The World According to John McCain

He's both the consummate pragmatist and a zealous crusader for causes he feels just. The question is which America needs now.



"We need to listen," John McCain was saying, "to the views … of our democratic allies." Then, though the words weren't in the script, the Arizona senator repeated himself, as if in self-admonishment: "We need to listen." A lot of meaning was packed into that twice-said line, which was a key theme of McCain's first major foreign-policy speech since becoming the GOP's nominee-apparent. McCain was telling America, and the whole world: if I'm elected there will be, at long last, a return to what Jefferson called "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." There will be no more ill-justified lurches into war, no more unilateralism, no more George W. Bush. Above all, McCain seemed to be saying that while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tear each other to pieces, I'm going to be the wise and welcoming statesman patching up America's global relations even before I get to the Oval Office. Not surprisingly, after the speech last week at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, McCain's campaign could not talk enough about international cooperation—what McCain had called a "new compact." "He has such a deep relationship with so many Europeans and those in other regions, including Asia and the Middle East," said one adviser, Rich Williamson, who added that McCain has kept up his global profile by "going each year to the Munich Security Conference."

It was all very reassuring. There's just one problem: John McCain doesn't always behave according to his own statesmanlike script. In fact, while attending that same Munich conference in 2006, the Arizona senator had another one of what have come to be known as McCain Moments. In a small meeting at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, McCain was conferring with Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the foreign minister of Germany—one of America's most important allies—when the others heard McCain erupt. He thought the German was being insufficiently tough on the brutal regime in Belarus. Raising his voice at Steinmeier—who's known for speaking in unclear diplomatese—McCain "started shaking and rising out of his chair," said one participant, a former senior diplomatic official who related the anecdote on condition of anonymity. "He said something like: 'I haven't come to Munich to hear this kind of crap'." McCain's old pal Joe Lieberman jumped in. "Lieberman, who reads him very well, put his hand on McCain's arm and said gently, 'John, I think there's been a problem in the translation.' Of course Lieberman doesn't speak German and there hadn't been any problem in the translation … It was just John's explosive temper."

Certainly this was no great crisis, and the Germans later said all was forgiven. (On Sunday Sen. McCain's campaign strongly denied this account of the incident; Sen. Lieberman earlier recalled it as a misunderstanding over the translation.) But McCain's Munich outburst could not be called an isolated incident. Fearless and righteous, McCain has long been known to unleash a lacerating anger on those who cross him—Senate colleagues, foreign interlocutors, even the interrogators who once held his life in their hands at the Hanoi Hilton. (Lieberman, his fellow centrist, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's monitor. Just two weeks ago, when McCain mistakenly said Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq fighters, it was the Connecticut senator who again pulled him aside, gently reminding him that the Iranian regime has been accused of training fellow Shiite extremists, not Sunni Al Qaeda.) For someone who is just an election away from the White House—and who is running on his image as a tested statesman—there remain serious questions about how exactly McCain might behave as president.



Partly this is because McCain himself is not easy to pin down. There is McCain the pragmatist: worldly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology—a man willing to defy his own party and forge compromise, even with liberals like Ted Kennedy (on granting illegal immigrants some amnesty) and John Kerry (on normalizing relations with Vietnam). And then there is the zealous advocate, single-minded about pressing his cause, sometimes erupting in outrage at detractors and willing to stand alone—without any allies at all, if need be.

There is much to like in both McCains. He's pragmatic in the service of the national interest; he rises to passion when he believes that America's best values are at stake. Even some of those who fret about his zeal and temper say they plan to vote for him (just as many ultraconservatives who worry about his centrism say they'll reluctantly pull the lever as well). Lieberman says McCain's anger "is part of his strength. And his guts. There are some things we should get righteously angry about."

Sometimes these two McCains—the crusader and the pragmatist—have combined to make him a powerful and leaderly force for change, which seems to be what Americans want now. It was McCain the savvy military analyst who looked hard at the emerging Iraqi insurgency in the fall of 2003, decided a lot more U.S. troops were needed, and then went head-to-head with the mulish Donald Rumsfeld over the issue. (McCain was, in effect, the first person in Washington to call for a "surge.") Ultimately, four years later, he brought the Congress—and the president—with him. "I went against the will of my own party when it wasn't politically expedient," McCain has said.


VISIT THE JOHN MCCAIN BLOG

Auto industry news - with a twist

LUCKY EBAY LINK: http://www.FortuneEbay.com

What history predicts about this presidential election

Given the fascinating twists and turns of the current election season just in the last year, only a foreign exchange student just off the plane would hazard a prediction about this Nov. 4's presidential balloting.

But one thing is certain -- well, more than likely: This will be the first-ever presidential election in the nation's history pitting two sitting U.S. senators against each other.



Americans haven't been very receptive to legislators from that body becoming the nation's chief executive. Only two sitting senators -- John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Warren G. Harding in 1920 -- have ever succeeded in reaching the White House. And neither of them completed one term, as pointed out by Robert Schmuhl, an expert and author on the American presidency and an American Studies professor at the University of Notre Dame.

In the 48 years since Kennedy, his research shows, 40 senators have sought the presidency. And 40 didn't get it.

And that's not counting 2007-08, when six sitting and one former senator started the election talkathon last year. It took one of those rare times when no incumbent or sitting vice president was running to open the doors for an actual senator.

Americans have revealed some other preferences in their ...

presidential voting: They like chief executives; four of the last five presidents have been governors, which is what gave hope to Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Over the last three decades, Americans have preferred to elect what Schmuhl calls "outsiders" and "opposites" to go to Washington, not insiders to stay there:

Gov. Jimmy Carter over former congressman and President Gerald Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan over President Carter in 1980 and over former Sen. and Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984, Gov. Bill Clinton over President George H.W. Bush in 1992, President Clinton over former Sen. Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush over former senator and Vice President Al Gore in 2000, and President Bush over Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

The only possible exception was Vice President Bush over Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988, but many would argue Bush was basically running for a third Reagan term.

Yet this time, all three of the remaining candidates are "from" Washington. So which one will be seen as less Washington -- freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, whose brief time there could become a plus, or the longtime senator but even longer-time maverick John McCain?

The other remaining contender -- Sen. Hillary Clinton -- has made her Washington experience as first lady a crucial part of her case for election. Ready on Day One. Will voters see her more as essentially an interrupted third Clinton term or as the opposite of the Republican incumbent?

History also suggests that this year's winner will be the one perceived as politically occupying the most central position on the political spectrum with the ability to attract votes from the opposite party.

Will it be Obama, who attracts large crowds but was recently labeled the most liberal of 100 senators by the nonpartisan National Journal? Will it be Clinton, who was also ranked high on the liberal scale but is perceived as closer to the center? Or will it be McCain, who's a reliable conservative on some issues but has sometimes voted against his own party?

In his Wall Street Journal column Thursday, former top White House advisor Karl Rove examined three recent sets of polls including the The Times/Bloomberg poll. And though some recent published stories have examined the number of "Obamicans," Republicans attracted to vote for Obama, Rove found the figures actually reveal the existence of what he calls "McCainicrats." And not just Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

"Almost twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain," Rove wrote, "as Republicans support Mr. Obama. Three times as many Democrats support Mr. McCain as Republicans back Mrs. Clinton."

Not even a foreign exchange student would walk into predicting that one.

By Andrew Malcolm
read the original
LA Times post
and repiles

Obama and the Farrakhan Trap

The Democratic frontrunner stepped in it Tuesday night.

By Byron York

Talking to reporters after the Democratic debate here at Cleveland State University, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s closest adviser, insisted that Obama didn’t try to spin his way through a question on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who recently praised Obama as “the hope of the entire world” who is “capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow.” “I thought that he was very forthright about it,” Axelrod explained. “The point is this: Louis Farrakhan said kind things about [Obama]. From what I read, he didn’t say it was an endorsement, and I think Sen. Obama made clear what his position on Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements was.”



The question stemmed from Obama’s initial answer when NBC’s Tim Russert asked, “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” Obama might have said, “No.” But instead, he seemed to go out of his way to denounce some of Farrakhan’s statements while not taking on Farrakhan himself (and even using Farrakhan’s preferred honorific in the process). “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”

More than a few observers were taken aback by Obama’s not-so-deft sidestep. What if, the blogger Andrew Sullivan asked, it had been a question to John McCain about David Duke? And what if McCain had answered, “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Dr. Duke’s racist comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in a white man who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Dr. Duke.”

And what if then, after the debate, McCain’s top campaign aide explained by saying, “The point is this: David Duke said kind things about [McCain]. From what I read, he didn’t say it was an endorsement, and I think Sen. McCain made clear what his position on Duke’s racist statements was.”

But Obama’s sidestepping didn’t stop there. After his answer, Russert asked again, just as directly, “Do you reject his support?” Obama might have answered, “Yes,” but instead tried his best to stay away from anything so definitive. “Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.”



At that point it became clear that Obama simply would not say that he rejected Farrakhan’s support, preferring instead to refer to, but not repeat, previous statements. It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said. Here in Cleveland on Tuesday night, Obama seemed to be heading in that direction until Russert pressed a bit more, bringing up Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, whose magazine last year said that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.” And then Hillary Clinton — who must have enjoyed seeing her opponent take a rare turn on the hot seat — added, “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting…I have no doubt that everything Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger.”

At that moment, Obama was in trouble. If he continued to repeat his I-have-denounced-Minister-Farrakhan’s-anti-Semitic-statements position, he would clearly seem to be avoiding a larger critique of Farrakhan. So he rather nimbly suggested that it was all a matter of semantics, and if Sen. Clinton liked, he would reject as well as denounce. “Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” Obama said. “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”

The concession got Obama out of trouble. But it didn’t stop the talk in the spin room after the debate. Was Obama initially trying to nuance his way through the question? “Sen. Clinton was pleased that he came back later and…not only denounced it but rejected support,” said top Clinton aide Mark Penn. But Penn continued: “I think you have to listen to the answers. He did not reject what his minister said about Farrakhan. If you listen to the answers, he only responded to Farrakhan, and he never responded to the fact that his minister, if I have it right, said that Farrakhan was a person of greatness. So if you listen very carefully, I do not think he in fact rejected or denounced his minister praising Farrakhan — he only did that to Farrakhan.”

A few feet away, Rev. Jesse Jackson approached the question indirectly. He told reporters he was disappointed that there wasn’t a serious discussion of poverty in the debate; why was there no time to discuss the poor and time to discuss Louis Farrakhan? And if there was going to be a discussion of Farrakhan, how could it then leave out…Bill O’Reilly? “They mentioned the Farrakhan matter,” Jackson said. “He’s a free speaker, but in the case of O’Reilly, who suggested about Michelle Obama’s statement about love for the country, about the lynch mob — a very reprehensible statement. He comes under FCC and Fox scrutiny. And so I thought there was an imbalance there.”

(Jackson was referring to a recent incident in which the Fox News host, on his radio program, defended Mrs. Obama on her comment that she had not, in her adult life, been proud of her country until her husband’s run for president. “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama until there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels,” O’Reilly said. Later, O’Reilly, noting that his statement was in Mrs. Obama’s defense, said, “I’m sorry if my statement offended anybody.”)

In the end, what did Farrakhan’s prominent role in Tuesday night’s debate amount to? Perhaps it was all just of interest to the press. But Obama’s reluctance, at least initially, to reject Farrakhan’s support said something about the closeness of this Democratic race. There are a lot of voters out there who admire Louis Farrakhan. Why alienate them? “What I think we all have to be careful of, in the process of these elections, is people saying, ‘O.K., I support you,’ and then determining whether or not you would want or not want their support,” Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter, said after the debate. “I am confident that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would love to have the votes of people within the Farrakhan sect… Maybe you don’t necessarily embrace the leadership, but you embrace the fact that there are millions — not millions, but thousands — of people within that religion who on a daily basis are suffering from the same things all the rest of us are suffering from.”

What you should know about John McCain

Things you should know about John McCain:

• John McCain was born in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory, while his father was serving as an active-duty naval officer.

• If elected, he would be the oldest president ever at inauguration (72) and the first born outside the continental U.S.


• Mr. McCain narrowly escaped being thrown out of the U.S. Naval Academy on many occasions. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class.

• He spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, Vietnam, after his plane was shot down.

• Because of injuries from his time as a POW, Mr. McCain cannot raise either arm above his head.

• He has had three episodes of melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer.

• When he was a prisoner of war, he was the prison storyteller. He was once allowed 10 minutes with a Bible to refresh his memory so he could lead a Christmas service in the cell.

• Mr. McCain's father was buried in Arlington National Cemetery in 1981, the latest McCain to be buried there in a line dating back to the Revolutionary War.

• Mr. McCain's pets include Coco the mutt; Sam, an English springer spaniel; Oreo the cat; Cuff and Link, a pair of turtles; three parakeets; 13 saltwater fish; and finally, a ferret.

• Mr. McCain's first wife was Carol Shepp, a former Philadelphia model. He divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy Hensley a month later. He has seven children and four grandchildren.

• Mr. McCain appeared as himself in a cameo in the movie Wedding Crashers.

• When The Associated Press asked candidates for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination who their favorite Republican was, John Kerry, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman all said Mr. McCain.

Compiled by Bailey Shiffler

How Right Is McCain?

The likely nominee is a "conservative." Here's what that means.

By PETE DU PONT
February 19, 2008

John McCain will be the Republican Party's presidential candidate in November. Most Republicans certainly know who John McCain is, but there still seems to be a question as to just what he is. President Bush said last week that there was "no doubt in my mind he is a true conservative." But is he a Ronald Reagan conservative, or more like a Bob Dole moderate? Or is he like Dwight Eisenhower, who claimed in the 1952 nomination battle that he was "just as conservative" as his opponent, Sen. Robert Taft?



Mr. McCain's lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 82, compared with conservative Sen. Sam Brownback's 94, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's 90, and liberal Sen. Olympia Snowe's 50. So he is much more conservative than liberal; indeed Americans for Tax Reform rates him at 83, compared with Hillary Clinton's 7 and Barack Obama's 8.

We know he has a tough streak, saying that when he looked into Russian president Vladimir Putin's eyes he "saw three letters: a K, a G and a B," and we know he has a temper. When Mitt Romney said to McCain in one of their debates, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys," Mr. McCain replied, "Well, they are." In the words of Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Mr. McCain "is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

* * *

So what are Mr. McCain's public policy beliefs? For starters, he would be America's most militarily experienced president since Ike. He piloted a Navy A-4 Skyhawk bomber in Vietnam, completing 22 missions before being shot down in 1967, captured, and often beaten during his five years of imprisonment. He believes in fighting terrorism to protect America. He intends "to win the war in Iraq" and views the Iraq debate as being over "whether we set a date for withdrawal, which will be a date for surrender, or whether we will let this surge continue and succeed." He will "make unmistakably clear to Iran that we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the state of Israel . . . and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions."

Second, Mr. McCain is on the record as supportive of many conservative beliefs that are the opposite of liberal thinking. He will support the building of nuclear power plants to increase America's independent energy supplies. He is against Hillary Clinton's health-care program, including its individual mandate. And he is for individually owned Social Security accounts.

Mr. McCain is for school choice and competition--"That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers"--and he voted for a bill to provide vouchers in the District of Columbia. In 2000 he said, "I would take the gas and oil, ethanol and sugar subsidies and take that money and put it into a test voucher program over three years to be used in every poor school district in every state in America."

He is for eliminating the alternative minimum tax and supports changing our tax system: "We have to reform the tax code. Nobody understands it. Nobody trusts it. Nobody believes in it. And we have to fix it."

He has supported free trade agreements, for "isolationism and protectionism doesn't work." He has a pro-life voting record, opposes partial-birth abortion and voted against allowing the Federal Marriage Amendment to come to the floor, while supporting state enactments of such amendment sif they choose. He believes the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

He favors a line-item veto for the president, which does not exist today, and has supported another very good spending idea: a constitutional amendment requiring a three-fifths vote of each house of Congress to raise taxes. Sixteen states have such a supermajority requirement, and McCain might add to his list a similar three-fifths vote to spend more than, say, 98% of the government's income.

And he has firmly stated that he is for appointing conservative Supreme Court justices, telling the Federalist Society he would "not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity."



On economic matters he believes "the first thing we need to do is stop the out-of-control spending." He has promised to eliminate the 10,000 or so earmark spending items (costing some $20 billion to $30 billion annually) that Congress adds to its other spending bills: "I will not sign a bill with any earmarks in it." That is a tough promise but a good start on fixing congressional overspending. In the Des Moines Register debate in Iowa last December, he said he would "eliminate subsidies on ethanol and other agricultural products. They are an impediment to competition. They are an impediment to free markets. And I believe subsidies are a mistake." Congress gives out nearly $3 billion in ethanol subsidies every year, and $15 billion to $20 billion in other farm subsidies, so this is a significant and positive policy change Mr. McCain is advocating.

Mr. McCain now supports making permanent the Bush income tax rate reductions because "I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy." That is a significant improvement from his 2001 opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his 2004 opposition to making them permanent, and his sponsorship many years ago with Sen. Tom Daschle of legislation to eliminate tax reductions "tilted to the rich."

On the other side of the coin is Mr. McCain's most significant error: the McCain-Feingold legislation, which regulates what people and some organizations may say about federal candidates in the 60 days before an election. It is wrong thinking, wrong regulation, and in violation of the First Amendment. We need to know what Mr. McCain will do on this question if he becomes president; specifically, would he nominate judges--or Federal Election Committee members--who support the First Amendment?

* * *

Add it all together and John McCain is mostly conservative, but he is also much like Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt commanded the Rough Rider soldiers in the Spanish-American War. As president he was resolute, industrious and not particularly patient. He fought party bosses, sued to break up railroad trusts, was the "trustbuster" who launched 44 lawsuits against major corporations, gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to set rates, and led the fight to eliminate corporate election campaign contributions. He encouraged insurrection in Panama so he could build the canal, and built and sent around the world the Great White Fleet, the largest Navy America had ever had, to make clear to the world that we were leaders and meant business.

And Roosevelt's favorite saying was "Speak softly and carry a big stick," which sounds pretty much like the modern John McCain.

McCain is learning to rein himself in

So this is what it looks like when the maverick becomes The Man.

By Mark Leibovich of the New York Times



Senator John McCain was sitting in the front of his fancy-pants front-runner’s plane, trying to get comfortable. He fidgeted, occasionally lapsing into un-McCainlike blandness: “There is a process in place that will formalize the methodology,” he said in describing how his free-form campaign style will assume the discipline expected of a probable Republican standard-bearer.

The position is unnatural to Mr. McCain, who has typically floundered when not playing the insurgent role. But now he is in the midst of an at-times awkward transition — from being one of the most disruptive figures in his party to someone playing it safer, not to mention trying to make nice with Republicans he clearly despises and who feel similarly about him.

“I’m trying to unify the party,” he says a lot these days, as if reminding himself. He is trying to remain “Johnny B. Goode” (the song blares over a loudspeaker at some McCain rallies), giving relatively cautious answers and trying to rein in his pugnacity, if not his wisecracks.

On a flight from Burlington, Vt., to Warwick, R.I., on Thursday, Mr. McCain volunteered that Brooke Buchanan, his spokeswoman who was seated nearby and rolling her eyes, “has a lot of her money hidden in the Cayman Islands” and that she earned it by “dealing drugs.” Previously, Mr. McCain has identified Ms. Buchanan as “Pat Buchanan’s illegitimate daughter,” “bipolar,” “a drunk,” “someone with a lot of boyfriends” and “just out of Betty Ford.”

It is only a matter of time before some viewer, listener or reader complains — recovering addicts, for example, mental illness sufferers, or, for that matter, Pat Buchanan himself.

Rebel image

One of the trademarks of Mr. McCain’s rebel image has been his inability to cloak his emotions, especially anger. He has been prone to volcanic blowups over the years. And while he would hardly be the first president with a temper, Mr. McCain has been ever vigilant of late about resisting provocation.

He mentioned his recent appearance in Washington before the Conservative Political Action Conference. (No adoring audience, the conventiongoers favored Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, in a straw poll, even though Mr. Romney had quit the race.)

“They booed me when I brought up immigration,” Mr. McCain said. “And, automatically, I just smiled.”

He repeated himself — “Smile! Smile!” — as if recreating an internal exercise that ensured this triumph of self-possession.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who backed Mr. Romney in this year’s race, said Mr. McCain, of Arizona, deserved credit for having gone through the entire campaign “under stressful conditions” without any memorable outbursts.

“Does he have a capacity to control it?” asked Mr. Santorum, referring to Mr. McCain’s detonations. “Over the course of the campaign, I think he has managed to. But I think it is a legitimate cause for concern.”

The more famous McCain outbursts have been widely recalled in recent months, in part courtesy of the Romney campaign, which circulated a “Top 10 List” of Mr. McCain’s explosions.

The perception that he struggles to control his anger makes Mr. McCain angry. “I know I sound a little bit defensive,” he said. “But for the last 10 years, I’ve had very little significant disagreement with my colleagues, certainly not personal ones.”

That’s not exactly true: fellow senators and staff members cite more recent dust-ups involving profanities, red-faced exchanges and quick-trigger reactions. Still, only one entry on Mr. McCain’s Greatest Fits list occurred in the last year. He complains that people keep invoking “a problem I had with Chuck Grassley,” referring to the debate in which he shouted unprintable profanities at his Republican colleague from Iowa. “It was 12, 14 years ago,” Mr. McCain said. (It was, in fact, 16.)



Part of being “presidential” and “uniting the party” involves grinning and bearing a wide variety of grievances — in Mr. McCain’s case, from anti-immigration activists, right-wing talk show hosts and the many lawmakers and lobbyists Mr. McCain has crossed, undermined, annoyed and overshadowed over the years.

In addition to winning over his adversaries, Mr. McCain, 71, confronts many obstacles these days, all formidable. He faces well-financed and determined — if not unified — Democrats, questions about his age, and mounting fears about the economy (not his strong suit, he admits).

But Mr. McCain’s chief encumbrance might be himself, namely, his historic inability to play the role of go-along-get-along leader. His flirtation with being the front-runner early last year resulted in near disaster. He has charmed the news media with his quippy and accessible style, and made his political name as a party renegade.

Being on top with a growing staff, greater scrutiny and all the “best behavior” that demands does not necessary play to his strengths. “If he tries to be someone else, that’s a prescription for disaster,” said Bob Stevenson, a Republican strategist who was an aide to Bill Frist, the former Senate majority leader.

“But once you become the nominee of the party,” Mr. Stevenson said, “you begin a transition into a different role, and that transition might be steeper for John McCain than some previous nominees.”

It is with some satisfaction — and irony — that Mr. McCain cataloged the list of longtime Republican adversaries who have lined up in the last week to support him. “John Cornyn endorsed me,” Mr. McCain boasted in the interview, referring to the Republican senator from Texas at whom he directed a well-publicized string of profanities in a meeting last year.

So did Ted Stevens, Mr. McCain said, referring to the longtime senator from Alaska whose enmity for Mr. McCain — and vice versa — is well known. “It was pretty short,” Mr. McCain said of the Stevens endorsement.

'Cold chill down my spine'

“Thad Cochran endorsed me, too,” Mr. McCain marveled, referring to a very brief statement from the Republican senator from Mississippi who recently told The Boston Globe that the thought of Mr. McCain as president “sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Mr. Cochran, who declined to comment for this article, went on to call his longtime colleague “erratic,” “hotheaded” and someone who “loses his temper” and “worries me.”

Mr. McCain said he encountered Mr. Cochran on the Senate floor on Wednesday and the two exchanged a pro forma hug. There was no mention of Mr. Cochran’s criticisms. “What’s the point?” Mr. McCain said. The point — or one point — is that an earlier version of Mr. McCain might have approached Mr. Cochran with less gracious intent.

In the course of a day on the stump, he demonstrated repeatedly that the Old McCain was being retooled on the fly. As his bus wound through Boston on Thursday, Mr. McCain began to tell the gathered-around reporters a sweet story about Senator Edward M. Kennedy. It is an anecdote he has told publicly many times — about how Mr. Kennedy arranged an elaborate birthday celebration for Mr. McCain’s son Jimmy when he turned 11.

But Mr. McCain knows that public appreciation for Ted Kennedy is not the best way to win over the Republican base, so he prefaced the story with a request that it not be attributed to him. (Although he has told the story on the record many times.)



Mr. McCain was stretched out on a velour-covered seat, holding court. He was on his way to put a happy face on a pained encounter — an endorsement by Mr. Romney, a man whom Mr. McCain’s campaign had not long ago derided as a phony, flailing flip-flopper.

Reporters tried to incite Mr. McCain into a wisecrack. One asked if Mr. Romney had “flip-flopped” on his view of Mr. McCain. Mr. McCain grinned tightly, and spoke of how grateful he was for Mr. Romney’s support.

Upon arriving at Mr. Romney’s soon-to-close headquarters, Mr. McCain stood dutifully for a photo op. The onetime adversaries gripped and grinned behind a lectern, standing about as far away as two people shaking hands possibly can.

Mr. McCain stood to the side while his taller, tanner and better-rested former rival called him “a true American hero.”

In turn, the front-runner praised Mr. Romney for running a “hard, intensive, fine, honorable” campaign. “I respect him enormously,” Mr. McCain said, looking solemn, before catching himself and flashing an autopilot smile.


Save up to 75% at FamilyChristian.com's Clearance Center.

McCain Rallies House GOP Members

By LIBBY QUAID

WASHINGTON - Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain appealed to GOP House members for help rallying conservatives behind him, acknowledging the party must unite if it hopes to match the enthusiasm generated by Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

McCain met Wednesday with House Republicans in an effort to smooth over past conflicts and encourage critics to back his candidacy. McCain, all but assured the nomination, won Tuesday's primaries in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

"I'm very gratified by the very warm reception that I received from the Republican conference this morning - a spirited and a good discussion of some of the issues," McCain told reporters afterward. "I'm very grateful for our pledge to work together."

McCain spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference where he was flanked by the House GOP leadership. The Arizona senator is working hard to reassure critics who are suspicious of his more moderate positions on some issues and of his tendency to work with Democrats.

Republican leader John Boehner, for one, was willing to set aside differences.

"Clearly, I've had some disagreements with Senator McCain over the years," said Boehner, an Ohio congressman. "But I've got to tell you, I've watched this presidential race unfold, and I've watched John McCain be a strong advocate for the principles I believe in."

GOP whip Roy Blunt called McCain "the best possible nominee for us to take back the House."

"The nominee who appeals to Reagan Democrats, the nominee who appeals to independents, the nominee who will unite conservatives in a way that assures he'll be not only the next president, but he'll be working with a Republican majority in the House," Blunt said.

McCain promised to work hard to elect Republicans to the House, and allowed the Democrats have generated more enthusiasm among voters to date.

Complicating his task is Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has stubbornly refused to leave the Republican race despite the seeming impossibility of overcoming McCain's commanding lead in the chase for convention delegates.

"Of course, I would like for him to withdraw today; it would be much easier," McCain said. "But I respect his right to remain in this race for just as long as he wants to."

Huckabee gave McCain big trouble Tuesday among conservatives in Virginia. There, exit polls showed 63 percent of white, born-again Christians supported Huckabee.

Even so, McCain noted, he won Virginia by more than 9 percent.

"In any election I've ever been involved in, a 9 percent cushion is very good," McCain said. "I also understand why many evangelical Christians would vote for Governor Huckabee. He is a Baptist minister."

As he did Tuesday night, McCain focused much of his criticism on Obama, Tuesday's winner on the Democratic side.

"I respect him and the campaign that he has run, but there's going to come a time when we have to get into specifics," McCain told reporters Wednesday on Capitol Hill. "I've not observed every speech he's given, obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics."

Link to article