McCain Has Issues Beyond Iseman

You know, before the whole Iseman and Maverick business, I was ready to note that John McCain's credentials on his signature issues, particularly national security and honesty, were beginning to come into question.

He put out a "no new taxes" pledge, and yet his health care plan seeks to "end the bias" toward employer-based health care by giving individuals a tax credit and treating employer-based benefits as taxable income. That would actually be a trillion-dollar tax increase, higher than any candidate has proposed this year. Empty words, useless platitudes.

He claims to be above reproach on the issue of torture, but after voting against banning torture in our intelligence agencies, he now has called on President Bush to veto the same intelligence authorization bill. Empty words, useless platitudes.

The supposedly reticent Obama campaign took McCain on directly on the issue of national security in a conference call.

Just got off a conference call with Susan Rice talking about the contrasts between her boy Barack Obama and John McCain on national security policy. One key point of emphasis was the strange notion coming from the McCain campaign that talking about focused counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan is irresponsible, whereas randomly threatening to start new wars is the height of good sense. As she put it "it's a strange contrast -- he says that somehow it's naive for a presidential candidate to outline how he would deal with that crucial national security challenge, but it's appropriate for him to joke about starting another war." A reporter from the Washington Times challenged her on the "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" business saying McCain was joking. Rice responds that "if he wants to say that he was joking and that's the kind of joke he thinks is funny, that's his perogative."

Even Joke Line is getting this message, that McCain looked soft on Al Qaeda by attacking Obama on targeted strikes in Pakistan, which is current US policy and has even yielded results. When Klein calls McCain a "loose cannon" on national security matters, that's not good for their camp.

Juan Cole also eviscerated McCain's tough talk on national security.

And I think there is good reason to ask whether McCain helped create al-Qaeda and the mess in Pakistan to begin with. It is time for someone to start holding the Cold Warriors who deployed a militant Muslim covert army against their leftist enemies accountable for the blow-back they created [...]

McCain appears never to have met a rightwing dictator he didn't like. McCain defends the dictator. Here is what McCain said about Musharraf late last December:

"Prior to Musharraf, Pakistan was a failed state," McCain said. "They had corrupt governments and they would rotate back and forth and there was corruption, and Musharraf basically restored order. So you're going to hear a lot of criticism about Musharraf that he hasn't done everything we wanted him to do, but he did agree to step down as head of the military and he did get the elections."

So in the building confrontation between democratic parties and the military dictator who trashed the rule of law, which would McCain support? What kind of relations will a president McCain have with the new prime minister of Pakistan if McCain is on record supporting the dictatorship that preceded?

The potted history McCain offers is wrong, and it points to the deep problems of authoritarianism and admiration for dictatorship in McCain's political philosophy. Pakistan was not a failed state before 1999, and in fact most of its political problems derived from repeated military coups such as the one spearheaded by Musharraf, as well as from the US government giving the Pakistani military gobs of money and enormous stockpiles of weapons, and winking at its nuclear program. In fact by "US government" above, we really could just substitute "Senator John McCain."

He goes on with some very damaging stories about McCain and the Taliban, as well as former Pakistani dictator General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq and the nuclear arsenal commenced on his watch. Our government is STILL making mistakes of this stripe, pressuring the new Pakistani government to retain Pervez Musharraf despite his thundering defeat in national elections, premised on the false belief that only a strongman can keep that country together (proven wrong by the election results).

Of course, this is all being swamped by the Iseman revelations, which the right and the broadcast media are pushing back against with all their might. Their myth of McCain as a straight-talking straight shooter is being threatened, and they must not let that happen. Of course, a few reality-based folks in the media see this for what it is:

"The press loves McCain. We're his base," MSNBC loudmouth Chris Matthews declared during the 2006 elections.

A new book, "Free Ride: John McCain and the Media" by David Brock and Paul Waldman, identifies Matthews as "the head of the McCain fan club among the establishment press" but says he has plenty of company [...]

Unending use of the phrase "maverick," and unceasing praise of McCain's "straight talk," have shaped a highly favorable public image ... at a time when ratings for his fellow members of Congress are in the drink [...]

Still, the national press corps' "big feet" owe it to the country to put aside their pack mentality and subject McCain to the same critical scrutiny as other presidential hopefuls.

A year ago, on "Hardball," Matthews asked about Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations: "What have you done to deserve this job?"

The program's guest allowed that this was a "tough question" facing the full field of candidates.

"Not so much for McCain," Matthews interrupted. "He has deserved the presidency. Whether he should be president or not, it's up to the voters."

It's a different standard.

Now this is a major challenge for that media trying to coat McCain with teflon. Since he may have to stay in the public financing system for the primary, and subsequently may have only $13 million to use between now and the Republican National Convention, McCain may have to rely on free media. They've been very reliable so far. But if this scandal goes drip-drip-drip, and particularly the corruption angle plays out, with news of favors for lobbyists, he's going to have an impossible time righting the ship.

UPDATE: By the way Matt Browner Hamlin has the most complete coverage of the Iseman story I've seen. I guess the media is pulling an "OH NOES NOT OUR MAVERICKZ!" on it.