RSSUsing PayPal
What is John McCain's Mark Salter Thinking? Explodes at "Why We Fight"
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Feb 08 2006, 7:48AM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2006/02/what_is_john_mc/&title=What is John McCain's Mark Salter Thinking? Explodes at "Why We Fight"&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
Senator John McCain comes off as a major political star in Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight which is opening soon in Washington, but his chief of staff, Mark Salter, has blown a gasket over a cute clip in the film in which Vice President Cheney calls him during that interview. At that moment, McCain is saying that Americans deserve a serious investigation into contracting improprieties surrounding the Iraq War.
According to Mary Ann Akers in Roll Call's gossip column, Heard on the Hill, this morning:
Attention, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): You're not the only punching bag for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The 2008 presidential hopeful is also really mad at the producer of the Sundance Film Festival award-winning film "Why We Fight."Forget about his nanosecond blip on Monday night's episode of "24." McCain -- and especially his chief of staff -- think the movie producer intentionally twisted McCain's few lines in the film so that he comes off as critical of Vice President Cheney.
"We're actually pretty mad about it," McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, told HOH. He accused the producer, Eugene Jarecki, of "doing manipulative editing" to make it look like McCain is questioning Cheney's involvement in the awarding of military contracts to Halliburton, the company the veep used to run.
McCain says in the movie: "It looks bad. It looks bad and apparently Halliburton, more than once, has overcharged the federal government. That's wrong."
Then, asked how he would tackle the problem, McCain says, "I'd have a public investigation of what they've done." At that very moment, coincidentally, the phone rings in McCain's office ... and an aide announces the vice president is calling. Scene ends.
While McCain said nothing about Cheney in the context of Halliburton, Salter is angry because McCain's scene immediately follows one in which Richard Perle is defending Cheney, saying the veep wouldn't dare use his power to help Halliburton get contracts.
Then McCain pops on the screen saying, "It looks bad" -- as if he's talking about Cheney, when in fact he's not, Salter argues. To the contrary, Salter said -- McCain has "complete respect for Mr. Cheney's integrity." "It's editorial manipulation," Salter said of the film.
Jarecki can't believe that McCain's office is so upset. He says McCain didn't impugn Cheney in any way, nor did he, as the filmmaker, intend for it to look that way. "I'm mystified by the whole thing," he said. "My view of John McCain is extremely glowing."
A big part of the film is about Dwight Eisenhower, who, in his 1961 farewell address as president, warned America about the "military-industrial complex" -- a term he coined in that speech. "If there's anybody today who carries that spirit ... it's John McCain," Jarecki said, adding, "What I see when I see John McCain in the film is a good man in a weary world. He's working so hard every day to make Washington a better place."
The love, apparently, only goes one way. Salter calls Jarecki a "a slippery son of a gun" and says that McCain doesn't like the film, at least not the part involving him. "He thought it was dishonest," Salter said.
The miffed chief of staff said Jarecki was misleading from the get-go. McCain thought he was doing an interview on Iraq with the BBC. "Turns out to be a theatrically released film in the United States."
Well, it turns out that Salter is right. Jarecki originally made his film for the BBC. Then he hit the big screen.
"I never imagined we'd win Sundance and be picked up by Sony [Pictures]," he said. With that, he headed over to the Motion Picture Association of America for a second Washington, D.C., screening.
The "first screening" obliquely referred to was co-hosted by TWN.
I've seen the film three times now, and Senator McCain comes off as a 21st century Eisenhower in the movie -- the type of potential President who can be a 'big national security president' but not let the military-industrial complex, a term coined first in Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address, run amok.
Salter, who has been a key aide to McCain for many years and has written with McCain Faith of My Fathers and Why Courage Matters, is someone who understands the importance of editing. Not everything makes it into the book, or the film in this case. Salter's demands veer dangerously close to thin-skinned censorship. Not good for any team considering a run at the most admired, feared, pilloried, and lampooned job in the world -- the Presidency of the United States.
TWN has gone to some effort to learn about some of the background on the interview, what was in the larger interview -- tough to get as the director has not wanted to release the material because it would undermine his editorial prerogatives.
TWN has confirmed that the McCain office essentially ignored Jarecki for months, despite calls, a mailed DVD of the film, and various interactions as Jarecki had hoped to involve McCain in the roll-out of the film (figuring that he would like it).
It wasn't until the film became "big" that Salter and the McCain staff paid any attention to the director. They called Charlotte Street Films in a huff, according to one source, demanding a copy of the film. As it turned out, McCain's office had had one already on their shelves, unwatched.
So, while I do not have (yet) the text of the McCain interview, some of the things he said were extremely provocative.
My apologies to both Senator McCain and Eugene Jarecki for sharing some of this, as I admire both, but in my view, Jarecki actually protected McCain's interests in this film -- and Mark Salter is behaving in a surly, oppressive way -- not what Senator McCain deserves.
And this blog has gone way out of its way in the past to underscore its respect for McCain (though a good chunk of TWN readers let me know how misplaced my respect is).
That said, "flaming out" makes people look small, emotionally rather than rationally driven, and out of control. When someone like McCain, or Mark Salter on his behalf, flames out -- it better be about something huge.
In any case, my source has shared with me some of the other talking "nodes" in the McCain interview. As I said, I'm trying to sneak out text, but Jarecki is not allowing it out from his office.
These were some of the things that McCain allegedly uttered in a long interview:
(paraphrased)John McCain said he was in fundamental agreement with the neocons, that spreading democracy and freedom in the world was vital in this time -- but not spreading it through pre-emptive strikes and unilateralism
He said that neoconservatism evolved during the Vietnam era and in some ways McCain admitted that he was one. He said that the roll backs against military capabilities occurred during this period, and the neoconservatives organized to counter this trend.
McCain said that Bush was out of step with core conservative values on the international front. He said that domestically tax cuts and fiscal responsibility were core Republican values and Bush hit those buttons, but on the international front, Bush's aggressive internationalism was beyond core Republican values. McCain didn't offer a positive or negative assessment of this -- just stated that this was the case.
McCain said that the government was rife with contributors giving millions of dollars to the Party, buying access with this money, seeking favors in contracting, and getting it. He said that Halliburton style no-bid contracts were part of this picture and that Americans should be worried. He said that Americans deserved a serious public investigation.
McCain also said that if there was a serious, imminent threat directly threatening to Americans that a preemptive strike could be understood, but if American lives are lost on something that was not an imminent threat, well. . .that can't stand.
McCain said that Bush ran on a platform of disengaging from a lot of American commitments and was opposed to nation-building. Now Bush is for nation-building. McCain just noted that the Bush America voted for is not the Bush they got after he'd been in office.
McCain also said that while he supported the Iraq War, Americans were "not fully informed" and deserved to have been.
McCain stated that while he didn't think America could precipitously leave Iraq, the war will have been won even when we see "a badly functioning democracy" there.
There's more, but I don't have it yet.
McCain's commentary above is sensible, thoughtful. I don't agree with all of it, and frankly -- I see McCain as more of an ethical realist than I do a neoconservative, but that's irrelevant.
What is significant is that any editor with anywhere near the amount of information above could clip and edit McCain in a number of different ways.
The neocon material or the commentary on Bush, or shady defense contractors seducing his own Party, the comment about Americans not being appropriately informed -- all of that -- could have been far more damaging to McCain's efforts to appear to the Republican establishment that he is behaving, so to speak.
For some time, McCain has been working hard to charm the mainline Republican establishment and not needlessly provoke Bush and Cheney, which makes sense as McCain has said in the past that it was not the Republican right wing that beat him in his last presidential run, it was the fact that the mainstream Republican establishment had pre-positioned itself with Bush.
Politically, this sensitivity matters -- and tactically, perhaps McCain and Salter see it as beneficial to beat up a film that actually makes the Senator look good, but perhaps too good.
The reason that Salter is probably testy about this is BECAUSE Cheney DOES represent in the minds of many Americans the kind of politician who hides behind veils of official secrecy. Before McCain took on the administration over corruption in the Boeing air-tanker deal, McCain was one of the major behind-the-scenes players exposing the Bush administration's nefarious dealings with Enron and other energy companies. And who was in the middle of that escapade? Dick Cheney.
Eavesdropping last night, one of my sources reports that a Republican Senator -- and close friend of McCain's -- said that the Cheney-McCain call was cute but that the film shows McCain as close to Bush and also close to Eisenhower. "What could be better?" this Senator said.
McCain is an American hero in my book. Despite the critique that comes from many on the left and the right (and which will no doubt come towards me from some of my well-intentioned readers after I post this) -- McCain ought not to "lose it" when he gets to play Eisenhower, when he is lauded for being the white knight in national security affairs who can keep the military-industrial-complex under some form of democracy-preserving scrutiny.
And if Cheney calls him during an interview, then Cheney calls him during an interview -- that's how Washington works. It was a cute moment that did nothing but show that even major national leaders like Cheney and McCain who probably disagree about defense-contracting ethics must still work together in this town.
I've known Mark Salter from a distance for a long time, ever since I worked at the Nixon Center in Washington.
I admire his passion for his Senator and friend, John McCain, and for the country. He supports the Iraq War, as Senator McCain does; I do not. We move on -- but I still feel that McCain's voice is vital as we sort out what kinds of "norms" this nation really holds true during times of national stress.
Mark Salter, on behalf of his boss John McCain, is losing it over the wrong issue -- and frankly -- as a friend of the McCain camp -- they are "losing it" too much lately.
Senator McCain is reportedly appearing on the Late Show with David Letterman on Thursday evening -- and this clip of McCain and Cheney may run (I am told...but you know how things can change).
Let's hope by then that we see humor and insight rather than the boiling over we have seen of late.
More later.
-- Steve Clemons
Update: Joe Gandelman has a thougtful response at The Moderate Voice.
» Next Article - Tom DeLay: The Outrage Continues
What is John McCain's Mark Salter Thinking?
Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me! This is an easy one.
Is the answer: Salter is thinking "How can I distance my boss from his decades-long record of bashing what has now become the Republican establishment so that they will allow him to run as the Republican candidate in 2008?"
Sooo.... has anyone bothered asking Mark Salter and McCain himself why the allegedly 'maverick' Senator has not put a full-court press on to end Republican corruption, no-bid contracts, and the endless short-changing of our soldiers (armor, benefits, ..)?
McCain is all talk. He should be called on it at every opportunity.
The torture deal was a total capitulation. And now our dear gasbag "maverick" is offended at Obama, he's offended at appearing to take a stand against corruption -- what isn't he offended at?
Vanity ill-becomes the Senator who can't follow through, in substance, for his country. I doubt you can run for Prez, credibly, on a platform of hurt feelings, hot air, and image polishing. It's already not a pretty picture.
What's mCcain actually DONE lately?
McCain has sold out to the far right - period.
Meaning no disrespect (and reading more closely Steve's long post), I thought I'd clarify my reaction a bit.
I like mCcain, and have long respected him. But too often, he says the right things on critical issues, but then takes no substantive action to correct the wayward course of the Republican party. This is a long-standing habit. Say the right thing regarding integrity, the Constitution, the rule of law -- but aver that nothing needs to be done, downplay Bush's 'infractions,' and stick w/Bush despite the reassuring words mCcain's uttered in the previous 90 seconds.
So in no small measure, mCcain has stood idly by, while DeLay-Abramoff-Frist corrupt the legislative process, while Bush has short-changed the military, betrayed the public trust, outed a CIA operative, and violated both the rule of law and the Constitution.
It's one thing for McCain to say, of no-bid contracts, that "it looks bad."
It's quite another for him to fail to raise sufficient stink -- while his party is in power, no less -- to make a difference. To make a substantive change.
And that's not leadership. Those are not the actions of a maverick.
Steve, one last point. YOu mention that McCain took on the Boeing scandal and the Bush administration over Enron.
But what was the end-result of the Boeing thing? Weren't wrists slapped only? And no one in D.C., or the media, pushed the Bush-Enron connection. Bush paid no price -whatsoever- for some extremely close ties.
McCain may well do his best stuff behind the scenes. And I credit him whenever he DOES come through.
But he could be so much more. And we are all the poorer for this hot air, this lack of action, this self-satisfaction.
McCain believes (allegedly) that Bush stands for the core Republican values of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility? Reckless tax cuts, okay, but surely no one can mention Bush and fiscal responsibility in the same breath with a straight face.
Also, I understand that you have to play the political game, but I can never erase that image of Bush on stage with McCain trying to get his arms around him, his face buried in Bush's chest. McCain might as well have been on his knees. I had a great deal of respect for McCain before that moment, but much of it evaporated then.
Maybe he is doing good works behind the scenes, but the corruption of this administration is so great that stronger opposition is called for. America is slow to awaken, but when it does, I think it will be hard on those who were (or seemed to be) complicit in their silence.
John McCain is the biggest phony that ever walked in shoe leather, well except for Joe Lieberman that is.
What are McCain's politics with respect to Israel?
I'm just asking---I don't know.
I respect your respect for McCain, and envy it as I am unable to have much of my own. But Can you comment on the McCain-Obama recent fireworks? I am eager for someone who respects McCain to exlain them to me in a way I trust.
Yawn McCain thinks Cheney has "integrity?" Well, there you go. Nothing says election cycle like the old fashioned butt kissing that is ever pervasive around Babylon on the Potomac. If Dick Cheney has "integrity" then, Adolph Hitler was a true humanitarian. If the "integrity" fits, you probably should acquit!
McCain's 'transformation' into Bush's water boy after Rove trashed him in 2000 has been a sight to behold. His aspirations of being Pres. in 2008 will go up in smoke !!!
Forgot to say I'd love to see McCain face off against Wes Clark.
"McCain is an American hero in my book"
Steve...spare us the acid-reflux you're causing with this incredibly nauseating portrait you're attempting to draw of a man with no backbone for the "reforms" and "ethics" mendaciousness he vomits forth. To pimp such a two-faced, moderate-on-camera-only blowhard as a "hero" is foolhardy at best. This is a man who faked his passion for "torture reform", have it passed, only to say little, and DO nothing, when Bush castrated the meat of it.
I have respect for a man who may speak his mind but lack the means for affecting change. I have no respect for said man who does the former, has the latter, but willfully and deliberately chooses not to. To this man I label a PHONY.
McCain is just that--a phony man, obsequiously fawning over a ruthless, dishonest Administration while attempting to be "concerned". I find it stunning that one could be so hoodwinked by the chicanery that emanates from every pore of this Svengali. Mr. Clemons, do us right and please tell us you penned this in jest...
Steve,
Riddle me this: given an unpopular President who has saddled the country with a difficult, expensive war, who has increased the national debt at breakneck speed, who is letting an important city simply die---why does he receive such absolute loyalty from the major Republicans when push comes to shove?
It's not love, and I doubt it's money.
There's another reason. What is it?
Steve, I'll thank you for the article. I might be the only one (smile) It's a good read and I look forward to hearing more of what McCain said. Wasn't it Clinton quoted saying that you gotta be a whore first to get the nomination. He was quoting Lincoln.
McCain wants it bad...if he makes it (I think it will be a miracle if he does) he'll get my vote. But He's going to have to do alot of whoring to get there: just like Kerry, just like Bush, and just like Clinton.
He's an interesting person but maybe we spend too much time agonizing over his ambition. Maybe someone can here share with us the perfections of the alternatives so we can see the "differences" -- yeah right? how all the others ain't the same ambitious scum as he who'd be acting just like McCain if McCain hadn't already created the "image" and put his stamp on it.
Hilary? a person who has little credibility on Iraq based on her vote to support it for a bunch of half assed reasons. Just the same, If mccain don't make it; she could get my vote easily; she's a viable alternative. But is she any ess ambitious and party loyal than McCain...they are about equal on those issues in my opinion. But I'm not looking for a saint.
Punchy nails it:
"I have respect for a man who may speak his mind but lack the means for affecting change. I have no respect for said man who does the former, has the latter, but willfully and deliberately chooses not to."
Things have gone too far for any true maverick, or any man of integrity, to take only half-measures -- even in, or especially, in the face of his own party.
McCain is a man who, having been tortured, had to be publicly forced into taking a stand against torture committed BY the United States. And in the end, he capitulated, and capitulated wholly, that principle to Bush. On top of that, he uttered not a whimper in capitulating, wholly, on the issue of Executive ability to interpret, change, or wish away Legislative branch action on this and other issues.
Hmm. Milquetoast-y
McCain is a m
I think Steve hit it.
McCain's response is to avoid Cheney's backlash at trying to undercut broad Republican support for McCains 2008 hopes.
Privately, I think McCain dislikes Cheney greatly, we all know how much McCain despises Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld and Cheney are the two headed cabal in Washington. So lets just pust one and two together on this one.
I think the proper way to analyze McCain -- who does, at times, behave quite admirably -- is to contrast him with his best historical counterpart, not Eisenhower, but another prickly, "maverick" senator -- Harry Truman.
Truman, like McCain, had innumerable flaws, but on the issues he tackled, from wartime contracting to national security, in contrast to McCain, Truman got many, extremely useful things done.
The day McCain turns into a Truman for this millenium is the day I start paying attention.
For the moment, he remains a Truman manque, a little man playing at greatness but transparently small to those who would see.
Stop hero-worshipping and you may see things more accurately.
For the record and despite being far to Truman's left politically, I see Ike as by far the better president. A McCain presidency would be a distant third.
Steve,
I have given you much credit for being insightful and unswayed by the 'glamour'of DC; thus I cannot understand why you are so hyped by McCain?
You have to see him in historical context from the craven Keating Hearings through all his feeble show-boating on the misdirection of Campaign Finance Reform and the bluster about an Anti-Torture Bill which he allowed to be eviscerated by Bush and his minion, Lindsey Graham.
And I won't even address his vile attack on Obama in what was probably a feeble attempt to co-opt him and the Democrats on the so-called Ethics Reform.
Limbaugh just last week commanded the Dittoes to raise the standard of George Allen in 08. Rush says he doesn't 'trust McCain'. These petty and uncharacteristically senseless and hyper-partisan tantrums of McCain's seem to me to be a clear reaction to that challenge. We all know what plays best in Ditto Gulch.
Driftglass has it:
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2006/02/match-me-johnny.html\
A sample:
John McCain, moldering middle manager at USA Hardware, who can’t talk back to the hateful, wastrel boss who degrades him, and can’t help noticing that the new guy is already Mr. Popular among his regulars, and is practically measuring the Big Office for drapes and carpet.
And then, one day, he loses it. Starts screaming his head off at the Obama kid in the parking lot.
For what seems a lot like no reason at all.
Aren't unilateralism and agressive internationalism core neocon values? Judging from the comments McCain made regarding the neocons in Steve's post, one has to assume that McCain is not a details kind of guy and probably hasn't read Richard Perle's writings. I hope the dem candidate wins the next presidential election, but if we are going to be stuck with a repub again, I think it imperative that he/she not be someone who is content to leave the details to staff. The republicans seem to prefer this type of leader, but as history has shown this is how we get Iran Contra and renegade Lt. Colonels, human pyramids, and the puppet leader of the free world content to continue reading My Pet Goat after being told Rome is burning.
Further, I live in (democrac majority)Tucson, the second largest city in Arizona. We never see McCain down here unless he is accompanying Bush or Chertoff for a photo op at the border. If he ignores dem areas at the state level how can we have any confidence that his style would differ in the presidency? Some here claim that McCain's grandstanding regarding cleaning up campaign contributions, etc., has more to do with changing the perception of him as one of the "Keating Five".
yeah, George Allen now theres a choice. Another empty suit. Looks good, nice smile, zero accomplishments, no agenda. a choice for people who thing a presidential election is a populatiry contest. Allen sounds like George Bush 8 years ago. i'd take McCain over this guy any day of the week.
if mccain was having a hissy fit over the Bush's (like he was 4 5 years ago we'd all be singing his praises but he's not so we can't.
Republicans like an empty suit with unlimited, unitary power. Nice idea.
JS -- thanks for the reminder re McCain's reln w/ Rumsfeld & the neocon cabal. His view of them, then, is actually less important than what his potential Repub supporters believe his view of them is. When he speaks, he may be speaking ONLY to the Repub base -- not to, or FOR, the country as a whole -- which would explain McCain hedging so mightily.
McCain may simply be outflanked in every direction.
Anybody wonder what role Lindsay Graham played in the South Carolina primary contest between Bush & McCain? I got a big bad feeling some months ago that Graham had Przinential aspirations. Now more recently, Graham had a hand in the "anti-"torture charade.
Still, McCain still didn't come out of THAT looking too leaderly.
the mccain smear against obama was one of the most craven and calculated political stunts i've seen in a while. he was even able to work in the 'straight talk' phrase a few times in self-reference on tweety's show last nite.
mccain is a sleazeball of the highest order. as has been mentioned so many times already, any man who so publicly demonstrates such fealty to someone who smeared his family, is not anyone worthy of my admiration.
and re obama -- he's learning how to deal with the press
"The tone of the letter, I think, was a little over the top," Obama said. "But John McCain's been an American hero and has served here in Washington for 20 years, so if he wants to get cranky once in a while, that's his prerogative."
When asked by a reporter whether the freshman senator had, indeed, called McCain "cranky," Obama said: "You got my quote the first time."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0602080082feb08,1,7954856.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Speaking as someone whose knowledge of John McCain comes only from what I read, and not necessarily with great attention or consistency . . .
He comes across to me as someone who clearly has a strong personality, endured unspeakable conditions in Vietnam, and is purely an opportunist in matters political. I have no idea what he really stands for.
Thanks for your insight and opinion, Steve.
I think McCain's fully aware of how cautious he needs to be to avoid the Wrath of Cheney. Salter's losing it because he fears McCain's portrayal in the film as possibly rockin' the boat a little too hard.
I'm reserving judgement on McCain-for-President. I fear the extremist elements of the GOP are only using him as a front-man, a human shield, for their own ends. Sort of like the President we have now.
I think Josh Marshall is spot-on when he says that McCain went after Obama to create a paper trail of Obama's "disingenuousness" that he or other Republicans can refer back to should Obama ever seek the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. They need a narrative that paints Obama as untrustworthy a la Gore or Kerry, and this is one step toward manufacturing that narrative. McCain is making such a big show of it for the same reason he pretends to hate this film--to prove himself to the Republican establishment. While this may be politically shrewd, it sure ain't "straight talk" or the actions of a "hero". It's the typical behavior of a politician.
McCain is a "hero?"
For the first time, Steve, you're losing me here. McCain is just another Presidential aspirant, albeit with a better bio.
I see no reason to take him at his word that he's a reformer given his lack of courage in standing up to the malfeasance of the current administration and not airing his counter-administration views at any time. Moreover, your fanboy worship is disconcerting and seems based in emotion.
His terminal cautiousness actually reminds me a lot of John Kerry...albeit in a somewhat more charming package. In sum, as a Beltway politician he's somewhat above average at best.....far from a 'hero.'
I have no idea what he really stands for.
Look at his voting record, not his 'maverick' rhetoric.
My first hand experience with McCain was on behalf of traditonmal Hopi and Navajo in Arizona, fighting legislation that McCain sponsored, calling for the forced relocation of 10,000 Native Americans. When I succeeded in bringing the UN into it and arranged for two human rights experts to observe congressional hearings on this legislation, I came face to face, literally with his volatile temper. I considered the legislation a gross injustice to the native americans and motivated by one of McCain's biggest contribotors, Peabody Coal.
No paragon of ethics himself, he is projecting his own disingenuousness onto others. Russ Feingold is who drafted the McCain/Feingold bill. McCain just co-sponsored it in the Senate to appear to be concerned about campagn finance reform, but unlike Russ Feingold, he continued to campaign in the same old money grubbing way.
I don't trust him, I don't like him, I think facilitating the forced "eminent domain' of 10,000 Native Americans off their ancestral land so a contributor can expand their mining operation is beyond the pale.
I don't think it is at all surprising that McCain is terrified about his portrayal in Jarecki's film. Democrats and Independents may find the film balanced, but mainstream Republican warhawks and wingnuts will regard Jarecki as only a slightly more sober version of Michael Moore. When Republicans hear the word "Halliburton", they think "crazy un-American left-wing conspiracy theories." The last thing McCain wants is to come off *good* in a film like *that*. That's no way to win a nomination.
Being analogized to Dwight Eisenhower hardly helps. Sad to say, but Eisenhower is far too moderate for the current crops of military-on-steroids flag conservatives that dominate the Republican Party today. Republicans who lose sleep over the military-industrial complex form an extremely tiny group, perhaps like Democrats who lose sleep over the "academia-Hollywood complex". The modern Republican Party is built on its delivery of military pork from sea to shining sea - and even across the seas to our far-flung military bases.
Winslow Wheeler's description of McCain, in his book *The Wastrels of Defense* as an "enabler of pork" describes it well, I think. McCain talks a big reformist game, but doesn't deliver. I think McCain's political strategy in most areas is the same as his strategy in the defense area. His wink-and-nod message to the Republican establishment is, "Cut me some slack to engage in a few symbolic rhetorical flights from time to time, and allow me to pose as a reformer. It will help me in a general election, and you know I don't really intend to act on my words in the end."
However, his portrayal by Jarecki might suggest to his party's backers that he has wandered completely off the reservation, and really means it this time. So it is no surprise that he is out to aggressively nip this one in the bud.
And please, don't let him get away with blaming this all on an "overzealous staffer".
Thanks, Kathleen. What happened in the end with the legislation?
McCain's foriegn policy hasn't changed since he ran for president in 2000. Anyone who read it would understand that he hasn't been inconsistant.
McCain's foriegn policy from his presidential run called for the removal (by force if necessary) of foriegn dictators and installing democratically elected officials to replace them; stricking hostile governments FIRST if necessary to PRE-EMPT other nations from attacking us. It was called Rogue state rollback. McCain had all the neocons from the weekly standard on his side back then.
McCain is not pretending to endorse Bush's foriegn policy because it's HIS foriegn policy. I doubt many read it b/c they were too busy listening to how "liberal" he was. that was the mother and father of all lies.
What upsets me are the Bush backers who criticized McCain's foriegn policy but embrace now and people who think McCain is a moderate who betrayed them or sellig out.
It's no wonder McCain finds it easy to endorse and support what Bush is doing. It's not an act. McCain is right when he says the Bush people elected is not the bush they got. he should have said when it comes to foreign policy the Bush the GOP backed isn't the Bush they elected.
Steve I wish you would ask Salter what he thinks. of bush use of McCain foreign policy and the gop embrace of it and I wish the rest of you would stop saying he's selling out. Bush is using his ideas for all we know he's gratified by that.
marky >"...There's another reason. What is it?"
Have you ever head the phrase "NSA intercepts" ?
I`m sure you can start to connect the dots since there are so many of them to connect it should be easy
"...This is not a game." - Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)
DaCascadian:
Of course.. but there is also a long history of the Bush family successfully silencing former insiders who are critics---D'iulio and O'Neill come to mind.
I don't what horses' heads the Bush's have, but there's some intimidation beyond the ordinary involved.
McCain is a "hero?"
On January 25, 2006 Steve wrote:
"...I was actually born in Salina, Kansas at a military hospital there..."
I think Steve has a soft spot for military people; McCain, Clark, etc.
Understandable, given his background.
Marky >"...I don't what horses' heads the Bush's have, but there's some intimidation beyond the ordinary involved."
The content of said intercepts
Use you imagination; sex, drugs, shady money movement
the usual stuff
Remember Gary Hart`s "adventure" when he ran for POTUS ?
If you are "lilly livered" then any threat backed up by evidence is too much to take; No Courage to Fight
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille
When Winslow Wheeler was writting under Spartucus he dimed out everybody except his Boss DeMinichi. he always praised him. Now he got a book
I will fully support John McCain in 2008 just as I did in 2000. I hope the great pretender Barak Obama disappears into the fog and smoke of Chicago, where all phoneys like Hillary should go.
Feingold. The true bastion of a strong willed political leader.
So strong, he let NARAL and other left wing groups put his family jewels into a vice grip regarding the 08 campaign, and support a filibuster, after the groups privately scolded and threatened Feingold and others, like Kerry regarding their tacit unwilligness to attack Roberts.
The fact is every single politician in Washington has blemishes. If youre waiting to hold someone up as the next Messiah, youre wasting your time.
McCain has some, for sure, he has some crankyness to him.
Allen has some vanilla extract in his bloodstream.
Kerry flip flops due to polls.
Edwards uses paralyzed people as a debate ploy.
Well said JS. Problem is the GOP faithful claim they got a Messiah: George Bush. Maybe some people here think the Dems need a Messiah too.
If memory serves me correctly. Eisenhower had a first draft of his farewell address that referenced a military-industrial-congressional complex. He was convinced somehow to leave out the reference to congress. Can anyone elaborate on this?
Jim
It sounds as if McCain is against the same things the Democrats have been talking about right along. I admire Sen McCain for his service in the Vietnam war and his stalwart demeanor as a prisoner of war. However, I think he has gotten himself on the wrong side at this time---he would probably be a shoo-in as a Democrat. I always had been an independent voter, but the Republican Party has become so depraved that I would not trust voting for any of them any time soon.
John McCain, his wife, and his daughter were viciously attacked by the Bush campaign during the 2000 primaries. The Senator and his wife were accused of having a mental ilness and having a "black daughter." 4 years later McCain happily endorsed President Bush for re-election.
A man who won't defend and stand up for his own family has no integrity and is not worth of the White House. McCain will sell out his own wife and child for poltical opportunism, and that's a disgrace.
here is a bit from a Rolling Stone article about Sen Brownback, re taking Miers out of contention:
Alito was in the Senate hearing room that day largely because of Brownback's efforts. Last October, after Bush named his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court, Brownback politely but thoroughly demolished her nomination -- on the grounds that she was insufficiently opposed to abortion. The day Miers withdrew her name, Sen. John McCain surprised the mob of reporters clamoring around Brownback outside the Senate chamber by grabbing his colleague's shoulders. "Here's the man who did it!" McCain shouted in admiration, a big smile on his face.
McCain's "straight talking integrity" is a schtick. I'm with Gary: anyone who gets all huggy and kissy with the people who slimed his family is no hero, no leader, no Man on a White Horse coming to save the day.
Bring it on McCain vs. Wes Clark in 2008
The 4 star general KO's the lame ass pretender !
Jim,
In answer to your query, it definitely is true that first draft of the Eisenhower speech had military-industrial-Congressional complex in it. I wish I could recall the book reference, but I found it in a book about Eisenhower at Borders a couple years ago--even had a draft with it changed. So this is pretty well known to be true. It was his farewell address--so he decided it would be nicer to leave it out.
The following is from NY Review of Books:
www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=13948
If you Google "Eisenhower" and "military-industrial-Congressional complex," you get a lot of references to this.
www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=13948
If you or Senator McCain think any logical American respects him after the 2000 election and then he later hugged President Bush in the 2004 Election, you are wrong. What respect we had for Senator McCain was lost when he kissed ass to George Bush to remain the good guy in Republican Politics instead of what most Americans considered him as the Independent!!! Mr. McCain, stop trying to destroy Barak Obama(SP) when what you did in 2004 was disgraceful for all veterans & other Amercans!!
The opinion here is that McCain's biggest crime is backing Bush in 2004. I say again that since Bush is using McCain's foriegn policy from his 2000 campaign I don't understand why anyone expected him to do otherwise. Anyone HERE who was prepared to vote for McCain in 2000 should have read his foriegn policy. The humble Bush foriegn policy the GOP voted for is NOT the Bush foreign policy they got. What they got is McCain's foriegn policy. McCain is MORE conservative than Bush and aways has been. Alot more.
And I don't think this spat hurt him or Obama seriously. It'll be forgotten soon. I like both men; but I adore neither. From reading this blog I'd say Obama is adored here an it's a fool's notion to adore politicians.
Norah Ephron weighs in on McCain:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
"What is to be done about grown men and John McCain? If this question is not at the top of your list of puzzles, it's only because you were busy doing something worthwhile at five o'clock yesterday. I on the other hand, was watching Hardball.
And there was Senator John McCain.
And more to the point, there was Chris Matthews.
He was panting like a collie. He was grinning like a fool. He had a case of the Russerts that was practically terminal. He was talking to McCain about McCain's letter to Senator Obama, and they were having the most wonderful time, the two of them, just smirking and laughing and joking and chortling, and then Matthews told McCain what a "brilliantly angry" letter it was and McCain smirked and laughed and joked and chortled some more.
Then they went on to discuss Hillary, the NSA and the Coretta Scott King funeral, and at the end of their ten-minute interview, Chris Matthews was practically hyperventilating.
I should probably confess at this point that I am somewhat obsessed with Chris Matthews and am always amazed at the fact that he says more words in a minute than anyone on the planet. But my point is not really about Matthews, even though I could write about him forever. My point is that Matthews is a perfect example -- although obviously exaggerated -- of what happens to men in the presence of Senator McCain. They lose their minds. They suck up. They turn absolutely giddy. They ask questions they don't care about the answers to. It's Valentine's Day.
Is it the torture that causes them to go all weak-kneed? That's obviously part of it. Is it that he resonates with the balls most men know they don't have? Maybe. Is it that he seems to have so much testosterone that it's catching? I don't know. But when I see John McCain on television being interviewed by Chris Matthew, I know in my heart that there is not a man in America who would not vote for the guy.
Which is profoundly depressing.
I mean, I don't expect all men to believe (as I do) that you can't under any circumstances support a presidential candidate who is against choice. I don't expect all men to believe (as I do) that for McCain to have given that revolting speech for George Bush at the last convention was unforgivable. I don't expect all men to understand (as I do) that in the end, Republicans are Republicans.
But what is to be done?"
marky, et al -- this is verging into tin-foil territory, but Wayne Madsen speculates that the reason McCain supports Bush, despite everything, is they have some damaging goods on him relating to negligence and the deadly fire on the USS Forrestal in 1967. At the same time, his father Admiral McCain was involved in the cover-up of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty.
I don't have any way of researching the validity of these claims, but it's an interesting thing to think about. Scroll to the bottom for the story:
I agree with whomever it was above who said McCain was cranky. He is. He's the designated cranky repub like Hillary Clinton is the designated cranky dem. Americans don't like pols with no sense of humor, they seem to lack personality. Dems badly need a personality injection, where can we find one? Mark Warner?
Why waste time with Mathews or any of those type of predictable talking head shows. as soon as you know who the guest is; you can figure out what the script will be before word one between them is exchanged. Matthews, Oberman, Limbaugh, O'reilly, each one very predictable. so why get upset over ones who are against us and praise the ones who say what we want to here. Aren't they all alike: predictably on message having chosen their side. They are sell outs to their profession.
McCain is a slithery, two faced politician: Here's more proof.
McCain's about face on public financing of elections
by kos
http://www.dailykos.com/
Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:32:38 AM PDT
Encouraging proposal by Dodd and Durbin:
"Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin and Sen. Chris Dodd, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, said yesterday that they will push for public financing of federal elections.
The revelations follow public financing proposals that two senior House Democrats unveiled late last month.
Rep. David Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, announced Jan. 25 plans to reform dramatically the funding of House campaigns. Under their proposal, taxpayers would be asked to contribute voluntarily to a national campaign fund.
Congressional observers largely dismissed Obey and Frank's proposal as a political gesture, but Durbin and Dodd's support for public financing of elections makes the concept more viable.
McCain immediately dismissed the proposal yesterday with a flat "no."
"We've only had BCRA for one election cycle," McCain said, referring to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Interesting that McCain would be so against this proposal, given that Mr. Straight Talker sounded a heck of a lot different back in December 12, 2002 on Bill Moyer's show:
BILL MOYERS: Senator, in your home state of Arizona, a number of candidates recently were elected to office running with public funding, public financing. Would you support it? Would you endorse, what do you think about that experiment there?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I think it's good overall. I think it needs to, like any other new experiment, it needs to have some wrinkles taken out of it. But we had more people run for public office than any time in the history of our state, and that's what it was all about.
As I say, there's some fixes that need to be made, but it was a new experiment, and overall I think was very successful and interestingly the ones who are running, you know what they're telling me? They said, surprise, surprise, I spend my time talking to voters not to contributors.
BILL MOYERS: Do you think that could become a model for the nation as a whole?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Absolutely.
Why the about-face by McCain?
As for you guys, you want election reform? You want money out of politics? Time to start telling your congressmen and senators to get behind this effort."
Again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Both parties would benefit greatly if our elected officials and candidates spent their time talking to voters instead of donors. Who wouldn't benefit? Lobbyists and big money interests.
Members of both parties will have to make a choice between the people and the lobbyists and big money interests. I don't expect all Democrats to do the right thing on the issue, and I don't expect all Republicans to do the wrong thing."
Farmgirl: I'm sure the RNC has much better material on what McCain did or failed to do on the USS Forrestal. they determined back in 2000 that he was completely responsible for that tragedy. You should simply contact them.
CharlesJordan -- Yeah, like the RNC is going to talk to someone with an "IMPEACH" sign in their front yard! It would be great if someone would ask him about it, though, get it out in the open for good or ill:
"Senator, is it true that the Administration has been blackmailing you with evidence suggesting that negligence on your part contributed to the tragedy on the USS Forrestal?"
Anyone? Anyone? (Bueller?) Our very own Steve C?
Speaking of mCcain and campaign finance [segue here], what's the big fat problem with pulling the plug on the whole money machine?
The airwaves are owned by the public. Broadcasters' licenses are predicated on the notion that licensees will perform some sort of public service, as well as abide by the general principle of relatively wide access.
So why not legislate free access to the airwaves for political campaign ads? It's just another form of zoning. Or institute a nominal fee.
THAT's where the heist is taking place. Those are OUR airwaves. Instead of serving the public interest, licensees are using the airwaves as the site of a newer version of highway robbery. And on those publicly owned, original information highways, licensees are forcing politicians to openly perform an act of prostitution -- right there on the roadside for all to see.
It's hardly an open, perfectly operating free market, accessible to all. It's owned by the public. And the legal obligation is already there. It's certainly more akin to public utility than it is to a natural resource.
So why not nationalize it? It's the source of the money problem. So why not pull the plug?
If youre going to kill McCain for forgiving Bush and supporting him, then at least have some sanity
and knock Hillary Clinton for standing and defending her husband after the whole Lewinsky scandal and his lie directly to the camera and her face. She has no guts either if thats the crux of peoples arguments.
Farmgirl, I'm just saying its wrong to imply he was somehow personal responsible for that tragedy. The book I was referring to is by Gregory Freeman. The Navy was using WWI bombs that were unstable and had been causing problems for some time and there had been many complaints and lots of smaller expostions and fires; the incident on the USS Forrestal forced the Navy to stop using those bombs. the ship's captain was court marshalled; after giving consideration to suing and taking the Navy to court the captian chose not too and retired. the charges against him were later dropped and his official retirement record was amended--years later.
Its fair to hold McCain responsible for his political actions but that doesn't justify blaming him for happened on the Forrestal. do you REALLY want to conduct yourself like Rush Limbaugh?. You should ask yourself that question.
(The problem with America is they don't know their own history)
A recent example of McCain's attempts to have it both ways:
Including a chapter on Darwin in his book, and then advocating the teaching of ID in schools "alongside" of Darwin ("every point of view should be taught").
This is not the position of a man of courage.
There's a reason the senior Senator from Arizona is the most popular politician in America and has been for years. It is because the American public...not the die-hard blue's of the Northeast or the die-hard red's of the South...but the average guy and gal...the guy and gal who don't surf political blogs, who don't know Rice from Roni, whose only knowledge of the events of the day slowly cascade over them from the 6 o'clock news out of the T.V. in the family room while they're at the dinner table with their families. The guy and gal who are more interested in raising their families, paying their bills, watching Sunday football...these are McCain's people. They don't give two chits about gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, the United Nations, France, China or global warming. They are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. They are centrists. These people are the reason John McCain is as popular as he is and why he'll be elected President in 2008. The "elitists", the "intellectuals", discard these people as irrelevant...HUGE MISTAKE! They aren't stupid hicks, they aren't ignorant...they just have better things to do than piss and moan about politics.
Bush/Rove are positioning McCain to be the GOP nominee in '08. While their differences and animosity are pretty big...I believe that Bush/Rove feel McCain is the only Republican who can win in '08, and better a Republican (even McCain) gets elected than a Democrat (especially Hillary). Remember, Mark McKinnon, Bush's PR man out of Texas the last two campaigns and for Governor before that, has hooked up with McCain's "Straight Talk" group and has made it clear that should McCain run, he's going to be working on the Senator's behalf. McKinnon could not make this move without Rove's say so...In addition, Bush barely makes a speech without mentioning McCain in a strong light...Bush is constantly trying to make sure the public believes his administration has the backing of the senior Senator from Arizona. Rove will keep the Religious Right at bay in '08 and make sure they don't get in McCain's way, as he and the President know McCain is the GOP's only hope of keeping the WH. Who else is there? John McCain is the most popular politician in America across the board. Who else does the GOP have? Mitt Romney? He'll be lucky to get reelected Gov of MA, plus he's a Mormon and that won't fly nationwide. Rudy? Yesterday's news, too much baggage relative to his personal life. George Allen? His dead dad is more popular in Virginia than he is. Brownback? Looks like a televangelist with a bad haircut. Santorum? Makes Reagan look like a Communist. Frist? Outside of Mercy Hospital in Nashville no one knows him. Gingrich? Too controversial. Condi? Countries not ready for that. Hagel? I'd go for him, but not well known enough and it's too late in the game for him to get his name out there, plus he’s basically a younger McCain. There aren't any Republican Governors of note, perhaps Owens of Colorado but too conservative for the current electorate and Jeb can’t run this soon after his brother. Rove/Bush realize all of this and that's why they got McKinnon on board with McCain and will be supporting him behind closed doors.
As for McCain essentially “embracing†the President since 2000…simple. He’s his President!!!! There are still people around who hold that title dear to their hearts, regardless of how much Bill Clinton tried his best to soil it.
CharlesJordan -- I must say your posts are completely puzzling. The first one, referring me to the RNC, was apparently of a sarcasm so dense as to be opaque.
In the second post, you say "The book I was referring to is by Gregory Freeman." Referring to? Where, exactly?
I also don't think your comparison to Rush Limbaugh is fair. I prefaced the initial comment with the caveat that it was sourced from possible tin-foil territory, and acknowledged that I did not have the means to further research the validity of the claim. I appreciate that you provided further data on the Forrestal incident. Perhaps you could comment on the following: according to WM (see previous link), the bombs that caused the fire were the ones attached to McCain's airplane. Even if this is true, I agree with your point that it does not justify *blaming* McCain for the tragedy; what I was suggesting (perhaps unclearly) was that the White House could threaten to bring this forward as a smear against McCain's military record.
As we all know, the Administration has a proven record smearing war records. I mean, if they'll stoop to devaluing the Purple Heart, what would stop them from turning an unfortunate coincidence (McCain's service on USS Forrestal) into something more? I don't think it's much of a stretch to assert that if *Kerry* had served on that ship, B/C2004 would have made the fire into a major campaign issue.
"(The problem with America is they don't know their own history.)" How true. As a CANADIAN, I couldn't agree more.
Farmgirl,
I think you have a plausible theory, regardless of the facts of the Forrestal incident.
Given the proven, effective record of using smears against political opponents, I think the threat of "swiftboating" McCain would be a serious one.
That said, I agree with Charles that McCain really is a wingnut. There's nothing strange about him being an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war.
Doug Jones:
"who don't know Rice from Roni"
Best line ever.
Watched McCain on Letterman. Was stunned when he said Bush and Rice were doing a good job on foreign policy! Also didn't like the superficial way he peddled Bush's line on Iran. Was gobsmackked when he said that evrything was going fine for Bush ubtil last year, 2005. Where the bloody hell has his head been???? He didn't like the way Bush handled Katrina so 'next question, heheheh' You guys are kidding if you think he should be Prez in 2008.
Jojam -- Did Dave Letterman happen to show the "Why We Fight" clip to McCain, or did they skip it?
Best,
Steve Clemons
The only problem with the film is the positive spin McCain gets free of charge. Why he wouldn't like that is beyond my wildest guess. After I saw McCain on the Letterman show a couple of nights ago, I wrote a blog. If McCain's office reads this, they'll really go ballistic:
http://truthpeeler.com/blog/index.php?blogId=1
Reader Comments (68) - post a comment