..... the McCain attribute that's probably rankled conservatives the
most has been his tendency to cast himself as a reformer, both
rhetorically (a lot of conservatives find him self-righteous) and
substantively (a lot of conservatives never forgave him for campaign
finance reform, many are pissed about the torture showdown). But now
that two of the major knocks against the Bush-era GOP are cronyism and
sleaze, I think conservatives increasingly see McCain as an easy way to
neutralize their problems, even if they still consider him
sanctimonious. (I remember a post to this effect in The Corner last
fall, but can't seem to track it down now.)
More importantly, McCain is skillfully using foreign policy both to
demonstrate his loyalty to Bush and to highlight his differences with
Bush. The loyalty part is obvious: Everyone to the left of Bill Kristol
seems to be deserting Bush on Iraq. Since the Dubai port scandal,
Republicans have even begun to question Bush's handling of the war on
terror. That McCain has been speaking up for Bush's foreign policy
principles, if not his execution, distinguishes him as the one guy who
can be counted on when the going gets tough. But, of course, unless you
don't know anything about McCain's biography (and that group consists
of about five people), you also know that the mere mention of Bush and
McCain in the context of foreign policy evokes all sorts of
contrasts--in terms of gravitas, knowledge, credibility, etc.--that are
unfavorable to Bush. So for McCain it's a twofer. He gets to come to
Bush's rescue while at the same time reminding people that, if he were
president, he wouldn't need an outsider to shore him up on foreign
policy, because he wouldn't have screwed up so badly in the first
place. You get a decent sense of this double-game from Dan Balz's piece
about this weekend's GOP gathering in Memphis:
As McCain left the Peabody Hotel on Saturday to tour the
hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast, he was matter-of-fact about his steadfast
support for the president. "We elected him, we need him, he needs to do
well and the country needs him," McCain said in an interview. "With all
the challenges, all of these things that are going on, including slow
progress in Iraq, we need to show our support. It's easy to support
somebody when they're up. That's why I did it. If he had been up, I
wouldn't have emphasized it nearly as much. You've got to rally the
troops."
No other GOP presidential contender (with the possible exception of
Rudy Giuliani) could risk defending Bush so outspokenly on Iraq. Their
relative lack of of foreign policy credentials makes it too likely that
Bush's foreign policy suckiness would rub off on them, if you'll pardon
the expression. So they've got to keep their distance.
The broader point to make here is that most GOP contenders face a real
paradox: Thanks to the combination of GOP scandals, Bush's domestic
political fiascos, and Bush's foreign policy failures, now is not the
greatest time to be hugging the president. On the other hand, anyone
who's spent the last five years hugging the president--i.e., most of
the GOP presidential field--and is only now beginning to distance
himself looks transparently opportunistic, so that's no good either.
McCain seems to have the best of both worlds. His reputation (and
record) as a maverick makes it very hard to confuse him for a Bush
lackey. But, precisely because of that maverick reputation, he can
afford to shore up his good-soldier bona fides by defending the
president.
That's not to say McCain won't still get tripped up by one issue or
another. (I think Sam's right to say that immigration is the most
dangerous one out there.) But it does suggest that McCain, should he
stay in the game, is in decent shape to win the nomination.
--Noam Scheiber
P.S. Obviously another issue that could trip McCain up is the suspicion
with which many conservatives still view him, even if they see his
persona as politically useful. That's why I'm reluctant to declare him
the outright front-runner. (I'd initially used the term "front-runner"
in the title of this post, then thought better of it.) I'm much more
comfortable with something like "the sorta front-runner," which, given
that the GOP is more than two year's away from actually nominating a
candidate, is about as bold as one can be expected to get at this
point.
posted 9:41 p.m.
tnr.com
.
|
