• 
• 
• 
• 
by Jill Zuckman
PENSACOLA, Fla. — John McCain went to the Senate floor in 2003 to mercilessly ridicule a fellow Republican, then-Montana Sen. Conrad Burns, for tucking a $1 million earmark into a spending bill to study the DNA of Montana’s bears.
“One can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used,” mocked McCain. “Approach a bear: ‘That bear cub over there claims that you’re his father and we need to take your DNA.’ Approach another bear: ‘Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA.’”
That sort of acid rhetoric, part of McCain’s longtime crusade against pork, has earned him the enmity of Republicans as well as Democrats. More broadly, the Arizona senator has angered numerous conservatives over the years by working with liberal Democrats on issues from immigration to torture, from campaign finance to judicial nominations.
And now, as McCain hopes to cement his front-runner status with a win in Florida on Tuesday, the question is whether Republican leaders and impassioned party loyalists, frustrated by years of what they consider McCain’s grandstanding at their expense, will line up behind him should he win the presidential nomination.
“John’s pretty rough in the sandbox,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a staunch conservative, said in an interview. “It’s not just that he doesn’t think like I do—it’s the manner in which he goes about it. This is a rough-and-tumble place, and John is passionate and tends to rub people the wrong way.”
Morton Blackwell, a longtime Republican activist and president of the conservative Leadership Institute, shifted his support to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney when former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. McCain was never a consideration, he said.
“I think Sen. McCain is essentially hostile to the conservative base of the Republican Party and he is wrong on many, many issues that are important to the conservative base,” Blackwell said.
McCain’s rivals have sought to use his deviation from Republican orthodoxy against him, and there appears to be anxiety among some in the GOP establishment at the prospect of McCain becoming their standard-bearer. Former Texas Rep. Tom DeLay, who as House Republican leader put a premium on party loyalty, recently told Fox News, “There’s nothing redeeming about John McCain.”
One of the most antagonistic figures has been Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host. If McCain is the Republican nominee, Limbaugh has said, it would “destroy” the party. “You know why [liberals] love McCain?” Limbaugh asked on his show last week. “He gives them cover to rip conservatives! They can support a Republican and still hate conservatives!”
McCain advisers, however, predict that if the senator is the nominee, the critics will jump on the bandwagon. “In 21/2 weeks, they’re all going to be for McCain,” predicted Charles Black Jr., the campaign’s chief strategist.
McCain’s supporters also argue that he has been consistently conservative, fighting for smaller government, opposing abortion and supporting the military. And his record is far from liberal: In 2006, McCain’s Senate votes lined up with the Republican position 76 percent of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly, and he backed Bush 89 percent of the time.
And the very prickliness that so infuriates some conservatives has also given McCain a certain broad appeal, with polls suggesting he would fare better than his Republican rivals against the Democratic nominee in the fall.
The Arizona senator has conspicuously parted ways with the GOP on several high-profile issues, teaming up with Democrats and, in the view of some Republicans, casting his own party in a bad light. Several years ago, McCain joined Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) in pushing through campaign finance restrictions that some Republicans believed violated free speech and could hurt their party.
Last year, McCain joined Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) in proposing a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants, despite the anger many Republicans feel at illegal immigration. And he used his moral authority as a former prisoner of war to back anti-torture legislation against the wishes of many in the Bush administration.
Even McCain’s supporters recognize that such bipartisan forays have cost him.
“One of the things that hurts him with conservatives is when John goes to a press conference with a Russ Feingold and a Ted Kennedy, they almost gag,” said former Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports McCain.
Speaking to a gymnasium of voters in Florida’s Panhandle, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) pitched McCain’s independence as a conservative trait. “John couldn’t win a popularity contest in the Senate if he tried,” Warner said. “Why? Because he cuts too much government spending.”
During an hourlong bus ride from Pensacola to Ft. Walton Beach , McCain said he knows he had made enemies with initiatives like his investigation of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
“I’m sure those people who didn’t like campaign finance reform are not happy people,” McCain said. “Those people when I went after Abramoff—there were a number of lobbyists who were snared in that—they don’t like me. I understand that. They like business-as-usual, they like the status quo.”
Nicole Wallace, Bush’s former White House communications director, said McCain’s problems with some Republicans stem from a combination of style and substance. “Some Republicans are always going to be distrustful of a politician who enjoys the back-and-forth with the media,” she said.
Still, some conservatives said that if McCain does win the nomination, they will ultimately fall in line.
“I think my chances of getting the right kind of judicial nominee would be better with John McCain than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice, who is backing Romney.
But for Pat Toomey, president of the anti-tax Club for Growth, who calls McCain “inconsistent,” the idea that he would become the Republican nominee is not one he is ready to consider.
“It’s not a foregone conclusion by any means that he’s going to be the nominee,” Toomey said. “I don’t really want to go there yet.”
Comments
Look at all the stories about Republicans!
Is Brucie runnin the Swamp?
Posted by: Raving Loon | January 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Thank God we have REAL republicans like John McCain and Tom Coburn to fight against the wasteful spending of the Ted Stevens', Conrad Burns', and the earmarking of democrat porkers like Robert C. Byrd, too.
McCain's track record of fighting government waste, alone, is reason enough to make him our next president, but he's got much more than that on his side.
Posted by: Jeff | January 28, 2008 9:33 AM
George Will says it best John McCain calls himself a maverick but in reality he is a Democrat.McCain is not conservative he's not even a blue dog Democrat he is a liberal socialist who plays fast and loose with Hillary, Feingold, Reid,Lieberman and he just wants amnesty for all illegals.Last September he and Teddy almost got it done in secret until conservatives stopped them cold. But, after his campaign imploded moderates like Fred Barnes, Mort Kondacke and Bill Krstol conspired for Fox News to join the liberal drivebys.
McCain shows contempt for conservatives and he is not aligned with our base.Conservatives Rush, Sean,Levin,Malkin and Will dislike him.
The driveby media have put him in our way before the next election to elect a socialist Democrat.
This is no exaggeration--At Davos, George Soros is suggesting nationalizing our banks and financial institutions. Hillary funded by Soros is for socialized medicine she'll easily be for nationalizing banks.
Mitt Romney is coming on strong and not a moment too soon.
If your a Republican stop your subscription to the Weekly Standard hit Kristol and Barnes in their pockebook tell them no McCainiacs in charge period. Don't let liberal Democrats put up a candidate in the GOP election 08. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | January 28, 2008 9:40 AM
Jeff...I can't think of a bigger waste of money than more wars. This is just crazy. It seems to me the terrorists have already won with this type of thinking. We will bankrupt America for some false feeling of "being safe". It seems the right likes to quote history..does Rome come to mind. To many wars.
Posted by: bill r. | January 28, 2008 9:41 AM
We have a fundamental disagreement about that, Bill r., but I'm more than willing to discuss it with you, though.
National defense (or wars, as you call them) are not a waste of money. They're essential to defeating Al Qaeda and keeping the terrorists on the run. 9/11 happened because we didn't aggressively, militarily prosecute the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.
When the terrorists are dead it's not a "false feeling of being safe." It's actually quite the opposite. It's being safe.
How have the "terrorists already won?" There have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. Bin Ladin is constantly on the move and can't set up terrorist training camps. The Taliban are out of power in Afghanistan.
This is a sovereign country that has been attacked (nearly 3,000 civillians died in that attack). There is simply no question of whether we have the right to attack terrorist-harboring nations or not, anymore. That ship has sailed.
By putting a functioning Islamic democracy in the Middle East (Iraq) and a democratic government in Afghanistan we have severely limited Al Qaeda's options and we have a watchdog on the ground to deal with the shifting sands of Islamic radicalism.
Will anything make us 100% safe? No. But it makes even less to ignore Bin Laden and let him operate unencumbered as he and his agents did after the first World Trade Center bombing.
Posted by: Jeff | January 28, 2008 10:13 AM
Jeff:
Wow - so much junk, so little time.
1) We DID prosecute the mastermind behind the first WTC attack - and he is in jail for that.
2) The Taliban are out of power?? Then who is it that is currently taking over more and more of Afganistan - and the British are now talking with??
3) Bin Laden is still alive. Enough said. Remember "dead or alive"?? The problem is that we HAVE ignored Bin Laden since 9/11, instead of getting him when we had the chance in Tora Bora. But W had to invade Iraq, so we forgot about Bin Laden, and went after Saddam instead. You obviously have not seen how much the war in Iraq has helped Al Qaeda in recruiting new members.
4) Iraq was NOT a terrorist harboring nation before we invaded it - when we went into Iraq, we basically invited all the terrorists in with us.
5) Functioning Islamic democracy?? Where??? And was it worth almost 4,000 dead American soldiers for that?? Most of the Iraqi people want us OUT of their country - we are not looked upon as "liberators", but as occupiers. And by the way - we have 5 more of our soldiers dead in Iraq today in a roadside bombing - in that "functioning Islamic democracy".
Time to get real Jeff.
Posted by: BobinATL | January 28, 2008 12:19 PM
Jerry:
Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol are "moderates"?? Who are you kidding??
Your meds are on order, remember to take them this time.
Posted by: BobinATL | January 28, 2008 12:20 PM
."Bin Ladin is constantly on the move and can't set up terrorist training camps."
Nope, untrue. AQ has terrorist training camps flourishing in Pakistan, under the announced protection of our so called ally Musharraf.
But that's bedside the point, We CREATED the AQ presence in Iraq, there was none before our ill-thought out invasion. To say that that war was a valuable investment in our security in the War on Terror is a fallacy. At best, we can return Iraq to it's previous condition: No AQ presence. More than likely we will never get Iraq to that point. So we will have scarificed blood and treasure to make our security situation worse, not better.
Posted by: Luke | January 28, 2008 12:29 PM
Jeff....yes we do have a fundamental difference here, I will respond to your points and we can leave it at, we agree to disagree.
National defense by definition is a defensive action, the war in Iraq is an offensive action.
Some dead Al-Qaeda is one thing, but if one thing has become clear the rest simply move somewhere else. Also this offensive action only creates more. By the way, Al-Qaeda were not in Iraq until we invaded. That to me is a false sense of security.
Your point of no attacks rings hollow to me. We have lost over 4000 American lives and trillions of dollars. This is really no different than the 9/11 attack on us.
Your claim of moral right to attack anyone simply plays very poorly in a global sense and hints at true arrogance.
An Islamic democracy could be a pipe dream. We really show no signs of this happening in Iraq, and the democracy in Pakistan makes that country no better off in the Middle East. May I remind you that the london attacks were Pakistanis.
Posted by: bill r. | January 28, 2008 1:22 PM
"...the question is whether Republican leaders and impassioned party loyalists, frustrated by years of what they consider McCain’s grandstanding at their expense..."
I find all this handwringing funny...some would say that Bush has been grandstanding the entire decade, using social issues dear to conservative hearts to rally support, all the while knowing that no real change on those issues would come. And pile on top of it over-spending, a huge entitlement giveaway, and a healthy dose of general GOP party corruption and Ted Haggard-like scandals. But McCain is the problem -- laughable.
Posted by: kb | January 28, 2008 2:29 PM
"A functioning Islamic Democracy in the Middle East (Iraq)"? Is that what you call it? A theocracy friendly to Iran. Shia in government who moonlight to kill Sunnis and Sunnis who moonlight to kill Shia. A real "beacon of democracy" you got going there, Jeff. How's that political solution coming, the clock is ticking on the 100 year war.
Just another Republican Chickenhawk that plays fast and loose with other people's lives, has nothing to show for it, then declares "Mission Accomplished", again.
"Watchdog on the ground to deal with the shifting sands on Islamic radicalism"? Your killing me here, Jeff. During Bush's reign, Islamic radicalism has increased exponentially in the regions in Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. How's their democracy coming after we diverted most our resources to Iraq? Really, I mean other that a record opium crop, how are things in Afghanistan 7 years after 9/11?
And did George of Arabia convince his Saudi friends to clamp down on Wasabi extremism in their own country, and stop funding from going overseas to support radical Islamic Mosques? Didn't think so.
Posted by: dt | January 28, 2008 2:35 PM
Jeff...one other point I forgot to mention. You mention Afghanistan.....I believe tonight you will hear from Bush that we need to shift attention back to Afghanistan as the Taliban are "surging" again. This just makes 2 points...1) Al-Qeada just keeps moving.
2) Mismanagement of this has spent many lives and much money. We never finished the job. McCain although a vet, can make the same mistakes. I'm a vet but that gives me no more qualifications to be president than others. He will listen to his military advisors and they have already proven by their track record they can be wrong.
Posted by: bill r. | January 28, 2008 2:38 PM
Jeff,
Why did McCain want to surrender in Mogadishu? Shouldn't he share some blame in not aggressively going after Islamic radicals and allowing 9/11 to happen. Why should he be promoted when if we would have done it his way we would have pulled out of Mogadishu even earlier than Clinton did?
Posted by: john | January 28, 2008 3:18 PM