course of the Democratic primaries, Obama played hard-ball Chicago politics (including, according to some, out and out fraud) and alienated a *lot* of Democrats, specifically Hillary supporters (check out www.hillaryclintonforum.net). Some of them are staying home, but a fair amount have decided that John McCain is a Republican they can live with, and they're enthusistically supporting his candidacy (a lot of them also like that he's picked a woman for V.P., no matter how much of her politics they disagree with). I'm told that in some places, local McCain headquarters are staffed almost entirely by life-long Democrats.

It's a weird election cycle, no doubt.

PJ

Speaking of Democrats for McCain... I was just reading HillBuzz.wordpress.com, a pro-Hillary site. And they had something posted that seemed to exactly answer your question, Ann. (Emphasis mine.)

HillBuzz blog

Well, of course he had to run a more conservative campaign. He is a moderate to liberal Republican on a lot of issues, which is why until he chose Palin his support was more lukewarm in the party. (The exception of course, is national security in which he is wonderfully conservative.) He has to gain the support of the base of the party which is conservative. And of course
the support of conservative Democrats like myself.
I was delighted with his choice of running mate.
I am so eagerly awaiting my chance to vote Tuesday along with a lot of other people to show up the pollsters. The thought of Obama winning is
terrifying on so many levels.

Pam, Newsweek just ran a rather long article (or opinion-piece) about how America is a center-right country. (I might add that Americans are center-right by their own definition, not necessarily by everyone else's.)

All I'm saying is that it looks like Obama will win. Of course the election most certainly isn't over until it's over. If Obama wins, however, I'm going to take that to mean that a majority of the American people thought that Obama was closer to their own position on the right-to-left scale than McCain was. In that case, McCain did indeed run a too conservative campaign to be able to appeal to the majority of the American people. In that case he ran his campaign to win the Republican base, not to win the election. And in that case we will be able to say that he ran his campaign against his better judgement, because it isn't as if the polls haven't warned him for a long time that he's been headed in the wrong direction.

Of course McCain may still win, and in that case the polls will be proved to be wrong and McCain's conservative agenda will be vindicated as a winning strategy. Similarly, if McCain wins, the majority of the American people will have proved itself to be 'rightwards of Obama'. We will see on November the fifth!

Ann

Not necessarily. People go from party to party depending on how they thought the last president did. People though Carter was awful so they took their chance on the Hollywood actor. They thought Reagan was great, despite Iran-Contra, and voted for his VP, George HW Bush.

Bush raised taxes, earning the ire of his own party for violating a very important campaign promise, costing him the election in 1992. The people took a chance on Bill Clinton.

Clinton's ethics so disgusted people that even while supporting his economic policies (which resembled Republican policies near the end), that they went for George W Bush in 2000. Because people did not want to change horses during an important war, Bush was re-elected.

Now, in 2008, even Republicans for the most part can't stand Bush. Many think he was too liberal, while Democrats universally hated him for Iraq. And they fairly or unfairly blame the party which holds the White House for everything that goes wrong.

Like 1980, Obama has to pass a single test, the same test Ronald Reagan passed. He has to show the American people he isn't a total idiot. If he can look somewhat presidential, it doesn't matter much what his philosophy is. 2008 is not a pro-Obama year. It's an anti-Bush year. Don't confuse Obama's popularity for hatred for Bush.

Every poll is showing a large number of undecideds, twice that of 2004. That shows that Obama hasn't yet closed the deal with roughly 8% undecided and another 7% that say they may change their minds one way or another. That shows an electorate that is uncomfortable with both candidates and is looking for something else. I'll bet if none of the above were on the ballot, it would win.

McCain's only problem is that he's a Republican in an anti-Republican year. Obama's problem is that nobody knows a thing about him and don't know whether to believe his conservative-sounding rhetoric despite his history of being the #1 liberal in the Senate.

If people find Obama acceptable, he'll win. If they decide he's too far out of the mainstream, he won't. The election is not a referendum on McCain. It's a referendum on whether Obama is acceptable. Historically, undecideds break 2-1 or more for the challenger with the theory that if an incumbent hasn't closed the deal yet, he won't.

This year, the undecideds are on Obama since McCain is a very well-known quantity. If history follows, undecideds will break 2-1 for McCain. If the IBD/TIPP poll is correct, then McCain will win. They were the most accurate in 2004. If Gallup is correct, Obama will win as the undecideds won't matter in the final tally.

Remember that in 1980, the polls were tied between Carter and Reagan 3 days before the election, yet Reagan won in a landslide.

I realize I didn't explain well the difference between having an incumbent versus none. With an incumbent the undecideds always break for the challenger 2-1. With no incumbent the onus is on the opposition to the party in power.

In 2000, undecideds broke 2-1 for Gore but Bush had a large enough lead to survive it. 2008 resembles 2000 in that it's Obama who must close the deal like Bush in 2000. If Obama is really above 50% in the polls he wins even with undecideds breaking for McCain 2-1. If he's below by even a point or two, the undecideds may turn the election for McCain.

Personally, I lost a big chunk of my faith in America because of how the Republican smear machine successfully made a mountain out of a molehill (or that is what I thought anyway). Come on! How many presidents in the past do you think have had love affairs? There must have been many of them. And what made Clinton's case so extra disgusting was that he didn't immediately 'fess up? Come on! How many politicians and important public figures confess immediately when they are accused of sexual misconduct? I can think of quite a few who didn't... let's see, Jimmy Swaggart... Tim Bakker... (whose job it was to teach people sexual morality, I might add)... and that Republican Senator or Congressman whatsisname who was caught doing something in a men's restroom not so long ago... I think the list is pretty impressive. But Clinton was impeached for what he did. Like I said, I lost a big chunk of my faith in America over that.

By the way, I saw a Republican woman being interviewed on Swedish television a few days ago, and she said that things in America were bad during the nineties, what with all the immorality going on in the White House. At least, she seemed to be saying, things have not been as bad as that during the Bush years. Yes, well. We can be glad that those horrible nineties are over, when there was all that peace and prosperity and America was very popular in very many parts of the world.

Ann

Ann -

He wasn't impeached for the affair.

He was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH - perjury which is a crime - and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - which is also a crime. Very few of his staunchest supporters will say he didn't do both of those. Whether they met the Constitutional litmus test of 'bribery, treason or high crimes and misdemeanors' [quoted from memory] is the debate.

Clinton having an affair may or may not be relevant as a question of character, however, an affair with as subordinate was stupid if not criminal in the sexual harassment department.

Should the investigation have begun in the first place was irrelevant at that point - whether the investigation was appropriate or not, lying under oath and obstruction of justice is unacceptable. Roger may remember specifics - but he was temporarily disbarred over it iirc.

As for Bush - there is no evidence of any affairs. If there was, it would be ALL OVER the media who absolutely loathe him. And the National Enquirer's reports on him and Condi don't count...

Carol

I absolutely agree that Bush almost certainly - about 99.9999% certain - hasn't had any affairs during his presidency, and quite possibly never during his marriage to Laura. So morality at the White House has improved enormously under Bush.

Whether you can say the same thing about prosperity, peace and America's standing in the world is another matter. But who cares about such things anyway?

Ann

P.S. In my opinion, Clinton should not have been made to talk about his affair with Monica Lewinsky under oath. The fact that he was made to speak under oath about this was a huge part of the 'making a mountain out of a molehill' thing, in my opinion.

P.P.S. If Monica Lewinsky had accused Clinton of sexually harassing her, or making her have sex with him against her will, then it would most certainly have been appropriate to make Clinton answer under oath, and if it could be made reasonably certain that he had forced himself on an unwilling, subordinate woman, then I think it would have been perfectly proper to remove him from office and, depending on the strength of the evidence, sentence him to jail. To me, however, an affair between two consenting adults is a completely different ballgame, and it is a concern for Clinton's family, not for America or the world.

P.P.P.S. I'm not trying to speak belittlingly about marital fidelity. I, too, think it was a character flaw of Clinton's that he was so obviously a womanizer. I just don't think it was the kind of character flaw he should have been impeached for, as long as he didn't force or pressure any of his sex partners to have sex with him, and as long as he was successful as a president in so many other ways.

Whether or not he should have been asked to testify was irrelevant once he was sworn in.

As for the consenting adults thing...

That may well be but every year we have to take a sexual harassment training thing at work and one of the questions has to do with whether there can truly be a consentual relationship between a superior and a subordinate. Even if it is... consentual on the part of the subordinate, the superior can still be held liable - or the company can - if the subordinate wants to end the relationship at some point and the superior does not and creates an uncomfortable working environment - I'm not saying that's what happened with them, but opening himself up to those kinds of charges is STUPID IMO.

Even if Lewinsky did consent to the relationship initially, it was STUPID for Clinton to have it. In a non-presidential business setting, it would have opened him and his company up for all kinds of lawsuits and fines and stuff.

'Abuse of power' comes to mind - and you don't have to be president to do that.

And that's regardless of the whole affair thing - which would play a role in my decision making process. I've not heard of any that Obama has had. McCain has admitted to affair/s but the last I've heard of was over 20 years ago, not nearly as recently as the Clinton ones. To me it shows lack of character when the admissions are not accompanied by the appropriate remorse/change in behavior. And then it takes a while for me to be sure the remorse/change is real. Twenty years I can live with.

Last month, there was a Dem Representative from FL who went to Washington when the Republican before him got caught up in a sex scandal. Turns out he's had multiple affairs and apparently paid bribes with campaign money [that's the last I read, more info may have come out since then - that was a couple weeks ago]. His wife stood by him at the first press conference but as more and more came out, she filed - rightly IMO - for divorce.

Affairs speak to character and lack of judgment, especially with a subordinate, IMO.

Again, IMO, whether it SHOULD have been investigated or not was irrelevant by the time he was sworn in and instructed others to lie on his behalf. And THAT'S what the impeachment was over, not the affair itself.

And other members of Congress etc have had proceedings etc based on inappropriate conduct. The Republican mentioned above was emails to male pages iirc. However, none of them will get the worldwide notoriety that a presidential inquiry will...

Carol

I agree that Bill Clinton should not have been forced to testify over Monica Lewinski by itself, but that was not what got him in trouble. He had been sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment and had been ordered to testify at her civil trial where other incidents of his infidelity were brought up as evidence. It was there that the original crime took place. He lied deliberately in a civil trial that had been brought by a private citizen against him.

He admitted to lying in court. The judge in the case referred him to the Arkansas State Bar, which disbarred him for five years, if memory serves. He was also permanently banned by the Supreme Court so that he could no longer bring cases before them. He was clearly guilty of everything he was accused of at trial, and eventually confessed to perjury.

The Clinton machine did everything it could to destroy Paula Jones, calling her trailer trash, destroying her reputation, etc. in order to win the trial. He basically used the power of the presidency and the powers of his supporters against an ordinary civilian whom he had done wrong.

That is what outraged people. Most people, including myself, couldn't care less about him having affairs in the White House. It may be rather "ew" but most didn't really care. As a defense in his impeachment trial, he and his surrogates successfully turned a rather bland, emotionless prosecutor into a "sex fiend" and made the whole trial about sex. That way, he got the sympathy of the American people. When it's the sex police going after him, of course it sounded ludicrous. But when put in its proper perspective that he broke the law, using the enormous power of his office to wrong an American citizen, that's quite a different matter. It's a case of the powerful using all their considerable leverage against the powerless, something I would think would outrage those on the left.

As Carol said, it's a matter of opinion whether it rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor (doesn't actually mean what it sounds like as the Federalist papers indicated the phrase referred to malfeasance or immorality in office, a very low bar).

I personally think it was a mistake to impeach him but he did deserve being disbarred and being forced to pay reparations to the woman he harassed and then tried to destroy.

The Republicans, having no platform and unable to attract the favorable attention of Independents, ran some of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory (see Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Dole). They threw everything up against the wall, hoping something would stick.

How'd that work out for you?

I agree with you on Sarah Palin. The press and Democrats (same thing) unfairly savaged her with some of the most heinous charges I have ever seen in my 30 years of watching politics. After all, what would you call an accusation that she wasn't even the mother of her newborn baby? Or that she was a failure as a mother because her daughter was pregnant? Or that she was a terrible mother since she wasn't staying home to take care of the kids instead of running for vice president?

Yeah, that was pretty nasty.

Anybody notice that Palin was cleared of all ethics charges today in Troopergate?

Palin in 2012