John McCain

Tell You Once Again, Who's Straight


One of the reasons my John McCain book was subtitled The Myth of a Maverick instead of, say, An Ideological Portrait, was that you couldn't adequately paint the latter without scraping off the scum of the former. The four-decade love affair between the media and the son/grandson of four-star Navy admirals so distorts any basic discussion that it's necessary to first point out that much of what we think we know about the man—that he's a "man of the people," a straight-talker, a world-weary pragmatist on foreign policy—is provably false by the senator's own words, no matter how many times you read otherwise in your morning paper.

Take this weekend's McCain endorsements in the Des Moines Register, Boston Globe, Manchester Union-Leader, and Portsmouth Herald. Not content with supporting a candidate they feel affinity for, each of these newspapers are backing a man who, in fact, does not exist. I'll use only the Register as an example, though all four are similarly culpable:

He was beaten and kept in solitary confinement, held 5 years. He could have talked. He did not.

He did so! After four days of torture in 1968 McCain tape-recorded a "confession" of his crimes against the Vietnam people, which was later broadcast and transcribed. Prior to that, he had also given more information about his squadron than just name, rank and serial number (for example, the name of his ship). You can find this information in books written by John McCain. (And needless to say, I would have blubbered up that information before my plane hit the bay.)

The one-time playboy emerged from prison a changed, more serious man.

Doubtlessly. But if the implication was that he changed away from being a "playboy," that implication is false.

Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public. He has criticized crop and ethanol subsidies during two presidential campaigns in Iowa.

Did McCain really "stick to his beliefs" on ethanol? Not according to a devastating October 2006 Fortune piece that I can't find the link to:

"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it," McCain said in November 2003. "Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business—tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests—primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality."

Even the most slippery politician would have a tough time wriggling away from a statement as unequivocal as that one, yet McCain's Straight Talk Express has been taking some audacious detours during recent trips to Iowa.

In a flip-flop so absurd it'll be a wonder if it doesn't get lampooned by late-night comedians—not to mention opponents' negative ads—McCain is now proclaiming himself a "strong" ethanol supporter.

"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects," he said in an August speech in Grinnell, Iowa[.]

Back to the Register endorsement:

He bucked his party and president by opposing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Right. And he stopped bucking his party on tax cuts—in a way that makes rubbish of the statement "time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs"—after 2005.

In this campaign, he continues to support comprehensive immigration reform—while watching his poll standings plunge.

He does no such thing. As one of his operatives told the Washington Times in October, in explaining why the senator was no longer supporting the very same DREAM Act that he had once co-sponsored, "The senator has said 1,000 times since immigration reform failed this summer that he got the message. The American people want the border secured first."

He knows war, something we believe would make him reluctant to start one.

"Belief" being the operative concept, given that the on the record facts scream otherwise.

But with McCain, Americans would know what they're getting.

If that's true, it's no thanks to the Des Moines Register.

NEXT: Another Isolated Incident

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And I thought this was gonna be another 300+ post article about Teh Gayz.

    But, wow, talk about exploding the Straight Talk myth.

  2. Why do we even bother discussing this guy? He’s a joke. He’s run for president 3 times and failed. Why is the media so infatuated with this jerkoff?

  3. I think you have to take this in the context of the paper’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. They’ve already decided that the best stories they can imagine involve the confrontation between the establishment and the counterculture. This is the Des Moines Register — most of the people on that editorial board still are hungry for a replay of 1996, so they can recycle copy.

  4. So, in general the MSM is lazy relies on memes that are wholly inaccurate. TEH HORROR!

  5. Could there be any better demonstration of the failure of the legislation that bears his name? He’s broke, but he’s still corrupt, so the established media loves him, natch.

    Meanwhile, the actual candidate that refuses to comprimise his principles, time and time again sticking to Constitutional prescription, raises $6M in one day, and is still casually dismissed by the MSM.

  6. McCain does have Lieberman’s endorsement, so he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.

  7. Why is the media so infatuated with this jerkoff?

    Because he fawned over them and gave them lots of great quotes and access during the 2000 primaries.

    Really, that’s it. He let a number of national news reporters have lots of special, one-on-one time during which he acted personable, and they’ve been treating him like royalty ever since.

  8. He let a number of national news reporters have lots of special, one-on-one time during which he acted personable

    Don’t they all do that? If not, why not?

  9. Criticizing a man for what he did or didn’t say under extreme torture from the North Vietnamese? This site has sunk to a new level of pathetic lameness.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.