Let's take a closer look at another contender for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain of Arizona. I'm going to describe some events here that will be a bit unpleasant to read, but to understand John McCain, you've got to know what he's endured.
First, a little backstory for the politically disengaged. John McCain served in the Navy and is a veteran of the Vietnam War. He was injured in an explosion on the USS Forrestal in 1967 which resulted in shrapnel being lodged in his chest and legs. Despite this injury, he continued to serve as a pilot until his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down on October 26 of that year. The crash broke both his arms and a leg. He crawled from the wreckage of the plane, and was beset upon by a mob of Vietnamese citizens, who spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothing. He was then taken into custody by Vietnamese soldiers who bayonetted his left foot and groin, and crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt. Barely conscious after this ordeal, McCain was then taken to Hoa La Prison, better known as the Hanoi Hilton, where he would remain a prisoner of war for the next five and one half years.
McCain's father was an Navy Admiral who was the commander of all United States forces in Vietnam at the time of his son's capture. The Vietnamese learned of this, and the younger McCain was offered his release in a prisoner exchange program. McCain refused, saying he could not accept early release when so many of his fellow American prisoners had been incarcerated longer. This refusal extended McCain's incarceration by more than five years, during which time he was repeatedly tortured and beaten. He was finally released in 1973, returned to active duty, and retired from the Navy in 1981. In 1986, McCain was elected to fill the seat of retiring Senator Barry Goldwater, and has been re-elected three times. He sought the Republican nomination in 2000, and scored some early victories, but the nomination eventually went to George W. Bush for reasons that I will touch on later.
There are a lot of people in this country who think you have to have served in the military to be president, that you can’t be the Commander in Chief unless you’ve seen combat yourself. There’s just one problem with this idea, one teeny tiny little detail...
If this standard were applied to past occupants of the Oval Office when they ran for office, it would have disqualified Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt! Okay, technically, Lincoln served in the militia during the Black Hawk War, but he never saw combat. Kind of like George W. Bush.
Also, if we’re going to have this sort of requirement, then we have to extend it to other issues. For instance, Hillary Clinton would not be qualified to be president and confront the issue of abortion because she’s (presumably) never had an abortion herself. Barack Obama would not be qualified to be president and deal with race relations because he was never lynched by the Klan. John Edwards couldn’t become president and address gay and lesbian issues because he is not, despite what Ann Coulter says, a homosexual.
I was going to use the example of saying Rudy Giuliani couldn’t be president and deal with women’s issues because he’s not a woman, but…..
However, on balance, I would agree that it’s a plus if not a prerequisite for a presidential candidate to have served in the military. This is especially true for a president succeeding George Bush in office. It would be nice to have a president whose prior public service was in some way involved in foreign policy. John McCain could be that man. He has the political resume, and the physical sacrifice he made in service of his country is awe inspiring. This is a man who campaigns and climbs on stage and waves to a mass of enthusiastic supporters, just like any candidate does. But the difference is that McCain's waving is a bit restrained. Why? Because he can't raise his arms over his head. Let that one sink in for a second. A man who can't wave to a cheering crowd because he was hung by his arms for years.
So McCain has been the darling of the press, if not necessarily the Republican base for years. He has tremendous crossover appeal and could take away millions of votes from a Democratic candidate. Even more impressive, McCain appeals to independents and could even draw people to the polls who traditionally don't bother to vote. It's been a given for years that John McCain would be virtually unbeatable in a general election, if he can only gain his party's nomination.
And why shouldn't Republicans love him too? Whether they will admit it or not, they want a change, someone as different from Bush as possible, and McCain fits the bill. Consider:
- John McCain has developed a reputation for being a straight talker, whereas George W. Bush has developed a reputation for not being able to talk straight.
- During his Senate career, McCain has been deeply involved in foreign affairs, whereas in Bush’s time as governor of Texas he was deeply involved in…er….um….
- McCain, of course, served his country during the Vietnam War, whereas Bush was served many drinks during the Vietnam War.
- McCain is an independent thinker, whereas George W. Bush is dependent on others to do his thinking for him.
So it's obvious, right? Republicans looking for their next presidential nominee have a clear choice. They have the opportunity to nominate a man of integrity, a Vietnam veteran who knows what it's like to be a soldier in a hopeless situation. A man whose long experience in the United States Senate has prepared him to serve this country as president. Yes, ladies and gentlmen, the time has come for the Republican party to turn to....Senator Chuck Hagel!
That's right, Chuck Hagel. Who's he? I'll get to that in a minute. Let me first explain why the Republicans should pass on John McCain. As previously mentioned, in 2000 McCain ran for the Republican nomination against George W. Bush. McCain crushed Bush in New Hampshire, and headed to South Carolina. A win there would have probably given McCain the momentum necessary to capture the nomination. So naturally, the Bush campaign went negative. What else could they do? Tout their guy's credentials?
The Bush campaign in South Carolina (or their unofficial surrogates) ran a play right out of the Nixon playbook. Anonymous phone calls warned conservative Republican voters that John McCain had a black child out of wedlock. This "revelation" horrified racists and people with "traditional values" (In South Carolina, these are usually the same people, but that's another story). Not that it really matters, but the truth is that McCain and his wife adopted a young girl from Bangladesh. A noble thing, which was turned into an accusation. McCain lost the primary, Bush regained his momentum, and with his massive financial advantage, cruised to the nomination. Along the way, McCain criticized Christian conservatives, whom he blamed for his South Carolina defeat.
Now, seven years later, McCain is essentially kissing the very asses he once kicked among the Far Right, convinced that its his ticket to the White House. He once called Jerry Falwell (correctly) an "agent of intolerance." Now they're buddies! McCain even agreed to serve as the commencement speaker at Falwell's Liberty University last spring. This sort of pandering is bad enough, but in my view McCain did something even worse in his lust for the presidency: He pretended to like and admire the man who defeated him in 2000, President Bush. He endorsed him for re-election in 2004, campaigned with him, he even hugged him!
Why would he do such a thing? Because McCain knows Republican party politics. He learned it at the knee of his predecessor, Barry Goldwater. McCain is a student of history, and he knows the Republicans are the party of primogeniture. They nominate a guy when it's his "turn." I've mentioned this before. The Democrats will nominate someone you weren't expecting. They chose the young Catholic senator from Massachusetts in 1960, when no one thought a Catholic could be elected. They nominated an obscure former Georgia governor in 1976, and then a largely unknown Arkansas governor in 1992. But the Republicans are more predictable. They nominate the frontrunner, because its his turn. They haven't abandoned this tendency since 1952, when the Republicans nominated Eisenhower over a man nicknamed "Mr. Republican", Robert Taft, a Senator from Ohio and the son of a former president. They only did it then because they had lost five straight elections to Roosevelt and Truman, and they would have nominated Joseph Stalin if it meant victory in November. But other than that one year, the Republicans wait their turn. It was Nixon's turn, then it was Reagan's turn, then it was Bush Senior's turn, then it was Dole's turn, etc. Now it's John McCain's turn. And now that's he's made nice with President Bush, now that he's snuggled up to the Religious Right, he thinks he's in great shape. But there's one little problem.
There's a war going on in Iraq, one that as of today, based on congressional appropriations, has cost the American people $408 billion. There have been over 3100 American soldiers killed, more than 23,000 wounded. At least 58,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war. America has become perhaps the most hated country in the world because of this war, and John McCain wants to continue it. In fact, he wants to escalate it. McCain has gone from the "Straight Talk Express" bus tour of 2000 to being one of the people who say "Hey, if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home!" Even so, he still has integrity, at least on the war. He's willing to take an unpopular position. But will his party stand with him?
The Republicans should abandon McCain because he's turned into another double talking hypocrite, a man who pretends to like people he actually can't stand for the sake of getting elected. But chances are they will abandon him over the issue of Iraq. Yeah, Republicans generally favor the war, but they know it's a loser. They remember last November, when they got their asses handed to them. They have to put up with Nancy Pelosi holding the speaker's gavel in the House of Representatives, and they'll be damned if they want to see Hillary Clinton put her hand on the Bible and take the oath in January of 2009. So if they throw McCain over the side, they'll do it over the war. Ever since he came out in favor of the surge plan, he's gone from being in a virtual dead heat with Rudy Giuliani to being twenty points behind. And we already know what's gonna happen to Rudy, don't we? So the Republicans need a horse.
Which brings me to Chuck Hagel. He'll be the subject of the next post, but a quick word on the senator from Nebraska. This is a guy who genuinely is what McCain claims to be. This is a Republican senator who once said about the Bush Administration, "To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic." Echoes of Thomas Jefferson there. Not a bad comparison for a presidential aspirant to earn. Senator Hagel has come out full square against the war, and resisted pressure from members of his party to pipe down about it. Can it be? A politician who says what he thinks? Fire up the Straight Talk Express, there may be a new driver behind the wheel!
