Like many here, I have never understood the deference that the media and many of his peers have for him. I never saw the maverick that the media loved so much over the years. I still remember a dinner with friends, where one man I knew as a strong liberal and great person spoke of hoping that McCain beat GWB. He then suggested he might vote for him over Gore. (His problem with Gore was the nastiness of the 1988 primaries) Another man, immediately took issue listing the very condervative principles and votes that McCain cast. However, my friend was not alone, in many many articles after Jeffords changed party, there was speculaton on who else could change party -- and McCain was discussed more than the more obvious choices like Specter and Snowe.
I suspect that this might come from media reports on McCain, dwelling on his histroy and the positive aspects of his personality - rather than his ideology. It was not surprising at all that a made for TV movie on his bravery in the Vietnam war was out a few years before 2008. He was shown as nobeling refusing a release of who his father was. That was an action consistent with his definition of honor and he did it at great cost to himself. I would guess that it is that action plus the many accounts that he is an interesting person that lead to so many prominent Democrats having long been on record with their admiration of McCain. This is stunning especially because he always could have been seen as a potential nominee for President.
That background allowed McCain to never really be called out when he transgressed - even when he was one of the Keating 5. (Consider that this had a very negative impact on American hero, John Glenn) Nor did any accounts of McCain's terrible temper ever harm his chances.
More than the media, likely seeing John McCain always as a fascinating story, it is the genuine affection and respect from Democrats including most of the ones I most respect. The most complex relationship was likely with John Kerry. In fact, Kerry's campaign should have asked people to read the chapter of one of McCain's books on their POW/MIA work, because Kerry's effective leadership, calm responses under intense pressure and his commitment were as good a reccommendation as I have read of anyone. What is unusual is that McCain's own account showed his own weaknesses. I suspect it is that willingness to publicly show vulnerability that might lead to both his peers and the media protecting him.
However, his appearance yesterday was very McCain in nature. First of all, he flew accross the country to cast a vote that opened the way to potentially pass a terrible bill that will kick millions off health care. Then, because he is McCain, he gave a grandiose speech that spoke of wanting to get back to a Senate where both parties worked together. In that same speech, he lied that the Democrats refused to allow Republicans any input on Obamacare. In his speech he said he would not vote for the bill as is -- but before the day ended .. HE VOTED FOR THE BILL he said he had concerns about before going to Arizona!
The lie that Republicns had no voice is not a "little" lie, it is a gigantic lie he could safely make because Republicans have claimed that for 7 years because no Republican (other than one in the House) voted for the bill. However, getting no votes does not mean having no voice. Apparently he forgot the 4 month delay during which Baucus worked with a subset of the Finance committee including Snowe, Hatch, Grassley and Enzi plus right leaning Democrats, Conrad and Bingaman. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/health-cares-gang-on-the-hill/?_r=0 What is clear is McConnell bullied everyone to voteagainst it. I watched the Finance committee vote when the bill was voted out. It was expected to be party line, but Snowe voted for it saying she did not want to be on the wrong side of history. A few months later, on the Senate floor, she voted no to essentially the same bill.
That effort very likely had the long term cost of pushing back when a bill passed the Senate. The cost of that was very high. Imagine that a bill passed in late October (2 months earlier than the week before Christmas when it did pass). the likelihood is that the House and Senate conference would have made the tweeks needed and the conference bill would then have passed completely under the normal process before Christmas. Incidentially had health care been a done deal, it is even likely that Scott Brown might have lost, giving us another year with 60 senators.
I was reading in the WP today that Joe Donelley wants to get a vote on his amendment that would throw the bill back to the committees that should have written it -- to allow it to be worked on in a bipartisan way. This amendment is asking for just what McCain called for ... but does anyone think he would vote for it if there Collins and Murkowsky were for it?
What surprises me about McCain is that with nothing left to lose, he could have come back -- asked to speak BEFORE the vote not immediately afterward and made almost the same speech. The difference would be that of course it makes no sense to open discussion on what he himself called a shell of a bill when he was arguing that what was needed was a bipartisan process. It would have been heroic to come back and make THAT speech to the Republicans before the vote. It also would have meant he would vote NO on the MTP. Instead, to borrow from Hamilton, McCain threw away his shot giving what could have been a powerful speech had it outined a path to achieve it.
That could have been the impetus to REALLY start a bipartisan process. It is even possible that it could have led to something that could get 60 or more votes - as ACA did, while McConnell is struggling for 50. McCain has been attacked by the far right, Trump's base for years. That will continue - even with the speech he did give, which they will trash. As to the media, very will continue their canonization of this heroic, but flawed man.
= new reply since forum marked as read
