Channel Mike

Last night, at the Republican National Convention, I heard Fred Thompson say, "It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves: 'Who is this man?' and 'Can we trust this man with the presidency?'" about John McCain. But, somehow, I find myself asking those very questions.

First, Who is this man? I used to have a lot of respect for John McCain. Once upon a time, he actually acted like a maverick rather than just painting himself one. He was popular nationwide because he seemed to rise above partisanship. He put an exclamation point on this reputation a few years ago by correctly standing up and fighting against his party's acceptance (and re-branding) of torture. He angered his party's Christian-right base by correctly referring to Christian-right leaders as "agents of intolerance." He was able to do this politically because he didn't have to worry too much about the bible belt and the far-right. He only had to worry about being elected in Arizona. In 2004, amid rumors of John Kerry asking McCain to be his running mate, I thought it would be a good idea. McCain would have the freedom to do what was right. He could move leftward and ask the Republicans to understand that he was part of a Democratic administration and that it required compromise. He could move rightward and ask the Democratic administration to understand that he was still a Republican and represented their views. He had political cover that would have given him freedom.

But what about now? At this point, I really have no idea what John McCain would do as president. Would he cave to the pressure from Republicans to be their consistent Republican president? Would he still be a maverick? Who knows?

• In 2000, McCain called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agents of intolerance. He then told Gloria Borger on Face the Nation in February, 2000, about Bob Jones University, “If I were there, I would condemn openly the policies of Bob Jones, because I would want to make sure that everybody knew that this kind of thing is not American.” He came out publicly against the most ignorant of the fundamentalists. Two years later, Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on gays and feminists. But rather than further distancing himself from their bigotry, he decided in 2006 to give the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. He stepped back from his previous statement about Bob Jones University, saying now that he'd "have to look at it." If he caves to pressure so easily, the evangelicals belong to one group that certainly knows how to pressure. So, if elected, is McCain a reasonable moderate or a pawn of the religious-right? I can't tell.
• In 1999, McCain said in New Hampshire, "I would not support repeal of Roe v Wade." To be fair and clear, McCain has always been pro-life, I'm not painting him pro-choice; and he very reasonably said at the same time that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions. In November, 2006, however, he told George Stephanopoulos "I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states." This makes it hard for me to know McCain. Is he for or against the Roe decision? Would he appoint those "activist judges" he abhors to change existing law? Or not? I really can't tell. I don't know this man.
• John McCain, in maverick fashion, voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts with only one other Republican. He reasonably noted that they were skewed for the well-off. He then voted against Bush's repeal of the estate tax twice in 2002. The next year, he voted against them again. This time, reasonably saying that our budget deficits could not support a tax cut. But in 2005, with worse deficits and the poor and middle class suffering tougher times than ever, he voted FOR the cuts. This time, he didn't comment about class or budgets. He is now campaigning for tax cuts. I don't know this man. Is his recent vote his new position, or just a pander?
• John McCain has written and/or sponsored several bills with Russ Feingold, Martin Meehan, and Christopher Shays working toward campaign finance reform. This all used to seem reasonable. Feingold and Meehan are Democrats while McCain and Shays are Republicans. This seems like a great thing to tout as a bi-partisan effort to clean up Washington. The bill is so famous that the term "McCain-Feingold" is synonymous with campaign finance reform. Bi-partisanship and reform are core tenets of both parties' current campaigns. But after putting forward a bill in 2003 that was not passed, why was the same bill put forward again in 2006 without McCain's name? It turns out that die-hard conservatives are against any public money going to campaigns and have been opposing this bill for years. So, off comes McCain's name. So McCain used to be for public money, and now he's against it, right? Well, not really. He seems to have switched back, now, taking public money for his current presidential bid. Confused about where he stands on campaign finance? Yeah, me too. I just can't seem to get to know this guy.
• There's one issue where we all know John McCain, though. He has picked up a lot of press for being against torture. And he's not just against that narrow barbaric stuff that even Bush still classifies as torture, but he's against all of the other torture that they've redefined, too. This is something true to his heart as a former POW. He can't possibly budge on this. He's built his recent reputation on it. He even wrote the bill that says our government cannot torture prisoners at Guantanamo. But I'm confused. Why is there a loophole written into that law that when torture happens, it can't be enforced in the courts? Why write a law that can't be enforced? Now I can't tell. I have to assume that McCain is seriously anti-torture, but I'm not convinced he'll actually do anything real to stop it. It's seeming like all talk, now.
• McCain used to be against ethanol. He said, in 2003, "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve our air quality." But after Bush embraced ethanol he told Tim Russert in 2006 that "ethanol makes a lot of sense." McCain does say that he accepts global warming as real. He accepts that our dependence on foreign oil is a problem. But I can't seem to figure out what he wants to do about it. Who is this man and what will he do to our energy policy?
• On war, things are more complex because every war is different. But McCain voted against his hero Reagan's invasion of Lebanon in 1983 even though the intervention in Lebanon was based on the same reasons we're in Iraq today. The only difference is that we actually had an embassy bombed in Lebanon. Iraq has done nothing of the sort. His quotes on the matter are actually hilarious to read today in comparison to Iraq. Believe it or not, he was even skeptical of the 1991 invasion of Iraq. Try on this 1990 quote, "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood." But for today's war, where Iraq did not invade us or any of its neighbors, and did not bomb any embassies or anything else, McCain is fully behind it. And he's talked about bombing Iran. Every one of these engagements has legitimate arguments for and against them and I'm not getting into that here. But I'm confused again. I don't know how this guy thinks. I don't know his position on foreign policy and intervention. I just can't figure out what to expect.
• Here's another. In 2000, working for South Carolina's vote, he said this regarding the confederate flag, "Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage." Then, in 2002, "The Confederate flag should be taken down." Whether the confederate flag flies is truly not an important issue in this election, but can't he even take a principled stand on a local issue like that?
• Steve Benen has compiled a list of 75 McCain flip-flops on his site.

So, actually, Fred, I heartily ask the question, "Who is this man?" I'd like to know. I'll forgive quite a bit of positioning (formerly flip-flopping) politically because I understand the necessity of winning the primary first and the general next. Every candidate from either party must do this to have a legitimate shot. I also understand that McCain learned this lesson the hard way. He was fairly reasonable in 2000 and learned that Bush's extremist pandering is the more effective way to win a primary. I still don't know which way he'd go if he were actually elected. I don't know this man, and I've tried.

The next question, "Can we trust this man with the presidency?" is also at the top of my list. I, personally do not trust him to be president. He has mis-spoken so many times that I'm not sure if he actually knows what he's talking about. He's 72 years old and his mental capacity can only go downhill from here. Even after he's won the primary, he's still pandering to the right by selecting an extremist governor for Vice President. I don't trust him one bit.

• The normal way for a politician to flip-flop is for Republicans to lean to the right during the primaries because the voters are all Republicans. Democrats will, of course, lean left during their primary. Once the primary has determined a nominee, the candidate is then free to lean back to the middle as subtly as possible to compete for the centrist and opposing voters. This makes sense and has worked in the past. Obama has done this well. He is now competing for the centrist vote by moving toward the middle. McCain, after having locked up the nomination months ago, is still moving rightward. This is alarming. In a country that has been getting more and more tired of George Bush and Republicans in general, McCain is working on shoring up that hated base. I'm sure he sees it as politically expedient, but I see it as a lapse in judgement. There's no way that assuring the extremists at the expense of the reasonable moderates can still pay off the way it did for Bush and Rove. That ploy has been exposed and is much more transparent today.
• The shifts in position outlined above strongly deteriorate the trustworthiness of John McCain just as Obama's milder shifts more mildly deteriorate Obama's trustworthiness. As I mentioned before, I forgive a lot of this as political necessity, but while Obama is fine-tuning arguments to appeal to a broader population, McCain seems to be changing his arguments completely from years past. And he's not through just because he's shored up the nomination. He's now nominated a pro-life, NRA-member, book-banning, ANWR-drilling Vice President who debated that Creationism should be taught in public school while campaigning for Governor. McCain, himself, has stated that he accepts evolution. But maybe that has changed, too.
• John McCain, the supposed military expert, repeatedly stated on camera in March that Iran was supporting Al Quaeda in Iraq. When reporters, knowing this must have been a slip of the tongue, offered him the chance to elaborate and clear up the mistake, he continued to say it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." Now that his foot was firmly in his mouth and he was clearly wrong about Shia Iran supporting rival Sunni terrorists, his buddy Joe Lieberman whispered into his ear and McCain finally apologized and corrected his remark. If McCain really does not know the difference between extremist groups, I don't trust him to be president. If he actually does know, but can't seem to talk about it correctly, I don't trust him to be president. He must know the facts and clearly express them to be an effective president.
• Lastly, John McCain is 72 years old. Don't get me wrong. I like, love, and respect many people in their 70's and older. I learn from their wisdom and experience. I obviously can't criticize anyone for growing older. My concern is that no matter how great a person is or was, their faculties are going downhill at his age. It is a medical fact that he'll be slower and less aware of what's going on around him by the end of his term than he is now. He's already stumbling through speeches and misspeaking about religious sects in the middle east. What's next? I advocate respecting our seniors, thanking them for their service, and allowing them to live and work with dignity. I do not advocate installing them as president. This guy can't even run a computer. How can you trust a guy this far detached from the reality of the rest of us to make decisions on any technology, let alone cutting edge stem-cell biotechnology? Let's teach him how to use e-mail while Barack Obama uses his analytical abilities to make presidential decisions with help from Joe Biden's wisdom and experience.

Sorry, Fred. I don't know what he stands for. I don't know what he'll do as President. I don't trust him. I don't think his judgement extends much further than his ambition. I think he was a maverick because he thought the media liked a maverick. I think he's a conservative because he thinks Republicans like a conservative. There's some merit in representing the desires of the people, but McCain isn't even doing that. He's trying to appeal to a minority of Americans who have already had much more influence than they're due. Try asking the questions rather than just asserting they don't need asking. You may learn something. ... Then again, maybe not.

You've got to take a look at this, from Comedy Central. It's more informative than anything on ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN.