So Much for Straight Talk

So much for "straight talk." If you needed any more proof that the maverick John McCain will run as the ultimate insider come 2008, scroll down.

McCain, February 28, 2000, Virginia Beach, Virginia:

I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro- life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters.

Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

Press release from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, March 28, 2006:

American military hero and Arizona Sen. John McCain will deliver the Commencement message at Liberty University on May 13, at 9:30 a.m., in the Liberty University Vines Center.

While Sen. McCain and Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell have had their share of political differences through the years, the two men share a common respect for each other and have become good friends in their efforts to preserve what they see as common values. This will mark his first ever appearance at Liberty University.

More from the Lynchburg, Virginia News & Advance:

Falwell said McCain's appearance at LU's graduation is another sign that McCain is wooing evangelical Christians.

"He is in the process of healing the breech with evangelical groups," Falwell said.

Falwell said McCain has expressed a willingness to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, an issue dear to conservative Christians.

Our cover story on McCain back in November showed him juggling images of Teddy Roosevelt and Falwell. The "agent of intolerance" has become his new best friend.

Comments (31)

1. It's all about which Party is smarter or dumber.

   If the Dems are smarter, they'll nominate a Southern governor (what they've ALWAYS won on after JFK).

   If the Dems are dumber, they'll nominate a Northeastern/North-Midwestern liberal Senator/Governor (which they've ALWAYS LOST on after JFK)

   If the Repubs are smarter, they'll nominate a Southern or Western governor (which they've always won on, less Bush-41 as incumbent Veep).

   If the Repubs are dumber, they'll nominate a "moderate war hero" Senator who "acts like a Religious Rightie for the election" (which was what they tried in 1996 and lost).

   If BOTH are smart, you got a pretty good political showdown and debate over which way the country is going to go. If BOTH are dumb, demographics would tend to favor the Republicans. Otherwise, the "smarter" pick wins.

   Hillary vs McCain? McCain stomps her. Feingold versus McCain, close but still "Maverick John". Mark Warner versus McCain, McCain goes down; as does just about any Repub even other Governors. Other match-ups follow the same line.

   Posted by Mask at 03/28/2006 @ 11:10am

2. I totally agree, Mask, but I think that Warner may be overhyped. I've seen him a few times on C-SPAN (forum from DAVOS comes to mind) and he seemed "not ready for prime time" if you know what I mean. He didn't seem to stand out amongst the other panelists, his views seemed inconsistent and he couldn't defend them when questioned by others.

   Posted by woodyee at 03/28/2006 @ 11:45am

3. Mask,

   While I can't disagree with the accuracy of your prediction I can lamment at the terrible failing of our democracy when it is so clear to the punditry that where you come from geographically is more important than your vision and leadership abilities.

   I lived in more than one African country and listened to American expats lambaste the local voting patterns which always went along tribal lines regardless of the merit of the candidate.

   We are clearly not much different.

   Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2006 @ 12:00pm

4. Mask, it's a pleasure to agree with you. McCain's taking a huge gamble: far right over centrist/moderate/independent/swings and dems on the fence. He is going to remind everyone why we didn't want him during his last failed go around. Makes you wonder if that nonsense with Obama was just a muscle flexing stunt for the far right.

   I'm a huge supporter of Warner and you're right on. I don't know about this charm school stuff that Woodyee's talking about with Warner, but results and actions are in his favor. Two years before 00, George W. seemed awkward, unschooled in foreign policy and barely grasping an eigth grade vocabulary when he appeared on television. (All still true, of course, but he managed to win.)

   I have high hopes for Warner. Southern Governor. Fiscally responsible and savvy. Moderate Dem. Can turn a red state blue (or indigo anyway, good enough).

   Posted by kfine at 03/28/2006 @ 12:09pm

5. Turning a red state blue. Now there's a litmus test!

   Posted by MyParadigm at 03/28/2006 @ 12:17pm

6. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/28/2006 @ 12:00am | ignore this person

   Well, it cuts all ways. Northerners patronize Southerners, yet loved Carter and Clinton. Southerners mock Californians, but loved Reagan.

   Posted by Mask at 03/28/2006 @ 12:18pm

7. Looks like McCain is bending over for a position as an altar-boy! Wonder how that'll play on moderate conservatives!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 03/28/2006 @ 12:21pm

8. Posted by KFINE 03/28/2006 @ 12:09am | ignore this person

   Warner has only two "worrisome" things.

   1. Lack of experience, given his short stint as VA governor.

   2. (for the Left) The possibility of another "Clinton Third Way'er/DLC/triangulator".

   Posted by Mask at 03/28/2006 @ 12:22pm

9. Warner? The lesser of two evils. Again. And again. More destructive than boring, but plenty of both. The system will totter along, until it collapses. Sorry for my (and your) grandkids when it will happen.

   Posted by donescobar at 03/28/2006 @ 12:48pm

10. Mask-Re. your point about Northerners for Carter/Southerners for Reagan. They both had the ability to unify. This country is tired of the diviseness and ready for someone left of center or right of center. McCain just blew that by becoming Falwell's bitch.

    Warner has more results that W. did in his short stint. He's not just going to nationalize a statewide "No Child Left Behind" testing program or a state's faith-based initiatives program. What the hell else did W. do as governor (other than lead the country in executions)? Warner's fiscal record is solid and he managed to unite a state on social issues. The likeability factor was there in Virginia and got his lieutennant elected (he'd have been easily re-elected if 2 terms were permitted).

    DONESCOBAR - I fear for my grandkids future NOW, which is why, like most Americans, I want change.

    Posted by kfine at 03/28/2006 @ 1:38pm

11. kfine,

    Do you like Warner because he was a "Southern Governor" (which is what you listed first when you listed his achievments) or do you like him for his "likability" or do you like him for his fiscal record?

    If it's the fiscal record thing....do you think he's the strongest fiscal hawk possible in 2008? And if not, why are you settling? Is it because he's a likable X Southern Governor? And isn't this like the Kikuyu voting Kikuyu and the Luo voting Luo in Kenyan politics?

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/28/2006 @ 1:48pm

12. Freedomplease,

    Everyone thought Bush was a fiscal hawk. What are the Republican fiscal hawks going to run on in 06/08? "This time we really mean it!" (9 trillion dollars later)

    Warner has an impressive track record in this area. He's managed growth, a growing economy and infrastructure, he doesn't fit "tax and spend" stereotypes. The "Southern Governor" comment just addresses how likely it is that he could be elected. It's just based on history, that's all.

    And speaking of history, I obviously don't know enough Kenyan political history to comment on Luo/Kikuyu voting tendencies. Sounded impressive, though.

    Posted by kfine at 03/28/2006 @ 2:03pm

13. KFINE

    I understand your desire for change and share your fear for our grandchildren. I expect very little from any change. Why would those who benefit most from the system, and who control it, permit more than superficial changes? How different will the life of--let's say a forklift operator and his teacher's assistant wife in Toledo - be under Warner? Will the NAFTA-inspired bleeding of jobs cease or be reversed? But HOW? And what would Warner (or other Dems) do about the jihad? The Clinton example does not inspire optimism. "We tried," he said to Reich at the end. Bullshit. Gingrich won, and he and his corporate pals have been tightening their hold on the country. Congress is (mostly) a joke and the Court became one after 2000 election decision. So, where's the White Knight and who might his followers be?

    Posted by donescobar at 03/28/2006 @ 2:43pm

14. DONESCOBAR,

    I'm not saying Warner is going to save the world. I'm saying he'd be a good choice for our next President (with analysis at the present time). For Mr. Forklifer and Mrs. Teacher's Assistant: I don't know, maybe their future kids won't be born owing 50,000 to the deficit. Maybe they'll be able to afford student loans. Maybe there will be real job growth instead of manipulated numbers (and the new, meaningless "American Competitiveness Initiative"). Maybe we'll focus on real problem-solving (including terrorism) instead of worrying about gays and abstinence-only education.

    I'm not saying it's a guaranteed home run. I'm saying I'd prefer base hits to striking out.

    Posted by kfine at 03/28/2006 @ 5:35pm

15. KFINE

    OK. It's a crap shoot, but the chances are better Warner will do less harm (and maybe a bit of good} than any Publican. Modest expectations, but it's probably best to keep them at that level. And how does Hillary fit into your assessment?

    Posted by donescobar at 03/28/2006 @ 8:43pm

16. MASK,

    First point: Johnson was never a governor.

    Second point: The times, they are a-changin'. While you might feel cozy and comfy making a bold prediction which is nothing more than same ol' same ol', allow me to do something a little different. This country is bored to hell with corruption, politics, and failures. A candidate that presents--gasp!--ideas for correcting all of the above (and no southern governor is truly capable of this) is a truly viable candidate.

    This southerner is pining for a good ol' northerner to catch his vote. And that candidate's name does not begin with "hill".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/28/2006 @ 8:44pm

17. run right for nomination...run center for office...hello?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/29/2006 @ 12:13am

18. wes clark...southern, not governer, outsider, trumps any mil advantage pubs could have, might win red state or 2...who knows...true outsider who has learned the ropes...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/29/2006 @ 12:15am

19. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 03/28/2006 @ 8:44pm | ignore this person

    Yes, TJ...I know Johnson wasn't a governor, but he was Southern. Though mostly he won in 1964 on Goldwater (or LeMay actually) threatening to NUKE Vietnam.

    But look at the last 35 years....Dems run a Southern moderate, they win. Dems run a NE/N-MW liberal, they lose. There are few, if any "Southern Dem libs".

    So, you can run Russ Feingold and get your "purity" and pull another Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry....or you can run a Mark Warner and get Clinton without the zipper problems.

    Posted by Mask at 03/29/2006 @ 09:47am

20. Is there a link where I can find out more about Warner? I like what I hear about him, but that only goes so far. It is a shame that McCain has already sold his soul. That's too bad because I had high hopes for him. Does it matter where someone hails from in order to be a good candidate? If so, that's the problem with the voters. Shouldn't his/her stand on the issue be the deciding factor instead of geographical location?

    Posted by k330k at 03/29/2006 @ 1:50pm

21. K330K,

    markwarner2008.com

    Mark Warner is going to give the commencement address at Wake Forest University...where the university President doesn't believe the WTC victims had it coming to them...or that Tinkie Winkie and Spongebob are homosexuals corrupting our youth. He made a better choice than John McCain.

    Posted by kfine at 03/29/2006 @ 2:19pm

22. WARNER 2008 Clinton without the zipper problem

    (see post above) That WILL make a great bumper sticker. Two please.

    Posted by donescobar at 03/29/2006 @ 2:38pm

23. KFINE, I tried the link you provided but all I got was this stupid t-shirt. Just kidding. Anyway I was sent to godaddy.com. Is there another link? If not then I'll google. Thanks anyway.:)

    Posted by k330k at 03/29/2006 @ 4:27pm

24. I found another link for Mark Warner for those interested: ForwardTogether.com. From what i read on the website, he's done a very good job with Virginia especially with regards to education and eradicating Virginia's large debt. What I read was very encouraging but I need to hear the man speak first.

    Posted by k330k at 03/29/2006 @ 4:40pm

25. All the Warner-ites.....

    http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/29/2006 @ 7:41pm

26. Warner's not DOA with liberals! Haven't you heard? Liberals are the new fiscal conservatives.

    Take a drive through Fairfax County Virginia (liberal heaven) and see all the Warner 08 bumper stickers.

    Your sterotyping LL, it taints your view of what liberals really want. Nothing in your post disturbs me.

    Posted by kfine at 03/29/2006 @ 8:49pm

27. Sorry, I said .com and should have been .net

    markwarner2008.net

    Posted by kfine at 03/29/2006 @ 8:50pm

28. LL,

    Strike "sterotyping." Your analysis is relevant.

    I do believe we will see a centrist early on because these times demand an evolving strategy (contrary to past indicators). I know liberals aren't pro-death penalty, but these are State decisions. Pro-death penalty George Bush hasn't influenced the national landscape on this issue; an anti-death penalty candidate won't either (with the exception of SC nominees). It's not a deal breaker for a Dem.

    Warner's no hawk with Iraq. There's a lot of time until 08. Tempering his comments is not bad strategy.

    My "agree with on issues list" is probably longer with Hillary than Mark. But like most Democrats, I want a Democrat in the Whitehouse in 08 FOR SURE.

    Posted by kfine at 03/30/2006 @ 10:26am

29. KFINE,

    How about Wesley Clark? I like him a lot. He's a Southernor (the only times Dems have won the White House since 1976 have been Southernors (Carter in 76' and Clinton in 92' and 96'); good for bring in some of the cracker vote. Plus, he's more liberal than either of them (certainly Carter). Plus, he's a military man (can preempt charge Dems are "weak" on defense).

    On the other hand, Kerry was a military man, and they lied about his record, and it stuck to some extent. How do you beat the Republican sleaze machine?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 02:13am

30. If you read most of the posts from the left on this site, they want an anti-war candidate who will bring the troops home now.

    I want to bring the trops home, but not immediately, and not unconditionally.

    They do not want any increase in military spending.

    I certainly don't. It's obscenely huge allready.

    They are not pro-death penalty.

    I am generally against the death penalty. But as someone said, that's not a huge issue anyway.

    They certainly don't believe in cutting back on social benefits to immigrants.

    I generally don't either, but I am for taking steps to stop further illegal aleins from coming in; it is a problem, and Americans want something done about it.

    Yes, I want the Party to get in touch with its liberal roots, most of all, on economics. Then again, the country has moved away a bit from economic liberalism. So I don't know. I guess the country may just be fucked.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 02:20am

31. Sorry for that entire post being in italics; it is late and I am tired.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 04/01/2006 @ 02:21am