Centerfield

Mathew,

My belief is that a candidate's history with issues is a much better predictor of his or her actions in office than what he or she says during the campaign. I don't think a tiger changes its stripes that much. So, I really think the issue with pandering is how much you think it really reflects their inner beliefs. I am pretty comfortable that John McCain would not start catering to religous fundamentalists,for example, once he got in office regardless of how he might pander to them now. Same with Evan Bayh; I don't know what votes you are specifically referring to but I assume they are votes with the liberal wing of the party. It seems to me highly unlikely that a candidate that has built his or her entire career on a particular set of principles is going to discard them once he or she is president. (Of course, some might argue about Bush, I suppose.) That's not to say, of course, that a president will not have to compromise once in office, but I don't see McCain becoming a radical conservative or Bayh a radical liberal. Despite what people tend to think, I don't think most politicians are so duplicitous as to govern in a completely opposite way from their history.

That's not to say that you don't need to look at what the candidate says or that there aren't lines which should not be crossed.

It seems that moderates on both sides of center are being beaten up by their vocal bases. McCain's high point was his bi-partisan group that fended off the "nuclear option" and his victory in his administration defying "no-torture" stance. His low point must include his recent flip flop of views regarding Christian Evangelical extremists. I haven't heard much from McCain on this issue either. Nor has he addressed the serious conservative reservations coming from former military "experts" in a way Independents hoped he would, despite his stance on torture and military experiance.

Americans have short memories. McCain can always move to the center, but his appearances on the Daily Show are likely to be less well received. If it is a showdown between Clinton and McCain, both are guilty of base-worshipping.

The real issue may be trust. If events abroad go against more Republican predictions, many will wonder where McCain was. After all, his party controls government. Will he wait until missiles are flying in the Gulf?

I think the best indicators of leadership are what candidates say now while conventional missiles are being deployed to subs and only silence comes from McCain regarding Iran, Russian and Chinese relations, foreign inspection for nukes of US-bound cargo, evidence of global warming and outsourcing national security. A maverick is willing to set the bar and in this regard, McCain is surely playing with his appeal to the 40% of Americans who span the middle ground.

With rumors flying that certain MDA programs will be cut due to a huge and growing deficit and meager results, it is important McCain does show prudent civilian review and comment on the 40 billion the administration has already spent of tax payers money on the MDA.

Or maybe McCain knows something we do not: that by election time security issues will move to the front even more than they are now. Perhaps, that is why Democrat Reid has released a leadership position paper promoting the idea that Democrats will be much more effective and tough on National Security than Republicans.

One cannot run as a straight-out "moderate" to win the primary. Won't happen, in either party. A candidate who wants to win must spend primary season at least paying lip service to the base. The GOP base will never love McCain, but he at least must give them a feeling that "well, he won't be too bad".

What centrists must do, I think, is (as Mathew suggests) stay focused on the candidate's history, not his current rhetoric. We're not going to find the dream candidate, the perfect candidate we can all worship. So when Warner feeds some red meat to the Democratic base (seeking Jimmy Carter's endorsement, say), and when McCain does the same to the GOP base (visiting Bob Jones University or something), we need to not freak out and label him an utter sellout. At least for this election, there will be no centrist party, and the odds of a real third-party candidate (a la Perot) are exceedingly small. Thus we must pick and support the best of the options available, making sure to collect as many political chits as possible in return for that support.

I think this is something he has to do. Think of it as the reverse general election policy. A lot of wing politcos move to the center during the general election to court votes and then slide back to the wing once elected. To me, this looks like what McCain is trying to set up to do in reverse. Slide to the right for the primary season and then move back to the center for the general.

I hate that he has to do this; but it may be the only way he can get through the primary. Could it backfire on him? Possibly. However, I think he has to do this in order to have a chance at the Republican nomination.

I will grant that we need to tolerate some degree of base pacification from both sides of the aisle, at least under our current system. But why should we accept it? There is an electoral system which would enable candidates to bypass the primary process. Until that can be adopted, all the other coping methods to help centrists in the current system would be positive. But why not add electoral reform to the mix and one day end the need to pander to the base once and for all?

Another view might be that McCain's party controls basically all of government and he has much more "explaining" to do. After all, he has mentioned the "mistakes" of the Bush's strategy in Iraq. He has not been ravaged by this "base".

The Democrat front runners however, have their ideas stomped as "unsound" by the Right while they try to square with the national mood. Still, they are blasted by their base AND conservative blogs which both share a clear anti-war sentiment and their traditional isolationist stances. Too much ass-kissing by McCain strikes at the Independent voter's sense of fairness in this regard.

Clinton, Biden and others have been stromped by both sides while McCain is seen as laying it safe, avoiding battles while Republican fires burn brightly. You can't just invent outrage or policy when it seems to be a political advantage and mute yourself to curry a nomination.

Scott, I STILL want to see real-world examples of your altervative voting methods to see how they work before I can approve of wide-spread adoption throughout the country.

Maxtrue, I don't think Biden has been stomped that hard by the GOP side. On foreign policy, he is much more respected than most Democrats. On the judiciary, he's seen as a buffoon, but he's got foreign policy credentials, and hasn't waffled nearly as much as Kerry or advocated defeatism nearly as much as Murtha.

Yes, the GOP stomps Hillary, but that's really not so much for her record as Senator but for her past (both her own actions and those of the man to whom she is married).

I think Scott raises a very good point:

But why not add electoral reform to the mix and one day end the need to pander to the base once and for all?

Why not make electoral reform a central (if not the central) plank in a centrist platform? If we don't change the rules of the way the game is played, our grandchildren are going to be blogging on their PDAs about the exact same point: that they have to accept this behavior because that's the way the game is played...

Max,

I think there's severals reasons why the Right gives McCain a free pass when he criticized the President on Iraq. One is that he's a Republican, and their partisan loyalty trumps everything else. The second is that his criticism really is a lot more muted and responsible than, say, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, or John Kerry-- he's advocating for refinements in the strategy, not advocating a drastic change in strategy or an immediate withdrawal. Third, simply put, McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton made him a veteran's war hero-- not a public war hero, but a veteran's war hero. I'm not disparaging Kerry or Murtha's service, but a lot of veterans are rather suspicious of their military service because of some of their actions and how they went about demanding their medals. (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it, but being a combat veteran, I understand their suspicions). McCain's record, on the other hand, is much more like Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye-- it's what we all would like to believe we would do in similar situations, but secretly know that we likely would have come up short.

Having said that, I would trust Biden or Lieberman (neither of whom ever served in the military) on foreign affairs more than 99% of the likely Republican Presidential candidates.

Notes: Biden's son Joseph III is a JAG Capt. in the Delaware NG, and has announced he will run for Delaware state AG in 2006.

Leiberman's wife is the daughter of Holocaust survivors.

Slam-dunk bet: Whoever is nominated for either party will be described by the other side as an extremist beholden to the far wings of their party.

Hillary gets stomped because she's Hillary, but is it really true that sh'e actually getting stomped "across the board" or is it primarily from the wing or wings. I mean, who are these stompers? The ones on the right are, IMO, mostly people who wouldn't vote for 999 out of 1000 democrats anyway. And on the left, what portion of liberals are really "stomping" her? Ok the far left "move on" crowd, a pretty small fringe and irrelevant if you ask me. Then their are the partisans who are already supporting some other candidate. I think when push comes to shove democrats will line up behind someone that they think can win, just like they did when they suddenly dropped Dean and lined up behind Kerry.

Tully, is that the son he was relieved to observe gawking at the girls on the college visit?

As I'm sure others have said and I'll reitirate:

All presidential hopefuls do this. The key is to not let it get traction as a media narrative.

Besides, McCain will still be a victim of the "Senator's curse". It will take some major PR and quick response campaigning to overcome the perils of being a Senator and running for President.

I think Biden and others were simply necessary critics to help the GOP portray Democrats as "moving to the Left". Neither they nor McCain appeared to have much weight in Bush policy deliberations. I might add Powell to that list as well.

On the judiciary, it doesn't matter much to the GOP what Democrats say. Leadership would have preferred the diversionary "nuclear option". Their problem is and was Republican dissent from the moderates and polls.

I do not see what "issues" of the Hillary or Bill past the GOP finds so worthy of stomping. Consider the general refrain each have had for Bush foreign policy while courageously advancing the Centrist line at the cost of Democratic criticism.

Bobby,

No one it seems gets a free pass on the Left these days. Partisan loyalty can be a dangerous thing when it works at “mindset” and against accountability. If such "refinements" McCain and others speak of are the key factors in deciding drastically different consequences -like the result of how we field an army without resolving Sunni participation in it, I would think these are extremely important disputes worth shouting about. No one on the Right has really shouted.

Being a War Hero, should not minimize the perception of shirking one's duty kowtowing for votes when so much is at stake. If McCain is serious about his former criticisms, no waffling will suffice now for the more independently minded. At least he must up the gear at some point. It is far to early to judge much yet. Yet the moment to influence the outcome of our pre-emption will not last forever.

Eric Haney is a war hero, as are other military experts who are not given a free pass when challenging adminstration policy including those on the Left who have lost limbs. They feel serious policy changes must occur to avert disaster. Perhaps their opposition is a bit strident, but certainly the perception by many voters is that such dissent is dismissed.

I still think that the Clinton's have waffled less over principles and endured more from both the Left and the Right, than other Democratic leaders. Hillary, you know, does come with Bill voters. The attacks against her are "hillarious" such as the frothing from conservatives such as Anti-War.Com.

There they proclaim:

"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."

Conservative isolationist, Garet Garrett in 1952

Today conservative hardliners, which first screamed Empire under Bill Clinton -for daring to attack the Taliban, now blast Hillary Clinton as the "Goddess of War". They seem to hand out many free passes to Republicans. Meanwhile, the neocons they detest are out blasting others. Show me a conservative pundit and I'll show you some world class flip-flopping. This base of isolationists is strangely attune to the anti-war one, which can marginalize gains for centrists in 2006. This does portend another Righty emerging following another polarized election cycle. So will McCain’s behavior be of consequence? Will he wait for fire in the Gulf before he elaborates on his view of action?

I, as well, prefer Biden to any emerging Republican contenders, though I see the South figure into the equation of a Democratic victory.

I would consider it an achievement worth celebrating if McCain faces Warner, Clinton or Biden.

John,

Besides, McCain will still be a victim of the "Senator's curse". It will take some major PR and quick response campaigning to overcome the perils of being a Senator and running for President.

While I understand your point, I wonder if maybe we're being a little short-sighted when we reiterate the "Senator's curse" and continue to stress the superiority of Governors over Senators in Presidential elections simply because that's how it has been in the past.

There's no doubt that the rule dominated from 1976 through 2005, when Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II all won their elections. But even looking at just the rest of the 20th century, it wasn't always "the rule"; only 8 of the 18 Presidents (McKinley, TR, Wilson, Coolidge, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II) had served as state Governors. By contrast, 10 had not (Taft, Harding, Hoover, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush I), although interestingly enough, Taft had served as Governor-General of the Philippines and Harding had been a Lieutenant-Governor. And 7 of the 18 Presidents had Congressional experience.

I guess what I'm keying on is that just because it was the rule for a short period of time does not mean that it was always the rule. And once we recognize that it was not always the rule, then we can see that it may not always be the rule in the future and, in fact, may not even be the rule right now. Once we've reached that conclusion, I think we owe it to ourselves to think out of the box and wonder whether the dynamics of the issues have changed in 2006, such that they had changed to allow the emergence of the Governor's Rule in 1976.

Or, to put it more shortly, Centerfield bloggers using "the rule" in 1828 would surely have tipped in favor of John Quincy Adams, since 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections had been won by a "Secretary of State." That "rule" had clearly evaporated by 1828, though, ironically just as people would have been realizing it existed in the first place (James Buchanan would be the only SECSTATE subsequently elected to the White House).

Or maybe I'm just wrong on this point.

Bobby,

Senators have always had a hard time. Aside from JFK, who won by the slimmest of margins, I think only 1 or 2 others have won from their Senate seat.

I believe Harding was a Senator (?) but that race was locked up before it even started. I hear he barely campained and won in a landslide because Wilson was so unpopular that his successor didn't stand a chance.

Max,

Being a War Hero, should not minimize the perception of shirking one's duty kowtowing for votes when so much is at stake. If McCain is serious about his former criticisms, no waffling will suffice now for the more independently minded.

Here's the problem. Senator McCain's earlier criticisms were never about the political or strategic objectives of the War in Iraq and the larger Global War on Terror-- he supported the Administration in that respect. He had operational and tactical-level concerns about some of the things the Administration and the military were and were not doing in Iraq (for example, torture, Abu Ghraib, and security assistance, or the lack thereof), but not the general principle of OIF or our operations abroad.

War critics, however, never really paid attention to the details of what he was criticizing and mistakenly assumed he was on board with their objectives (an immediate-- or at least rapid-- withdrawal of US forces in Iraq). They transposed their definition of his "critique" with his definition his critique-- and the two never matched. Thus, today, when Senator McCain is working with the Administration to get the changes he seeks (and thereby sees no need to continue criticizing an institution that is largely complying with his wishes), you see it as "shirking" and "waffling," whereas he is being perfectly consistent with his earlier approach.

Not all war critics are alike. Within the US Army, my old professor LTC John Nagl has been one of the biggest critics of US Army counterinsurgency operations in Iraq; on a much smaller scale, I have done the same thing about counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare, such that when the British Brigadier Nigel Alwyn-Foster published his official critique, it was sent to me by a half-dozen professors at the Command and General Staff College with comments about how I must have collaborated on it (for the record, I hadn't, although I agree with its thesis completely). My point here, however, is that to have lumped LTC Nagl or myself in with, say, anti-war critics like Cindy Sheehan or Senator Barbara Boxer or Congressman Murtha would have been a huge mistake. It would have been untrue, because our critique is different from theirs.

Show me a conservative pundit and I'll show you some world class flip-flopping.

Right, because conservative pundits have a monopoly on "world-class flip-flopping"? We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, as I believe both sides are equally egregious in their flip-flopping.

Pat,

I'd accept starting with local initiatives. However, if you insist on actual examples before supporting it, there will never be any examples to look at.

How about a simple categorization of war criticism: whether-to and how-to. Whether-to is what we see from all the anti-war forces. How-to is what we see from the likes of McCain and Biden. Bobby's last comment provides some good details about the how-to critique.

Bobby, I tend to think the expectation that a politician will never change his mind or "flip flop" is a fallacy. If someone NEVER changes his or her mind, I would think they're closed-minded or are unable to learn.

Given that, it's no more prevalent among Democrats than Republicans, or vice versa.

Bobby,
Your points are well taken. An example of suspect "how-tos" would be Kerry's "how-to" involving international consensus and support when reality says otherwise (as evidenced in the latest "Russian" disclosure and present international response). I think the "how-to" from McCain and others should have been louder and must continue in light of real problems with the "how-to" of an Iraqi army, intransigence of warring factions and the strategic position our extended involvement has towards readiness for other events.

And it doesn't appear the administration listens that much. Even "how-not-tos" like Haney (which no one comments on) and Murtha count in the public perception of "debate" and are never really countered by the administration in other than broad dismissals. The danger of course, is that public sentiment yanks us out prematurely while policies are not adequately refined. Perception does matter, both here and abroad.

As far as the conservative flip-flopping, the Democrats are also world class. Just look at the issues of protectionism and isolationism. There is a line between healthy compromise and reasonable "reconsideration" which adversaries often label as flip-flopping. Clinton is an example. I never trust a politician who is locked in thinking. The flip-flopping I refer to at Anti-War.Com is more about giving free passes and blasting Hillary while ignoring the "Big Government" and "Empire" of the Bush administration. Just listen to Patrick Buchanan or Crystal answer the tough questions from month to month. LOL They did not give a pass to Miers however. I wonder what kind of pass they give to McCain or Hagel at nomination time. Their counterpart in the Democratic camp doesn't give out quite as many free passes. Sheehan already says she opposes Clinton or anyone not declaring immediate withdrawal. She is not quite the same as the Garrett camp however.

McCain being both a Republican leader and a senator does put him in the spotlight of explaining both his and his administration's record. I certainly see how the time is strategically premature for him to be making waves with the base.

My point is simply; there doesn't appear that much time before world events may overtake discussion about the options which could effect those events now, nor the policies here that might now be driving them. In that regard, McCain and others need to speak up more to be consistent with the image of maverick or independent. Especially if negative events happen. Perhaps a comparison of all serious "how-tos" might be in order on the web as well as the administration's counter (omitting the response "military experts don't agree"). Informed debate among the electorate is what out Founding Fathers hoped would decide policies and elections and steer us down the better course of history.

Scott, I'll support it at the local level without prior experience. What I suggested the time we had a big discussion about this was that we try it at the local level first, in a smattering of local governments both small and large, in red and blue states alike. If those early results show the process actually picking more moderate, less demagogical politicians, then try it out in 2 or 3 states. Then we can evaluate whether all the states should adopt it.

The governor/senator thing is something worth pointing out, but obviously it's not a rule. However, i do think it's reasonable when doing any sort of forecasting to notice a trend and include "persistence" of any reasonably enduring trends in your figuring in an appropriate way. IOW, unless you see signs of change, presume that there's a good chance that the trend will endure.

Obviously, all senators aren't equal. If you've been a senator for a long time and have not just name recognition, but favorable name recognition, that's all to the good. By contrast, a guy like Kerry had recognition, but in the eyes of people who recognized the name, many had either unfavorable impressions or no accompanying impression. That meant that Kerry had to fight the battle to define himself in the public's eye. I think McCain ahs been around long enough and prominently enough that he is, compared to most other candidates, quite well-defined in the eyes of the public. I really don't think being a senator is going to work that strongly against him becuase of this.

Generally, I think senators have trouble because oppents can define them negatively by pointing out peculiar votes. I think McCain gets a little bit of "benefit of the doubt" from the public based on how he's percieved. I think many people will be open toa ccepting reasonable explanations of any voting peculiarities. That's not often the case. It's far more often the case that such explanations make you look like a parsel-tongue, a consumate bee-essing insider. McCain has, IMO, a little bit of teflon going on for him among the genberal electorate. He's less teflon within the confines of his own party though.

I agree with the "how to" versus the "whether to" typology of war criticism. But why is "how to" ok and "whether to" is not? Even if you argue that we need to support the president, doesn't there come a point at which that is invalid? What Bobby and others seem to be saying is that now that Bush has gotten us into Iraq, it's not legitimate to call for an end no matter what. Why can't we have a debate over whether we should be there rather than on how to do it better? I have no truck for the likes of Sheehan--whom I consider a complete moron--but surely it's possible to question the rationale for the war. I'm not advocating an immediatel pullout which I think would lead to even more chaos than exists now, but we at least need to be questioning whether the committment makes sense. I understand that a lot of people here believe in the rationale for the war, but a lot of us don't. Certainly, the anti-war Democrats could do a better job of moderating their tone and restraining their rhetoric (and avoiding stupid issues like impeachment), but I don't accept that the only legitimate issue is how to do the war better.

What Bobby and others seem to be saying is that now that Bush has gotten us into Iraq, it's not legitimate to call for an end no matter what. Why can't we have a debate over whether we should be there rather than on how to do it better?

That's not at all what I'm saying. In fact, many of us who work in the various national security communities have had that debate about what the consequences of a premature withdrawal would be. I've been a part of some rather lengthy discussions with some heavy-hitter thinkers on precisely that subject. And some of those in favor of an immediate withdrawal actually have some rather interesting views on the subject (for example, see the Foreign Affairs article by Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies). But our consensus, invariably, has always been that a premature withdrawal would be worse for American interests than to "stay the course" and assist the Iraqi people in establishing the conditions for an enduring security in Iraq.

I'm not disputing that some critics don't have the right to demand an immediate withdrawal or that such discourse is illegitimate. But just because someone can conduct the discussion, doesn't mean that what they say is even going to be worthwhile for me to listen to it. I've been down that road, reached my conclusions, and it does me about as much good as listening to ESPN's Joe Morgan talk about how to manufacture runs.

But is it illegitimate to call for an end, no matter what, simply because we're already there? Absolutely not, and I have never intended to imply that.

There's a reason the senior Senator from Arizona is the most popular politician in America and has been for years. It is because the American public...not the die-hard blue's of the Northeast or the die-hard red's of the South...but the average guy and gal...the guy and gal who don't surf political blogs, who don't know Rice from Roni, whose only knowledge of the events of the day slowly cascade over them from the 6 o'clock news out of the T.V. in the family room while they're at the dinner table with their families. The guy and gal who are more interested in raising their families, paying their bills, watching Sunday football...these are McCain's people. They don't give two chits about gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, the United Nations, France, China or global warming. They are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. They are centrists. These people are the reason John McCain is as popular as he is and why he'll be elected President in 2008. The "elitists", the "intellectuals", discard these people as irrelevant...HUGE MISTAKE! They aren't stupid hicks, they aren't ignorant...they just have better things to do than piss and moan about politics.

Bush/Rove are positioning McCain to be the GOP nominee in '08. While their differences and animosity are pretty big...I believe that Bush/Rove feel McCain is the only Republican who can win in '08, and better a Republican (even McCain) gets elected than a Democrat (especially Hillary). Remember, Mark McKinnon, Bush's PR man out of Texas the last two campaigns and for Governor before that, has hooked up with McCain's "Straight Talk" group and has made it clear that should McCain run, he's going to be working on the Senator's behalf. McKinnon could not make this move without Rove's say so...In addition, Bush barely makes a speech without mentioning McCain in a strong light...Bush is constantly trying to make sure the public believes his administration has the backing of the senior Senator from Arizona. Rove will keep the Religious Right at bay in '08 and make sure they don't get in McCain's way, as he and the President know McCain is the GOP's only hope of keeping the WH. Who else is there?

John McCain is the most popular politician in America across the board. Who else does the GOP have? Mitt Romney? Can't even get reelected Governor. Rudy? Yesterday's news, too much baggage relative to his personal life. George Allen? His dead dad is more popular in Virginia than he is. Brownback? Looks like a televangelist with a bad haircut. Santorum? Makes Reagan look like a Communist. Frist? Outside of Mercy Hospital in Nashville no one knows him. Gingrich? Too controversial. Condi? Countries not ready for that. Hagel? I'd go for him, but not well known enough and it's too late in the game for him to get his name out there, plus he’s basically a younger McCain. There aren't any Republican Governors of note, perhaps Owens of Colorado but too conservative for the current electorate and Jeb can’t run this soon after his brother.

Rove/Bush realize all of this and that's why they got McKinnon on board with McCain and will be supporting him behind closed doors.

McCain was pretty straight forward on Meet The Press. He had some interesting comments on Russia. He did not go into the details however of Saddam or technology transfers. He discussed the need for a military option on Iran but made no mention about the implications of recent Iranian military threats. Iran says it has cavitation under water missiles. It seems similar to the Russian design, traveling about 220 miles per hour underwater. Isn't this a significant threat not easily countered? What risk do they pose our Gulf Fleet and commercial shipping? And could the
radar-avoiding missiles be based on other Russian technology the US lags behind in? Where is McCain or the center on this? see "Stealth's radiactive secret". Add to that, the Russians are speeding up completion of advanced air defense batteries by the Fall in a hope to showcase systems designed thwart Allied pre-emption. IS this the new reality?

In all seriousness, how much destruction would a pre-emptive strike have if it were to target Iranian conventional threats as mentioned above and their means of production? Would Americans tolerate a loss of a carrier or sub?

Sorry to interject these questions here. McCain appears to taking the Bush line on these arguements, but "mistakes" regarding Iran and growing technological threats may have much greater implications including our attitude on Russia and China. Global chaos would bring a draft if America and the West were faced with a Gulf in flames. Without boots, the West isn't going to be changing many regimes.