Dems say McCain considered party switch in 2001

If true, this is a story that John McCain’s GOP critics will use to seriously undermine his presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them. (emphasis added)

According to the story in The Hill, Weaver asked Daschle and Downey in March 2001 why Democrats hadn’t reached out to McCain to switch parties. “Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?”

After the lunch, Downey immediately contacted Daschle, who initiated a series of conversations with McCain about how to execute a party switch, including issues such as committee assignments and seniority. Other Dem senators involved with the discussions confirmed these events.

So, what happened? Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, one of three Republican senators Dems urged to switch, left the GOP and gave control of the chamber to Dems. At that point, Chafee and McCain then broke off their discussions.

There are two angles to consider here: 1) whether this is true; and 2) what it means to McCain’s political prospects if it is true.

On the first point, McCain denies ever having considered caucusing with Dems, but I’m nevertheless inclined to believe it. I’ve heard rumors for years about McCain having seriously mulled over a switch in ’01, and Downey and Daschle have little reason to make up this story now.

Indeed, Downey denied any political motivation, saying he is still friends with Weaver and “deeply respects” McCain. “I would have been happy to come forward last year or the year before if someone had asked … There were meetings in offices. You can’t deny [these meetings took place]. They occurred.”

Downey added, “It’s my hope that John McCain is the Republican nominee because from my perspective, although I think Democrats are going to win, if they don’t, McCain is the sort of man I would feel comfortable [with] as the president of the United States. I’m not trying to hurt him.”

What’s more, if the point of this story was to undermine McCain’s campaign, it wouldn’t leak now, in the middle of an unrelated White House scandal; it would leak much later, during the heat of the campaign.

On the second point, what effect this might have now, McCain may have reason to worry. If this morning’s blog posts from leading conservative voices are any indication, these revelations represent a major setback.

Outside the Beltway:

The Hill [story] may torpedo John McCain’s presidential campaign…. As Dale notes, not only does this story reinforce the stereotype of McCain as a fence-sitting maverick, if Daschle’s claims are even close to the whole truth it is also far more treacherous behavior by a party loyalist than Mitt Romney’s history of flip-flopping on social issues.

Dean Barnett:

In case you haven’t heard by now, The Hill has essentially buried John McCain’s campaign for the Republican nomination. It’s hard to see how the already floundering McCain can survive the revelation that not only did he consider switching to the Democratic caucus in 2001, his people approached the Democrats to begin conversations on the matter.

Hot Air:

Ed says if it’s true, he’s finished. I agree.

Someone on McCain’s blogger relations team told James Joyner at 7:04 that “we’re preparing a response.” A subsequent exchange at 7:26 said they “hope to have [it] at around 8:00 am.” At 9:13, though, they reversed course: “We’re not going to comment.”

Hmm.

Considering McCain’s later very public embrace of and suck-up to Bush – this really does paint McCain as a first-class opportunist.And considering they broke off talks after Jeffords switched, he obviously wasn’t interested in Democratic party principles to begin with, but just the power afforded by being the guy to switch. He was going to use the Democratic party. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • The phrase “fence-sitting maverick” is truly mind-boggling. Actually, McCain has demonstrated that he has no solid position on anything. He’ll say anything, hug and kiss anyone, do whatever it takes to keep the TeeVee lights on him. Unfortunately for him, I don’t think that’s enough to keep him afloat. The (voting) public has already “been there, done that” for far too long. Yawn.

  • Two ramp strikes (tm Tom Cleaver) for the Straight Talk Express in two days?

    I wouldn’t have blamed him in 2001 as Rove/Bush had assforked him in extremely nasty ways. But now? Well, he’s damaged goods to both parties. Considering what he has done since, maybe it will be better for the US that he is.

  • Thank goodness he didn’t switch! If he had, his bizarre and contradictory behavior would be an embarrassment to the D’s instead of the R’s.

    Also, because the D’s often seem in love with pandering to the ‘middle voters’ (read: swinging to the right), he might have ended up as a Democratic presidential candidate.

  • All I can say is thank fucking god Jeffords beat him to it.

    That can of shit would still be strapped around our necks, and we’d have two Liebermans instead of just one.

    Ptui.

  • Headline: Straight Talk Express Veers off Cliff after Hitting Roadside Bomb

    (depends on the meaning of cliff)

  • Maverick n. 1. Unbranded calf or yearling. 2 Unorthodox or independent-minded person.

    [Oxford Desk Dictionary & Thesaurus]

    Nope, I see no mention of febble, fickle lying whores.

  • Is this the source of the rumors that McCain is a maverick?

    What you’re telling us seems to support it, CB:

    I’ve heard rumors for years about McCain having seriously mulled over a switch in ‘01,

    You write:

    There are two angles to consider here: 1) whether this is true; and 2) what it means to McCain’s political prospects if it is true.

    I’m going to look at this retrospectively rather than prospectively, but add a word about the future.

    On your first point, I assumed it was true, not seeing any reason it would be false, and will do so. There are two reasons this even may have come about: 1) McCain was making a self-interested move 2) McCain was setting himself up to play the position of both sides against the middle.

    #1 is the more likely option. When another Republican took the deal, what McCain had to offer the Dems was less valuable to them, thus deserving less political payment, so McCain stayed a Republican. But this provided the cover for someone from the other side of the aisle to make McCain another offer that would appeal to his self-interest, and for McCain to play the role of both sides against the middle, but to do it for the Republicans’ side of the aisle.

    It seemed clear to me from yesterday’s news story about McCain that the media has turned against their darling, John McCain.

    The question to me is whether this story was leaked by McCain or by someone who is trying to get him to stop campaiging. Either they had someone in McCain’s staff recommend it on the premise that it would make him appealing to Dems, making up for the damage to his reputation with dems from his flip flopping, enough so he could have a voting coalition and be a viable candidate- McCain overlooked that it would hurt him with Republicans, and the media was there with the bloggers to pick up the ball- or the Republicans just leaked it knowing it would hurt McCain.

    Making McCain do it is the smarter option, if he’ll fall for it, so he can’t wreak political retribution against a responsible Republican or Republican group.

  • So for now the Republicans have turned against John McCain, but there may be a reason in the future for them to decide to keep him.

  • In the case of Lincoln Chafee, had he switched parties, he’d most likely still be in the Senate, re-elected in 2006. At least that’s the impression I’ve gotten from articles I’ve read. Many RI’ers were quoted as saying they liked Chafee, but voted against him because they wanted a Dem senator.

    And, yes, McCain is appearing more and more as a political opportunist. I wonder if this goes to his 5 years as a POW – doing whatever it takes to survive. Except in this case, he’s sinking his chances daily.

  • I don’t think we want McCain; I think he is too crazy to think straight, let alone talk straight. I think he should stay with the republic-thugs. He’s their kind of guy –an a**hole.

  • I, too, am glad that he didn’t switch; in the past 6 yrs he’s straight expressed himself into the ravine and that’s the last thing we need.

    But I’m wandering about the general “morality” of such a switch — ie, switching parties *after* one has been elected.

    Presumably, if one ran as a Repub, then one took money from the Repubs’ campaign committe. Should one repay it? And, also, if one ran as Repub, then, presumably, it was other Repubs (or mostly) who had voted for one. Switching right after the elections seems to me like an act of treachery towards one’s voters, not like respect for them.

    I think, if one wants to switch, it’d be more honest to do so *before* elections. No?

  • Another point in favor of the credibility of this story: didn’t John Kerry initially court McCain as a VP candidate in 2004? Didn’t Kerry act like he thought he had a shot at getting McCain to take the offer? It seemed a bit weird to me at the time, but it makes a lot more sense if Kerry knew that McCain had seriously contemplated crossing the aisle.

    That said, if McCain’s presidential hopes are hereby snuffed, does this affect his chances at retaining his Senate seat in 2010?

  • The whole McCain saga is really a tragedy — in the original, Aristotelian definition of the term (“tragic hero” brought down by his own “tragic flaw” defect of character).
    I saw him in the 2000 primary campaign, and was very, very impressed by a couple of things that were too small to become part of the whole “straight-talking maverick” meme.
    One was that, at that time, he was the only candidate that I can remember hearing, from either side, talking about his concern that the income/wealth/opportunity gaps were growing and not shrinking. No major Dem was, at that time, willing to face the “class war” attack — and clearly no other Republican would recognize the problem at all. (They were exacerbating it, probably deliberately, in service to their corporate masters.)
    The other was something very interesting that happened at one NH campaign stop I saw. There were some eco-protesters there dressed up as trees, and challenging McCain on the global warming issue. He gave them a respectful listen, asked if they had solutions to propose, and then gave them the contact info for one of his aides. And, as we know, he is one of the only Republicans to take a stance recognizing global warming as the threat that it is.
    I really did think that the McCain of that time had the possibility to become a truly principled candidate, and officeholder.
    And I’m now especially disappointed to hear these details of the ’01 discussions, because the inescapable conclusions are that he would have switched only to attain the power he could get the Dems at that time to concede to him (for being THE one to give them back the majority), and not from any fundamental shift to our principles. It’d sure be nice if we could find any pols who still put principle before personal power — and if the power structure and financial system wouldn’t utterly destroy any such person before they could do anything too useful.

  • It seems you are are fooled by attempts by both parties to discredit a politician who has been right abotu so many things that have caused our nation and its effort in Iraq to fail so miserably. go ahead believe the partisan rhetoric. The artcle and comments say why woudl the Dems make up a story like this? hmmm maybe becuase McCain is probably the worst possible threat to them as he woudl pull substantial democratic votes. Why would the GoP be against him? hmm He was at odds with many of the failed Bush/Cheney/Rummsfield strategies and policies such as the use of ( mild, like it makes a difference) torture and not sendign enough tropps to do the job correctly. Go ahead all you dittoheads and follow the media and pary lines do not use logic or think for yourself. The rampant attacks by both sides and the media of late on McCain are reminiscent of the attacks on Ross Pero. In my opinion both parties have failed us and most conservative realise that Bush was the answer. The Republicans ( supposedly the party of smaller goverment) consistently increases goverment size, cost and scope of power. The Democrats seem to want a France or Sweden type govement instead of our own and the media cannot get anough anti american angles in thier coverage. Face the facts facts folks, when you see all three lining up against someone, it means either they are a fascist Nazi maniac, child abuser or maybe , just maybe they are just what we need, someone speaking the truth.

    Do not get me wrong McCain is not the best possible presidential candidate in our country, nto by a long shot, but he is in my opinion the best by far of any of the top 10 that you hear about. Before you regurgitate somethign you heard by a talk radio host or CNN/Fox political analys , check out his voting record, personal history and speechs on your own and compare to Hillary, Guiliani, Obama etc.. and be honest with yourself.

    Wake up America and stop this dynasty and unholy alliance of Big Busines, ultra powerful political machines and Newspeak Media outlets.
    .

  • David

    Could you please share with us all of these things that McCain has supposedly been proved right about?

  • Who is the tall dark stranger there?
    Maverick is the name.
    Riding the trail to who-knows-where

    Luck is his companion
    Gamblin’ is his game.

    Smooth as the handle on a gun.
    Maverick is the name.

  • Comments are closed.