‘Maverick’ McCain? Not when it counts

May 8, 2008

The Arizona Republic thought it might be a good idea to scrutinize John McCain’s voting record a bit, and consider whether his media-driven “maverick” reputation holds up. Take a wild guess what they found.

Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues.

But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party’s objectives. […]

The voting pattern seems at odds with the popular narrative that McCain’s maverick tendencies make him an unreliable conservative.

“He is a conservative who votes conservative on most issues,” said Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. “By no means is he a liberal or even a moderate.”

Paul Waldman, of American Prospect and Media Matters fame, had a great item responding to the article, which raised two important points. The first was amusing: “What do you know? An article that actually takes a feature of the McCain image, and — hold on to your hats — attempts to ascertain whether it’s true. I’m floored.” I know the feeling.

Waldman’s second point, though, is even more important:

It’s no accident that this is coming from the Arizona Republic. While the Republic is generally considered a pretty conservative paper, they have tangled with McCain a great deal over the years, mostly because they haven’t been particularly inclined to simply repeat over and over that he’s a StraightTalkingMaverickReformer. As a consequence, McCain has always acted as though he pretty much hates their guts. (In 2000, he wouldn’t even let the Republic’s reporter have a seat on the Straight Talk Express. So while the national media were whooping it up on board the party bus, she had to follow along in a rental car. And this is the largest paper in his home state.)

One thing I’ve noticed lately is that there are a bunch of Chicago reporters (like Lynn Sweet and Jim Warren, for instance) who have become regulars on cable TV, presumably because they know a lot about Barack Obama. But the reporters who have known John McCain the longest and know him the best — the ones from Arizona — are nowhere to be seen. Why do you think that is?

Perhaps because McCain’s base — the media establishment — has already established its narrative for him, and doesn’t want to hear from those who might interfere? Even journalists who know McCain far better than they do?

More from the piece in the Republic:

John Fortier, a research fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said McCain has earned the maverick label often hung on him, but it is primarily built on issues that received considerable attention, like campaign-finance reform or immigration.

“On most issues, he is broadly conservative,” Fortier said. “He has a real streak of voting independently and sometimes makes a really big deal of it.”

Others take issue with McCain’s image as conservative gadfly.

A Washington Post analysis notes McCain voted with the GOP this term 88.3 percent of the time, the same as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose conservative credentials are seldom questioned. McCain ranked ahead of 29 other Republicans, including Arizona’s Jon Kyl, who holds the No. 2 spot in party leadership.

Congressional Quarterly gave McCain a 90 percent score for “party unity” voting last year and said he supported the president’s position on legislation 95 percent of the time. During the Bush years, McCain’s poorest totals from CQ were 67 percent party-unity voting in 2001 and 77 percent support for the Bush agenda in 2005.

Something to consider the next time you hear several dozen pundits on every channel insist that McCain is a “maverick” with a “strong independent streak.”

McCain is considered a “Maverick” because he does not vote the Communist, (sorry, I get Communist and Republican mixed up), oops, Republican party line 100% of the time.

  • Perhaps I am misreading the situation, but I feel it’s a much stronger move to attack McCain by making him to be far more conservative than his reputation would allow. The recent polling I saw said that out of the Republican base, he’s having the most trouble with the more moderate and liberal factions. It’s those, and the groups of Independents and conservative Democrats, that he needs to appeal to in order to win. If his image is tarnished with them, I don’t see how he even comes close to winning, what with the enthusiasm on the Democratic side and the generally unfavorable economic and foreign policy outlook for the Republicans.

  • Earlier today, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” super-tough, independent-minded, solidly objective TV-journalist, and Scarborough sycophant Mika Brzezinski reported that she considers John McCain to be “adorable.”

  • Perhaps the most telling part of the Arizona Republic article was this:

    “During the 10 years The Republic examined, McCain crossed over to vote with Democrats 19 times in 82 close votes. He did so just once in the four years he was running for president: 1999, 2000, 2007 and 2008. All 12 of the close votes he missed happened in those years, too.”

    When it is politically expedient to do so, Johnny boy drops the Maverick mask and clings to the conservative base. Johnny ain’t no dummy. Just an ornery cuss who gets a kick out of ruffling feathers when he needs a little sport but irons out the uniform, spit shines the shoes and polishes the Republican brass when needed for inspection.

  • Maverick – “An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.”

    John’s problem is that he just forget’s he was branded Rethug a long time ago and has been their property ever since. It sit’s right along side a “Cindy’ brand.

  • Here is McBush’s CORPORATE MEDIA BASE IN ACTION ………… AND, NO, THE REPORTERS FROM ARIZONA WERE NOT INCLUDED ……………

    THE HAPPY BIRTHDAY EXPRESS: “I honestly don’t know what to say about this.” Those were Brother Greenwald’s words when he posted the videotape of the press corps’ recent fete at John McCain’s crib in Sedona. For ourselves, we recalled a grander affair, conducted during the 2004 Republican convention in New York. A certain saint threw himself a birthday bash—and darlings, forget about Holly Bailey! When the sanctified solon turned 68, the firmament’s biggest stars were there! To his credit (explanation below), Richard Leiby did the play-by-play for the Washington Post. This is your press corps on creme brulee—French tarts, loin of lamb, lobster salad:

    LEIBY (8/31/04): Sen. John McCain tended to his political base Sunday night: the entire national media. The maverick Arizona Republican, once (and future?) presidential aspirant and press secretary’s dream hosted a hyper-exclusive 68th birthday party for himself at La Goulue on Madison Avenue, leaving no media icon behind. Guests included NBC’s Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, ABC’s Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Ted Koppel and George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Mike Wallace, Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer, CBS News President Andrew Heyward, ABC News chief David Westin, Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, CNN’s Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, CNBC’s Gloria Borger, PBS’s Charlie Rose—pause here to exhale—and U.S. News & World Report publisher Mort Zuckerman, Washington Post Chairman Don Graham, New York Times columnists William Safire and David Brooks, author Michael Lewis and USA Today columnist Walter Shapiro. They and others dined on lobster salad, loin of lamb, assorted wines, creme brulee, lemon souffle and French tarts.

    […]

    One guest, who asked not to be identified, described invitees as “the Journalistic Committee for a Government of National Unity.” After singing “Happy Birthday” to McCain, many of the guests—Russert, Borger and Shapiro, among others—cabbed to Elaine’s, where Zuckerman hosted a mob scene that included Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, PBS’s John McLaughlin and New York Gov. George Pataki, The Post’s Mark Leibovich reports. By 11 p.m. the Second Avenue landmark—with red carpet outside—was elbow-to-elbow with martini-sipping guests. Thus commenced Campaign 2008 (we think).

    Somehow, it was the singing of “Happy Birthday” which always struck us as most wrong: At any rate, free food! And plenty of pandering! And after they sang “Happy Birthday” to Mac, the gang cabbed it up to Elaine’s.

    If you don’t understand the press corps’ coverage of McCain, perhaps you can find a hint or two in Leiby’s dispatch.

    Last Friday, Jamison Foser did a superlative post about the way this gang of hopeless galoots insists on calling McCain a “war hero”—even when the designation bears no resemblance to the issue at hand. Beyond that, reporters love to work McCain’s “straight talk” slogan into “reporting.” Stephanopoulos sang “Happy Birthday” that night—and soon was asking the saintly solon for “straight talk answers” on ABC’s air. To judge from Leiby’s guest list, E. J. Dionne wasn’t big enough to make the affair at La Goulue (French for “glutton”), but today he describes his ongoing love for the Great McCain—and he shamelessly equates Obama and Farrakhan to McCain and Hagee. It’s hard to be more disingenuous that that, as many others have already noted. But so what? This has gone on for the past dozen years, and may well decide this year’s race.

    But readers, back to the birthday brawl! We first posted Leiby’s text in October 2004, after Ted Koppel attended a fete for Colin Powell instead of prepping for a critical Nightline (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/19/04).On that date, we offered links to past HOWLER posts which showed the big stars of the mainstream “press corps” at play with the people they “cover.” We saw Russert at Rumsfeld’s Christmas party, bragging that he had foreseen Saddam’s capture. (He had seen it in a dream!) We saw Koppel attending that Powell bash, then failing on that night’s critical program. We saw Gwen Ifill dining with Darling Condi, then rolling over for her gal pal in a major interview.

    Yes. This is the way your “press corps” works—though Kevin and Josh and Matt won’t tell you. Sedona was just a suggestion, a cook-out, a small affair thrown for the proles.

    By the way—why the praise for Leiby’s report? (It appeared in “Reliable Source.”) Here’s why: The “press corps” didn’t just sing “Happy Birthday” to McCain in 2004—they gave him a subsequent birthday gift. You see, despite the star power at that bash, almost no one reported it! Lloyd Grove did a brief piece in the Daily News, saying McCain had thrown “a smallish dinner” (text below). But almost no one else in the press corps mentioned this event at all. You see, they luvv to do celebrity stories—unless the celebrities involved are themselves. In that case, they know they must hide their behavior—the behavior of their group’s biggest players. The comical story of Jack Welch’s “Lost Boys of the Sconset?” That comical—and revealing—story has almost never appeared in print. Within the clan, housebroken pool boys know they must hide the truth about how the “press” lives and functions.

    They sing Happy Birthday to those they adore—and then, they pimp to get them elected. Dionne is pimping again today, just as he’s done in the past. The comparison to Obama is disgracefully fake. But so what? Saint John gets a toast.

    Lloyd Grove’s smallish dinner: In the Daily News, Grove seemed to get the scope of things wrong. That said, we don’t mean to criticize Grove. Few others said word the first:

    GROVE (8/31/04): McCAIN FOR SOMETHING! The media elite met to eat at La Goulue Sunday at a smallish dinner hosted by media favorite John McCain and wife Cindy.

    The buzz was that the press-friendly Arizona senator, who was celebrating his 68th birthday, is considering another run for President four years from now.

    “This is like any other trade convention—everybody’s talking about what the new power mower might be,” quipped McCain ad-maker Mike Murphy. Among the guests were Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel and Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jeff Greenfield and even New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani.

    “Oh I see,” one diner remarked on surveying the crowd. “It’s a party for the base.

    That was Grove’s entire item. According to Nexis, this was the second longest account of this heady, newsworthy affair.

  • Hang this around the neck of “the Maverick”:

    Congressional Quarterly gave McCain a 90 percent score for “party unity” voting last year and said he supported the president’s position on legislation 95 percent of the time.

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0507mccainvotes0507.html

    Got that, America? If you think that president Bush has only been wrong 5% of the time, then McCain might be your man. If, however, you agree with the vast majority of Americans in thinking that Bush is probably the worst president EVER, then McCain, who backed Bush 95% of the time, might not be the best guy to have as the next president.

    There’s a reason why we call him “McBush”.

  • DGustof said:
    “McCain is considered a “Maverick” because he does not vote the Communist, (sorry, I get Communist and Republican mixed up), oops, Republican party line 100% of the time.”
    Sorry, Gustof, but the Democrats are the party closest to communism. Democrats are the ones who want the government to to take care of us and establish a classless, stateless society based on common ownership (i.e. higher taxes for the rich & more welfare for the “poor”). If you want to insult republicans, call them fascists. Fascism is an authoritarian, nationalistic government that feeds off the peoples notion that the society is in decline and plunging into moral decay. But yeah, getting communists and republicans mixed up only means you probably flunked social studies as a kid.

  • John McCan’t is a conservative. He’s a conservative who still spouts the theory of fiscal conservatism (but not really practices it) and complains when his own party fails his standards.

    John McCan’t is a conservative. He’s a conservative who still spouts the theory of ethical politics (but not really practices it) and passes laws that supposedly promote it even to his own party’s detriment.

    Because he attacks his own party for their failure to measure up to his yardstick, they hate his guts and he gets a reputation as going against his party.

    But he doesn’t really go against conservatism. Just certain brands of it.

    He is not centrist. Rather then reach to the middle to work with Democrats he reaches around the back to work with the left most wing (Feingold, after all).

    It’s like the Theocratic Reactionaries joining up with Paternalistic Feminists (Femi-nazis) to oppose pornography. That’s not centrism.

  • Well said, pete6982. What cracks me up is the mistaken notion that most Americans have that electing a Democrat over a Republican, or vice versa, is going to make one damn bit of difference in the long run.They’re just different sides of the same coin. The electorate is distracted by derisive elections, and the “issues” while career politicians bankrupt our society and they and their cronies get rich. Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush, but we run to the polls and re-elect the scoudrels. It’s political schizophrenia.

  • “A Washington Post analysis notes McCain voted with the GOP this term 88.3 percent of the time”

    …hmmm. I guess if he voted against them 88.3% of the time he wouldn’t be a memeber of the Republican party, now would he? Would it be safe to say that Obama or Hillary voted with their party 88.3% of the time? Uh, duh, at least!

    The real conclusion of this story:

    Anyone can make up statistics favorable to their own cause, but no one should assume that the statistics, or the cause, is right.

  • When has “Mr. Change” Barack Obama ever gone against his party to stand on his principles? He says he wants to unite all Americans for change in Washington. But his agenda is a litany of the same tired proposals Democrats have been trotting out for thirty years. He will force small businesses to pay the health insurance of their employees — a move that will cause massive unemployment. He will pull us out of Iraq regardless of the consequences. He criticizes Carter for meeting with Hamas leaders, but as President he says he will meet with Ahmendenijad and Castro. Who has been given a pass by the media, McCain or Obama? The Rev.Wright scandal was ignored for over a year (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/wright-story-wh.html) and only covered when it became a YouTube phenomenon. They still have never covered his other controversial connections, such as his association with Raila Odinga of Kenya. It is the Obama promise of Change that is a myth in this election, not the maverick image of John McCain.

  • pete6982: Thanks for telling the truth to dgustof. He/she is obviously brainwashed by the borama two, three, and even four word catch phrases from the demoncratic party

    McCain is the best candidate to lead us into the next decade. Obama will raise taxes like no other president in history. He will pass socialistic agendas that will cause more fear in this country. I am willing to bet that obama will limit our freedom of speech (ie criminalizing the ‘n’ word…punishable by his law…sounds communistic to me!)

  • If McCain isn’t a Maverick, then why does the far right have such problems with him ? By the way, Obama has voted the party line 96, 97, and 96 percent of the time for each of the three years he’s been in the Senate. Yet he has the nerve to say that he can bring about bi-partison unity. Obama is an empty suit.

  • The author presents an advocate position and complete bias when he refers to McCain’s votes as “pimping”

    ” During off years he pimps for the independent vote and during election years he pimps for the conservative vote. Sure, it’s craven, but it’s a nice gig if you can get away with it.”

    He should be working with “Move on.org” so we know where he is cominng from immediately

  • Counting the times he’s crossed the party lines in a vote? That’s a measure of “maverickness”? Pretty thin, for it assumes all “important” votes are equal. It also neglects the prospect of logrolling–McCain voting in favor of something he doesn’t care much about in return for others voting with him on those things he does. Further, 19 times out of 82 (or whatever it was) doesn’t seem all that bad, since we ought to project only about 40 cross-overs as the high end. Voting with Democrats on more than half of the votes would make him not a Maverick, but a Democrat.
    Read Ross Douthat’s analysis of McCain in the Atlantic (sorry, can’t link to it) to discover what’s maverick–he’s really a conservative, in the Burkean sense of the word, not a bombadier for the right, as Gingrich is.

  • John Mccain is an experienced, educated, wise individual with a complicated past. I think he will consider each vote, weigh the options and [thankfully] rely on his vast political and personal experience before making his decision. He also is cognisent of the changes and ebb and flow of any situation and will wisely and without shame change his stance, his opinon and his vote. Although I may not agree with all of his political opinons, if elected president I trust that because he is a wise sage he will make the best decision at that time. He will not need to use his presidency as an internship. This from a Democratic regestered voter.

  • Pingback: www.tagsto.com/trackback/

    • Comments are closed.