McCain picks the wrong example to tout his bipartisan bona fides

The McCain campaign has been pretty aggressive this week in pushing a new meme: John McCain has taken political risks by working with Dems on important issues, while Barack Obama hasn’t. I’m not sure if this is actually a vote-getter, but voters (and the media) seem to appreciate those willing to reach across the aisle to forge compromises, so I suppose the McCain campaign has had worse ideas.

There are, however, a few problems with the pitch. The first is the one Mitt Romney helped highlight on Thursday — Obama has worked with Republicans on important issues like counter-proliferation, energy policy, and ethics reform, and the only way to discount these efforts is to say those issues don’t matter. (Sen. Sam Brownback, who has worked with Obama on a variety of issues, inexplicably chose to pretend Obama’s cooperation simply never occurred.)

But the even bigger problem is that the McCain campaign is bringing up a subject that actually makes their guy look worse, not better.

On a McCain conference call this afternoon aimed at contrasting McCain’s bipartisan credentials with Obama’s, McCain spokeswoman Crystal Benton chose an example that also makes the opposite case.

“It’s fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party,” she said, adding that he “reached across the aisle despite a heated primary campaign.”

The campaign, of course, is only telling half the story. Yes, McCain, to his credit, took a risk working with Dems on a comprehensive immigration reform measure during the Republican primaries. His efforts failed — McCain couldn’t get his bill through the Senate, and his poll numbers tanked when GOP voters learned of his efforts.

But the notion that we should praise McCain now for his bipartisan efforts is demonstrably ridiculous when we consider that McCain actually rejects his own legislation.

McCain has said, over and over again, that he disapproves of his own legislation. He conceded in a nationally televised debate that he wouldn’t even vote for his own bill. McCain has reiterated his opposition to the compromise he personally struck throughout the presidential campaign.

So what on earth is the McCain campaign talking about? Asked for evidence of McCain’s bipartisanship, his team points to a bill that McCain doesn’t even support anymore.

“It’s fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party,” McCain’s spokesperson said. Yes, but it’s even more significant that McCain abandoned his own policy when it became politically inconvenient for him to stick to his principles.

Yesterday morning, the McCain campaign issued a memo that argued, “There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance.”

Now, on its face, it’s not at all clear why Obama needs to reject Democratic ideas to prove himself, but even if we’re willing to concede the basis of the question, I’d challenge the McCain campaign with two words: “You first.”

I can think of plenty of issues on which an earlier version of John McCain bucked the party line on issues of national importance, but that was before. Can his campaign name three issues on which McCain rejected GOP orthodoxy and didn’t change his mind afterwards?

I can’t. McCain bucked his party on taxes, but then reversed course and embraced the party line. He bucked his party on immigration, but then reversed course and embraced the party line. He bucked his party on a windfall-tax on oil company profits, but then reversed course and embraced the party line. The same goes for McCain on coastal drilling, the estate tax, indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, and on and on.

McCain wants to know when Obama has broken party ranks? I’d like to know when McCain has broken party ranks and then stuck to his guns.

As for immigration, it really sets factions within the GOP at each other’s throats. The Chamber of Commerce Crowd love other portions of The Base can’t stand the idea of folks from the south coming north for work.

So as far as the wingnut fringe is concerned, McCain was for McShamnesty before he was against it.

  • McCain was for Bush’s awesome stellar war type leadership and all around supa dupa generalship before he was allegedly against it.

    Seems that I can remember many warm embracing moments that were captured by cameras showing Bush and McCain as two peas in a pod.

  • I think McCain is trying to keep alive the belief that some have in his moderation (despite his need to pander to conservatives in his party in order to get the nomination) so that he can attract swing voters.

    I do not agree that Obama has to wait until McCain shows leadership on an issue before demonstrating leadership of his own. Democrats should want to know whether Obama is capable of taking a principled stand and they should want to know what issue Obama has shown such leadership on. I don’t know of one, and it is one of the reasons why I do not support him. Since many people like me (e.g., former Hillary voters) and going to want to know this, simply pointing to McCain and saying “you first” isn’t going to help. We all know who McCain is because he has been around for 30+ years. We don’t know who Obama is, in the same way, since he has such a short track record. Obama needs to answer this question, not deflect it (or is it Steve Benen doing the deflection?).

  • Mary, I don’t disagree that Obama should show leadership whethr or not McCain does. The problem with the measuring stick McCain sets out is that for it to count as “leadership,” Obama has to break ranks with party values. That is a set up. What I am looking for is someone to bring the country – and the party – back to progressive values. McCain’s camp is actually a little clever on this: they have a disadvantage in that to move to the middle they have to annoy the Dobson, Wolfowitz and Norquist wings of the party, and to pander to those folks they lose the middle. They appear to have an idea that because they cannot solve this problem they can at least minimize its impact if they can put Obama in the same box — set up a meme that unless he betrays the base, he isn’t a leader, and if he meets their test, he loses the enthusiasm of his base. The best thing Dems can do is simply ignore the rantings of McCain and set their own agenda, run their own campaign to win, and marginalize his howling at the moon as much as possible.

  • Give McCain a break. He just can’t remember his positions. It’s not his actions that matter. It’s his intent. He intends to remember, but forgets when he gets angry

  • -daze, I think Obama already has this problem with progressives. As Colbert pointed out in his interview with Wexler this week, Obama is not much of a Democrat. But, I really don’t think that leadership is only about the content of someone’s views — it is about the character needed to lead instead of follow on an issue. With Obama, it is ambiguous whether he is all things to all people because he does not like to be oppositional, or whether he instead has eclectic views that he is prepared to stand up for. The jury is out on that because he caved on several issues already during his campaign and now has come out for the FISA compromise (note the word compromise).

    Yesterday I saw a comment that blamed Obama for the current disunity within the Democratic party. Disunity is a sign of a leadership vacuum, in my opinion. Almost by definition. McCain may be attacking on this issue in order to clarify what Obama’s problem is, for Obama’s voters. Personally, I think he is not addressing Obama as much as telling undecideds that he is not going to be a rank-and-file conservative if they vote for him, but will go back to his moderate roots. I won’t vote for him, because I am a disappointed progressive, not a middle-of-the-road independent, but I think this approach will work on others. Since Obama is also playing for the middle, McCain has to differentiate himself from Obama and he is doing it on the basis of strength of leadership (since McCain has demonstrated it and Obama has not). McCain isn’t going after the people who wish Obama were showing more progressive values — they wouldn’t go for him under any circumstances. I’m surprised any progressive go for Obama either, but maybe they don’t and that’s why there are still so many Clinton diehards.

  • It’s not leadership when McCain is on both sides of the same issue. The flip flopping on his own legislation has the distinct image of pandering in the moment for votes, or being sold to the highest bidder. And that, is definately not leadership.

  • What a lame article. It is obvious for anybody who follows politics, that McCain on many occasions reached to the other side despite of great opposition of the hard core Reps. They despise him for this. Obama on the other hand did nothing to endanger his chances with hard core Dems. He never put interests of the country first if it was against his own party or even widely unpopular. McCain often took unpopular positions if he thought it is best for the country. He is just patriot.

  • Bill, care to explain how it is a positive for McCain to have “taken unpopular positions” when he later “untook” them for the sake of campaigning?

  • Give it up, Mary. You’re like Rudy’s long lost sister; a noun, Obama and a slur. You hate everything about the guy and the world is going to end on Inauguration Day. We get it. Relax and enjoy what remains of these good times under Bush.

  • Say it over and over and Soon you will get it. McCain is More of the Same. Bush buttbuddies for sure. Aren’t you sick of the GOP and what they have done to this great nation. McCain is 72 my lord. Lets get the man who has the spark, new ideas, energy, and watch him grow in the White House. If you elect McCain that is 12 yrs of Bush,,,get it?

  • It’s not so much that Democrats work with the Republicans. It’s that they work FOR the Republicans.

  • McCain makes sure there are no real consequences anytime he takes an issue against party lines such as the MCA or the torture ban.

    This isn’t pretty but what is not mentioned about Brownback’s “discussion” is that he mentioned that Obama flip flopped on the issue of National security and is going to vote for the FISA bill he once rejected. He agrees with republicans now and this demonstrates that he will flip flop on his position on the Iraq war as well and will come around to agreeing with the republicans on that issue as well. It is either due to inexperience or a lack of knowledge about the issue but this demonstrates weakness for not standing up for the principles he says he has.

    How Obama ever could believe his support for the FISA give away would not turn out to be a big political mistake is beyond me…which makes me wonder if he wasn’t pressured into this by the dem leadership in the House and Senate. It went against everything Obama has been saying for the past 2yrs and besides just being wrong it was politically incorrect. Siding with Bush so as not to appear weak on national security only makes him look weak on national security which is exactly what Obama stated just months ago.

    What really happened here because I don’t buy for a second the spin Obama is using to justify his support of FISA. Was he threatened with death to him and his family and warned that since it is likely he will be the next president there are some rules he better get used to or what? Take a look at Addington…these are the people operating behind the throne…despicable personalities like Cheney, Rumsfeld (who has never really left office) Norquist etc., and tell me you would put anything past them. Saying candidates always campaign on the left and then run to the center for the general just doesn’t get it because Obama has never been “left”…he’s always been centrist(judging by polls taken of how Americans stand on the issues). Nor do I buy the “secret Obama plan” because he is supposed to be the “leader” of the dem party now and should be able to influence its direction. “Something is going on here and you don’t know what it is. Do you Mr. Jones” -Bob Dylan I got my eyes wide open now as I watch the fourth amendment go down in flames. In San Diego NSA officers are stopping, detaining, and demanding not only ID but destination without giving their names. How much further do things need to go before we stop our descent into a police state Obama (Is Obama going to be next to say, “He he, things would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship..he he…as long as I’m the dictator…he he he”) Disclosure: I am voting for Obama because he’s 100Xs better than McCain but my trust is waning for anyone who trust royal decree over the rule of law.

  • Comments are closed.