By Jim Tankersley
The biggest news out of Sen. John McCain's journey abroad last week was hardly the story the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was hoping to convey: McCain's Sunni-Shia mix-up in Iraq.
And while Democrats will try to make a political punchline out of that (later corrected) mistake, some less heralded parts of the trip could be the ones that factor most in a general election. Specifically, McCain's emphatic embrace of - and willingness to promote - a more cooperative American foreign policy, starting with a plan to reduce carbon emissions to combat global climate change.
In tones more reminiscent of Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, than President Bush, McCain told newspaper readers in England and France last week that America's "great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."
The op-eds, in Le Monde and (if your French is a bit rusty) the Financial Times, continue with a call to environmental action: "The risks of global warming have no borders," McCain writes. "Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren... We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner."
The policies are nothing new for McCain, who introduced a cap-and-trade carbon reduction plan in the Senate and stressed the need for global cooperation and climate-change action throughout the GOP primaries. By stressing them overseas, he's trying to present himself as a man who, as president, could repair America's tattered global image - despite his continued support of an Iraq war that is highly unpopular worldwide.
The more interesting question is how those policies will play at home.
The quick calculation is that pushing cooperation abroad and global warming action at home could boost McCain among moderate swing voters. McCain's friend Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of deep-blue California, has found success by appealing to moderates on environmental issues. McCain could emulate that in "purple" states such as Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota and New Mexico.
On the other hand, it wasn't long ago that the punditry class was super-focused on McCain's problem with his "base" - conservative Republican voters, many of whom regard McCain with skepticism over his past support of campaign finance reform and a compromise with Democrats on judicial nominations.
Neither of these stances figures to win McCain new friends in that group.
Many conservatives continue to challenge the idea that humans are changing the earth's climate. They warn that emissions caps could further stunt the already struggling American economy. (The Kyoto treaty that McCain references in the op-ed, which the U.S. never ratified, is reviled in many conservative circles.)
The idea of America bowing more to other countries in foreign policy also upsets many conservatives, including some deep skeptics of the United Nations and America's involvement in it.
On the other hand, we haven't heard many conservatives stepping out to rip McCain lately. Our guess is they're too busy shaking their heads at the carnage in the still-live Democratic primary.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I hope the self-named "straight-talker" isn't getting to comfortable, if he thinks the Dems are shooting it out, just wait until we turn our attention to him (John W McBush) on a fulltime basis.
Elisabeth Bumiller had a scathing article yesterday on the "inconsistencies" in Senator John McCain's voting record and his current positions.
WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.
Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.
The article points out that McCain has reversed course on several key issues as he has tried to gain the support of the Republican base. To summarize the article:
On tax cuts...
In 2001, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." He also voted against additional tax cuts in 2003, later saying that "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do."
Today, McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.
On immigration...
In 2005, McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform, which included a pathway to citizenship.
Now, he claims that "if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."
On abortion and Roe v. Wade...
In 1999, McCain said that he would not support overturning Roe v. Wafe "int he sort term, or even the long term," because that would "force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."
Today, McCain has campaigned on overturning Roe v. Wade.
On his revisionist history regarding Donald Rumsfeld...
In 2004, McCain refused to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that Bush "can have the team around him that he wants around him." In 2006, retired generals called for Rumseld's resignation, but McCain did not.
Now, while running for president, McCain has claimed that "I’m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go." The article notes that "[t]he campaign has since acknowledged that Mr. McCain was incorrect, and more recently the senator has stopped short of claiming he called for the defense secretary’s ouster."
On torture...
McCain has traditionally been against torture, citing his experience as a POW for his decision.
Now, McCain voted last month "against a bill that would require the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the restrictions on interrogating prisoners outlined in the Army Field Manual."
In his decades in office, McCain has an average party unity score in the low 80s. Since he has campaigned for president, his party unity score has skyrocketed (link, link).
2005: 81%
2006: 76%
2007: 90%
It's refreshing to see members of the press taking a closer look at John McCain's disparate record instead of taking his "maverickness" at face value. And while it was expected that McCain would pander to the right to get the GOP nomination, the sharp turns on the "Straight Talk Express" listed above are sure to be a problem for him in the general election.
Posted by: Rightstep Fred | March 23, 2008 5:31 PM
he's trying to present himself as a man who, as president, could repair America's tattered global image -
Yes indeed..the globe looks very favorable on a man who sings bomb Bomb Bomb Iran. The world supports the Iraq war...doesn't it? They want another war in Iran....don't they?
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | March 23, 2008 6:17 PM
Mcbush agrees that global warming is a problem, wants to have a dialogue with France, and now the collective head of all the talking point reich-wingers explode. Yup, coultergeist and rushbo are gonna have a field day with this one.
Posted by: rncbs | March 23, 2008 7:25 PM
Shouldn't he be retired by now. Clearly senile dementia is kicking in.
Posted by: AARP POSTERCHILD | March 23, 2008 7:31 PM
SO DOES HE GUARANTEE NO DEPRESSION FOR THE NEXT 8 YEARS?
Posted by: TOLMAPPP | March 23, 2008 8:00 PM
another senior moment!
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | March 23, 2008 8:06 PM
Certain journalists are persisting - as they did in the period leading up the invasion in 2003 - in minimizing important realities concerning the Middle East. McCain's confusion isn't some small boo boo. It is strategic misunderstanding of staggering magnitude as Josh Marshall and Acropolis Review examine in more depth:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/john-mccains-iraq-war-five-year.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184135.php
Posted by: Michelle | March 23, 2008 8:08 PM
McCain is smart...tell those socialist allys of ours everything they want to hear...
Over 200,000 American men and women gave their lives for the freedom they enjoy today and they still don't get it.
Let them enjoy their Kings and Queens, let them enjoy their gourmet foods...and maybe by the end of the century they'll figure out how to land a probe on the moon.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | March 24, 2008 12:10 AM
Sounds to me like McNut is a serial FLIP FLOPPER!!!!!
What little integrity he had,has dis-appeared the last several years.
Posted by: Raving Loon | March 24, 2008 9:40 AM
McCain is far from my ideal candidate, but if it comes down to picking between him and some lefty, nanny-state socialist like Hillbama, McCain starts looking OK.
Posted by: Herbie H. | March 24, 2008 10:25 AM
Is McCain in Europe to pick up more checks from EADS? Perhaps he's scouting for other opportunities to send US defense jobs to Europe?
Posted by: Michael | March 24, 2008 11:08 AM
I love watching the lefties hold up Bumiller, who they once skewered as the Bush administration's best friend when she was helping in the march up to the Iraq war because she wanted to cover it, as some sort of paragon of journalistic integrity.
Put simply Bumiller's words aren't worth the fish-wrap New York Times paper that they're printed on.
McCain has been for restrictions on global warming for years. He even sponsored legislation (McCain-Lieberman) to cap it here in the US. Anyone saying anything else is a liar like Bumiller.
p.s. I have a bridge I'd like to sell anyone who thinks Sunni and Shia extremists would never work together against the US. They have and they will.
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2008 12:58 PM
p.s. I have a bridge I'd like to sell anyone who thinks Sunni and Shia extremists would never work together against the US. They have and they will.
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2008 12:58 PM
Jeff, even McCain has admitted he was dead wrong about the Iran-Al Qaeda thing. I know that you think McCain is infallible and omniscient, but he does make mistakes. Take him down off the pedestal you have him on.
Posted by: Luke | March 24, 2008 2:43 PM
Ya know, once uppon a time, I used to really like McCain. The whole Maverick image and all. I am an independent after all. But what has sickened me about this guy is that when it came time to be a maverick or be the same this last 6 months, he chose to be another typical Republican in order to solidify his base. So sure, he got his shrinking base, but he complelety turned his back to the moderates and independents in doing so. This, along with his war strategy, makes it an easy decision to vote for Obama in Nov.
Posted by: Xcellentform | March 24, 2008 4:12 PM
No, he was wrong in that it's not already happening but if you, Luke, think that's not a very real threat you're the one kidding yourself. And left Michael, if it means the US saves money and gets a better tanker then I sure hope McCain "picks up more checks" from EADS.
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2008 4:53 PM
Ahh, so now it's not a lie to repeatedly say that something is happening that isn't if it MIGHT happen in the future.
Got it.
How many other facts that McCain talks about are really just possibilities?
Posted by: Luke | March 24, 2008 5:07 PM
And left Michael, if it means the US saves money and gets a better tanker then I sure hope McCain "picks up more checks" from EADS.
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2008 4:53 PM
How much was EADS getting in government subsidy as part of their bid Jeff? We'll never know thanks to John K-Street McCain(a wholly owned subsidiary of the Loeffler Group). Is it fair to let foriegn governments participate in US defense bidding in secret like that? Or is that OK, just as long as McCain's lobbyists friends are getting a cut of the take?
Posted by: Michael | March 24, 2008 5:16 PM
None, your premise is faulty. McCain only wrote a letter to secretary Gates stressing that the competition remain a fair and open one. Gates agreed.
There was nothing secret about EADS' participation in the open bidding for the tanker deal. The tanker that they proposed was both bigger and cheaper than Boeing's clunker.
It's idiots like you who ruined the american automotive industry with your protectionist BS. Don't buy Toyota, don't buy Honda, it's un-American! Despite the fact that Americans didn't want to pay twice as much for half as fuel efficient fords and chevys in the 80s.
I'll take the best technology and the lowest bid no matter where it's made. Maybe you should ask Boeing's CFO if he thinks they could win a fair bid against EADS, and let's remember that Boeing gets government assistance through tax breaks. Oh, wait, we can't ask him. He's in jail for defrauding the american taxpayer.
Lefty Luke, if you look at the press conference the question itself was a hypothetical.
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2008 7:36 PM
Jeff, you didn't answer my specific question: How much did EADS get in government subsidies for the bid?
Why are you and John K-street McCain so invested in covering that up? Why not be able to compare what Boeing gets in tax breaks vs. EADS subsidies? Why do you and McCain want LESS information in a bid? Is that how McCain defines "transparency"? Does "fair and open" mean: Let's not ask the companies we want to win questions they don't want to answer?
Come on Jeff, You're arguing in favor of letting companies HIDE information in a bid.
Face it , McCain intervened to help one side in a bid. You can't supress bidder information in the name of "fair and open bidding". More like "unfair and closed" sweetheart deal.
McCain's a hypocrite for going along with it, and you are a fool to not be able to see that McCain was doing a favor for his lobbyist buddies, not acting in the of open bidding.
Posted by: Michael | March 24, 2008 10:25 PM
Jeff, you didn't answer my specific question: How much did EADS get in government subsidies for the bid?
Why are you and John K-street McCain so invested in covering that up? Why not be able to compare what Boeing gets in tax breaks vs. EADS subsidies? Why do you and McCain want LESS information in a bid? Is that how McCain defines "transparency"? Does "fair and open" mean: Let's not ask the companies we want to win questions they don't want to answer?
Come on Jeff, You're arguing in favor of letting companies HIDE information in a bid.
Face it , McCain intervened to help one side in a bid. You can't supress bidder information in the name of "fair and open bidding". More like "unfair and closed" sweetheart deal.
McCain's a hypocrite for going along with it, and you are a fool to not be able to see that McCain was doing a favor for his lobbyist buddies, not acting in the of open bidding.
"I'll take the best technology and the lowest bid no matter where it's made."
I'm sure the Chinese will be thrilled to hear that.
Posted by: Michael | March 24, 2008 10:26 PM
Jeef, do you know what the word "hypothetical" means?
From the first of the multiple times McCain made the erroneous claim:
HEWITT: Now, Senator, yesterday in Iran, President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's parliamentary party won. His hand is strengthened.
McCAIN: Yeah.
HEWITT: What's the -- what's the concern you have about Iran and about, in particular, Ahmadinejad? Some people want to meet with him. He's not on your agenda this trip.
McCAIN: The day I meet with the president of Iran will be the day after he announces his country no longer is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel, the day after they stop exporting these most explosive -- most lethal explosives into Iraq. Just yesterday, up in the Mosul area, they uncovered a cache of weapons, and a lot of it was these Iranian copper, high -- most lethal explosives. As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq. I think Americans should be very angry when we know that Iran is exporting weapons into Iraq that kill Americans. And so all I can say is that I think they continue to be a threat.
No "hypothetical" there. Hewitt asks what the concern McCain has about Iran. McCain makes a statement of fact.
"As you know, there are Al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."
He didn't say it was possible. He said it was fact. He was wrong. He has admitted he was wrong. I know this shakes your worldview, that the God-like John McCain made an error, but you'll just have to deal with it.
Posted by: Luke | March 25, 2008 9:49 AM