[interview] The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him-and Why Independents Shouldn’t

Earlier this week, I interviewed the author and political pundit, Cliff Schecter about his latest book, The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him - and Why Independents Shouldn’t. You can read more about the book at its website and I also recommend this article in U.S. News and World Report.

In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.

A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.

JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?

CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.]

One example is with the gas tax . It doesn’t do any good – and Obama is telling us that. But McCain and Clinton go along with the idea [of a moratorium over the summer] – they pander. [Obama's telling us like it is] is why he has appeal beyond the Democratic party.

Michael Bloomberg could have an interesting run. He maybe could have changed the outcomes. Chuck Hagel could have been a compelling candidate on being honest – though on Iraq more so than in the social issues.

JMZ: Where is the line between flip-flopping (unacceptable changing of one’s opinion) and genuine change of heart?

CS: We have to look to see, is there evidence based upon learning new facts that changed the equation? Do they look back at the decision they made and say it was the wrong decision and new facts show why they support that [change in decision]?

McCain is the ultimate flip flopper because he does it out of political expedience. He is still supporting Iraq even though there were no WMDs. He complained about all these things [related to why we shouldn't be in Iraq years ago], he was the ultimate realist. In 1990, McCain talked about how we couldn’t trade our blood for Iraqi blood. But now he’s still supporting the war.

He talks about “security first.” But the war has only made us weaker and we’ve taken our eye off the ball. McCain said in the 1990s that our military was overstretched, but to say that then and not say that now?

What takes me beyond [McCain] being a flip flopper is that he not only says what is best for him, but he questions people’s motives if they are different from his. For example, he says, how dare we even think of cutting the estate tax and yet, how could he want to make it permanent now when before he’d opposed it?

Another example: how can a guy who in 1999 was quoted as saying in the San Francisco Chronicle that we can’t overturn Roe, is now this same guy who is calling for overturning Roe?

I don’t want people to be rigid and not change opinions, but rather they should change their opinions based on what’s better public policy. If you are saying that [your conclusion is] the only conclusion someone can reach, and then later you are on the exact oppostite side, it’s hard to take them seriously.

JMZ: Is it McCain’s fault that he has changed, or ours? That is, if he still possesses an acceptable political skill set and his changes reflect what he believes voters want, how much flack does he deserve, and why? Because isn’t it, after all, our system too?

CS: The Republican Party might take some blame for this. It’s a very inhospitable place for anyone to the left of them. There’s been a rash of retirements and [others] leaving the party. There’s been an increasing influence from the far right on all these issues – economics, the war…

But if you are courageous, you stand up and fight. McCain has modeled himself after Barry Goldwater but Goldwater got so sick of the Christian right to the point where he said, “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwel right in the ass.”

McCain had options in 2000. From 2000-2004, he was getting himself ready for an Independent run. He approached [Democrat John] Kerry to be on the ticket. These seem like things he could have done to keep his principles. The Democratic party in 2000 would have been perfect place for McCain.

It’s not our fault. We’re the voters. If his arguments are so out of whack with the GOP, he should be telling them something. Maybe he should have changed parties.We look at people who make these kinds of choices as heroes, but at some point you decide: no free pass, because he sold out to the worst in his party. He made his bed.

JMZ: Is there anything McCain can do that would convince you to support him again? If so, what? If not, why not?

CS: He could stand up and say what everyone else is saying, that Iraq is an absolute failure and that he cares more about the security of the country than the election and support a pullout, but it would lose him the election.
He could admit that he made a huge mistake in switching his position on the tax cuts and that they’ve severely hindered our ability to function as a government and that he’ll go back to balancing the budget.

He could renounce people on the far right in his party like he did in 2000.

[But] it would be a hard sell. I don’t trust his motives anymore.