Joe Conason: What happened to McCain the reformer?

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/06/13/obama_smears/

What happened to McCain the reformer?

He should follow Obama's lead and tell his rich supporters that he won't tolerate vicious advertising paid for with sewer money.

By Joe Conason


June 13, 2008 | By inviting Barack Obama to join him in town hall forums across the country, John McCain means to send a signal about the campaign ahead -- and about himself. We don't need no stinking moderators, media or spin rooms, barks the straight shooter. We can meet mano a mano for a clean, fair debate focused on the great issues that face America rather than on nitpicking process questions and the politics of personal destruction.

If sincere, that would represent a refreshing departure from the depressing pattern of past campaigns, and McCain's proposal is worthy of praise (even though his first town hall in New York City Thursday night looked fake, according to Fox News). But if he is still as serious about reform as he once was -- and really wants a clean campaign -- then he will have to do what Obama has already done.

McCain should tell his party's fat cat donors in no uncertain terms that they should not support the "independent" 527 or so-called 501(c)(4) groups that will produce this year's version of the 2004 Swift boat ads.

During the course of his political career, McCain has certainly established a record of hostility to those tactics, as both a legislator and a candidate. Having confronted the same kind of shadowy negative advertising blitz, mounted in South Carolina during the 2000 Republican primary on behalf of the Bush campaign, he regards himself as a victim of that style of politics, not a perpetrator. He publicly denounced those tactics when they were used against his friend John Kerry. Then he sought to ban the kind of soft money that finances such ads, not only through legislation but in court as well, taking on groups that promoted Republican candidates and issues as well as those on the Democratic side.

snip//

At the moment, Democratic and Republican campaign aides are quietly negotiating how to conduct a campaign that is more debate than destruction. But that cannot occur unless McCain suddenly reverts to his former character and behaves as honorably as Obama -- and shows the guts to tell his rich supporters that he will ostracize anyone who promotes vicious advertising with sewer money.

It will be a surprise, sad to say, if we ever see that good ole maverick again.

[eleny]

1. What did he reform?

Just my question to Joe C. I can't think of a body of reforms that would make anyone refer to McCain as "the reformer". Seems like he plays the moment for his advantage and is more of a chameleon. Whatever is expedient for his career is what he says or does minute to minute.

[mascarax]

2. OK, just *when* was he a "maverick"?

Can someone explain to me, please?

Because it seems to me he was a "maverick" only AFTER he lost to Dubya in the primary. Then he lashed out and was contrary. Is that why he's a "maverick"?

Seriously. Educate me.

(I like Joe Conason and miss Al Franken's Air America show. But it saddens me that he's out there with the "we miss that good ole maverick" sentiment.)

[babylonsister]

3. It's a media myth; they created it and have been unwilling to disown it:

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/02/the-mccain-mave.html

[Igel]

4. I'd like to be educated, too.

It's not just a percentage of votes in accordance with what the party dictates or desires. That's not enough.

Most votes are fairly petty kinds of things: Bills that have been reconciled between House and Senate versions, resolutions that are pretty inane or remarkably pointless, etc., etc. Some votes are not inane: I'd say voting to pass the first House version of the Patriotic Act is more important than voting to pass the conference bill (for a representative); voting to pass the tax cuts is more important than voting to pass some resolution marking some holiday; voting to confirm Roberts or Scalia is more important than voting to confirm some low-ranking federal judge.

But all I get are summaries: 99% in keeping with X (whatever that means), 83% in keeping with Y (ditto). Do the summaries include *all* bills? Does it include just the conference versions of bills that pass, get reconciled, and resubmitted, or both preliminary and final versions? Just substantive bills (and how do we define "substantive"?)?

Dunno.