We’ve discussed on more than a few occasions the fact that John McCain, media myths not withstanding, isn’t much of a “maverick.” It’s also worth noting, however, that his Senate ally, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, has slowly beginning to wear the same halo — and he doesn’t deserve it either.
National Journal’s Jonathan Martin, writing for TNR, has a strong piece today highlighting the ways in which opinion-shapers like David Broder and David Brooks love Graham — the Dean recently touted him as a future presidential contender — despite Graham voting like every other conservative Republican in the chamber.
He has the same American Conservative Union rating as all the other GOP senators elected since 2002 (Jim DeMint from South Carolina, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr from North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson from Georgia), and his career rating is to the right of Majority Leader Bill Frist, Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, and even Rick Santorum. “Lindsey Graham’s individualism,” Martin explains, “is a myth.”
Indeed, for a so-called maverick, Graham toes the party line surprisingly well, voting the way the far-right demands on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, abortion rights, ANWR, tax cuts, and contentious Bush nominees. During the fight over a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning — which Graham voted for — Graham delivered an passionate speech on his firm belief that the government needs to place more frequent limits on individuals’ private behavior.
For that matter, compared to Graham, McCain really is a maverick. As Martin noted, McCain sided with Democrats on HMOs, tax cuts, stem cell research, gun-show background checks, global warming, and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage — and Graham didn’t break party ranks on any of them.
So how is it, exactly, that Lindsey Graham has developed this sterling reputation that he doesn’t deserve?
Martin sets the record straight:
…Graham has spoken out against the administration’s prosecution of the war in Iraq and its approach to terrorist detainees. But the operative word is “spoken.” Graham has mastered the art of being a rhetorical rebel…. Graham says much to arouse anger within his own party but casts predictable votes when the roll is called; his transgressions come in the form of quotes, not votes.
An AP interview from late last year offers a good example of Graham’s knack for serving up the sort of soundbites that allow journalists to start sentences with the words “even some Republicans.” Discussing his party, Graham said, “We have lost our way … . Our base is deflated, and taxpayers don’t see any difference between us and the Democrats.” It is such unvarnished assessments — not thrusts at the ideological heart of conservatism — that give Graham his reputation for being a maverick.
All of this was particularly true last week during the debate on torture. Graham won praise for balking at the White House line — and then, paradoxically, won even greater praise for giving in and letting the administration have practically all of the unlimited power it wanted.
I’ve never quite been able to figure out how certain people become media darlings, but Graham’s star status is an even bigger mystery. Looking just at this most recent debate, when a senator pretends to be concerned about torture, only to give up and embrace the Bush line, there’s a name for it — and “maverick” isn’t the word that comes to mind.