It's a good thing for the Democrats that their almost-nominee is a smart guy who's proven he can run a smart campaign. Because John McCain is making all the smart moves he needs to right now.
First of all, McCain is distancing himself from an extremely unpopular president in just the areas that make the most political sense for him. The public at large is concerned about global warming, so McCain addresses the issue with strong words. The public at large wants an end to the Iraq War, so McCain, who knows his unwavering support for it could cost him votes, now says we can win and be out of Iraq by the end of his potential first term. Placing his goal at a point halfway between "too hasty" and "never," McCain nails the rhetorically perfect length of time.
He also criticizes the Bush-Cheney drive towards an omnipotent presidency, declaring, "The powers of the presidency are rightly checked by the other branches of government." This is another safe position to take, given Bush's unpopularity and the fact that Americans have the phrase "checks and balances" imprinted into their consciousness from childhood.
Having gone against some right-wing positions, such as on immigration, McCain keeps the focus on areas where he's on safer ground, like pledging to appoint strict constructionist judges. This position strikes many on the left as extremist, but it isn't going to cost McCain any votes; both the radical-religious wing and the libertarian/business wing of the Republican Party can get behind it, while the idiot/bigot wing – one that encompasses Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, to be sure - probably doesn't care about it one way or the other.
McCain and his people have handled an incipient “preacher problem” in just the right way – by more or less ignoring it. He also hasn’t felt the need to address his pandering to the extremist Christian Right after having earlier taken a much more humane, distanced position from them.
Article comments
1 - Cindy D
Jon,
What a great title for an article!
"Who cares, now, that months ago McCain lambasted any primary opponent who dared to suggest a “timetable”? The public is focused on now and the near future."
In the case of many McCain supporters who seem to have the shortest attention spans, that could read--who cares what happened "yesterday" when McCain said we might be at war with Iraq for 100 or 1 million years, today he's got it down to 4!
All the things you said in your article are things I really fear that people will listen to.
McCain is really starting to scare me. It's almost as if he's "trying out lines" on the public to see what he can get away with.
"Um, 100 years, 1,000 years, no? not working...um ok, four years, yeah four years, that's the ticket."
2 - Baronius
Pretty strong statements about strict constructionism. What's so extreme about it?
3 - Jon Sobel
To me, strict constructionism is extreme in the same sense that Biblical fundamentalism is extreme. Documents were written in their time, for their purpose. Religious moderates continually reinterpret the messages of the Bible and apply them to modern, unprecedented situations. Jurists reinterpret the Constitution for changing times as well. The Constitution was the Founders' best attempt at a living, breathing document that could grow and change with the times, yet retain its most bedrock assumptions (like checks and balances, and certain basic freedoms). At one time, jurists interpreted the Constitution as allowing slavery. Now, not so much.
4 - MsSwin
The following quotes of John McCain's concern me. Maybe even more than McCain's 5X mistake about 'Shiite Al Qaeda' within one month, even though repeatedly corrected.
"And I believe that the success will be fairly easy" and "There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators." [3/24/03]
"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." [4/23/03]
"Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course." [12/8/05 (Exactly one year before violence in Iraq peaked)]
It seems the man has a disconnect between what he wants to believe and the facts on the ground.
While I respect Mr. McCain's service and what he went through as a POW, I also have many concerns about his actions upon his return. He, with the advantage of having an admiral for a father, was not prosecuted as other returning POW for collaborating with the enemy. Later, Mr. McCain headed the effort the shut down all investigation into remaining POW/MIA in order to open up trade with Vietnam. His father-in-law immediately opened up a multi-billion dollar beer industry there.
I also have concerns about his mental fitness as well, specially since he will not release his old medical records even though the term PSTD was not in use as an official diagnosis when he first returned. The one time he did release these records to a journalist, much was blacked out. He later released them in 1999 to a physician who wrote him a clean bill of health without the benefit of a personal examination but rather on whatever records he was provided.
"Among U.S. servicemen taken captive during the Korean War, as many as nine out of 10 survivors may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental disorders more than 35 years after their release, psychologist Patricia B. Sutker of the New Orleans Veterans Administration Medical Center and her colleagues report in the January AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY."
'Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, can result from wartime trauma such as suffering wounds or witnessing others being hurt. Symptoms include irritability or outbursts of anger, sleep difficulties, trouble concentrating, extreme vigilance and an exaggerated startle response.' Reuters
I do not say any of this lightly as I have worked with vets for over thirty years to help them get their benefits for PTSD. My father served in the Army for 33 yrs as as CWO4. All three of my brothers also served, two in Vietnam.
But I have even more concerns about his current voting record towards our young veterans of today. His lack of support for their medical care is appalling and his GI bill was a watered down version of what was needed. His reason? He didn't want to lose re-enlisters to college.
On a final note, it is worth reading what Col. Hackworth, the most respected officer to ever serve in Vietnam had to say about John McCain: "David H. Hackworth died in June 2005, he was a much-decorated and highly unconventional former career Army officer who became a combat legend in Vietnam. Col. Hackworth received 78 combat awards -- including a Distinguished Service Cross, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and eight Purple Hearts -- during his 25-year military career which spanned the Korean and Vietnam wars.."
5 - Cindy D
Your quote is missing McSwin.
I read the article and I think I am missing the gene that would allow me to condemn anyone for breaking down under torture.
The intention of the article has the opposite affect from what was intended. I feel very sorry for John McCain's ordeal when I read that article. I'd probably give him 42 medals.
I don't feel sorry for who is he today though. Particularly in regard to veterans.
6 - John G
As we all should reflect on and respect John McCain's service and courage, it seems to me he has to continually fight his personality and training as a single-seat fighter pilot.
If he continues to "dance" as described, he is likely to be a formidable opponent in an election cycle which is strongly against his party.
7 - Cindy D
If he continues to "dance" as described, he is likely to be a formidable opponent in an election cycle which is strongly against his party.
How very sad that people would want so much to believe what they already believe, that they would willingly accept obvious lies in order to keep believing it.
8 - Dave Nalle
There ought to be a rule like Godwin's Rule that when you start quoting Hackworth you're no longer treated as having any credibility in a discussion of the military or foreign policy. He's classic proof that all the medals and experience in the world can't give someone basic common sense.
Dave
9 - Clavos
Hackworth indisputably was the most decorated officer in Nam, but he wasn't the most "respected," particularly by a number of his superiors.
10 - Lee Richards
I, too, respect John McCain's military service and his privations as a POW.
But the McCain of today is not the McCain of the Vietnam years. He has slopped at the special interest trough and done his share of favors for the influence peddlers. He has backed liberal legislation and turned his back on conservative ideals. He has flipped on tax cuts, and now a timeframe in Iraq. He is sometimes confused to a degree and, at other times, bristles up in public over nothing. He has to read his dry speeches(so as not to forget his talking points or make mis-statements?)
I don't know if he can win, but I'm fairly sure he won't be able to govern effectively.
11 - Baronius
Jon - The religious analogy for legal strict constructionism really doesn't work. For one thing, there's no way of amending the Bible. Also, the Founding Fathers didn't claim to be divine. So let's talk about the legal question here.
You're right that the Constitution was interpreted as allowing slavery. That's because it allowed slavery. It was a morally wrong document, so we fixed it. We didn't decide to alter our interpretation of it. You don't get to modify laws like Peter Pan, where wishing it makes it true. You have to change them.
Even if you're right, how should we reinterpret the Constitution? Once we agree that it's movable, there are an infinite number of directions in which we could move it. Some people would interpret the Second Amendment to mean all guns are ok; some people, reasonable guns. Some believe that the Second Amendment should be considered obsolete. Some think that it approves regional militias. If the document offers no precise meaning, then it can't offer hints on how to change interpretation over time.
Jon, you say that the Founders wanted a living, breathing document. Why didn't they say so? They give exact rules on how to change it, which means they expected the actual text to be changed. There's no sign that they expected it to develop organically. Similarly, you say that it has bedrock assumptions that should never be changed. Which ones are those? The Founders argued a lot over the establishment of a Capitol, and about impeachment. How are we to say which principle is more essential?
I find the idea of judicial reinterpretation to be radical, not the idea of judges following the meaning of the law.
12 - Jon Sobel
Baronius, the Constitution-Bible analogy isn't perfect, but I feel it is instructive. The Christian Bible itself contains an Old Testament, parts of which were superseded, in Christian belief, by new teachings from Jesus, recorded in the New. Amendments to the Constitutuion are rather like the New Testament. "Wait a minute - an eye for an eye doesn't apply anymore - from now on, it's turn the other cheek. Oh, and it's now OK to eat shellfish." The present-day Bible is not changeable only because it's become a canonical text. It didn't become so until after centuries of wrangling about what should go in it.
You ask how we should reinterpret the Constitution. Every day judges decide whether new laws are constitutional. These new laws are enacted in response to new situations, sometimes ones the Founders couldn't have dreamed of. They knew they lacked perfect foresight, hence their instructions on how to change the document. In extreme cases, the document is in fact changed, by having Amendments added. That's the sense it which it is a living, breathing document.
I suppose technically anything in the Constitution could be changed. But there are some bedrock principles, like the concept of a representational government, a government that should provide for the common defense, and so on.
I don't get your distinction between a document changing "organically" and having its text changed. It consists of nothing but text, so obviously the only way it can change is to have its text modified or added to.
As to the main point of the responsibility of the judicial branch... we'll certainly not settle this debate here. My view is that laws are written by fallible human beings using fallible reasoning skills, and written down using words with sometimes inexact or ambiguous meanings, adding a second level of fallibility. If that were not the case, why would we even need judges? The very purpose of having a judicial branch is to interpret the laws, determine how they apply in specific cases, and strike them down if they fail the test of constitutionality.
Most of the debate over the true responsibility of judges boils down to: when judges decide things against you, they're being "activist."
13 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius: For one thing, there's no way of amending the Bible.
Of course there is.
Translate it.
14 - Lee Richards
And interpret it.
15 - Baronius
Jon " You’re combining several different issues. There’s judicial review, the right of the judiciary to consider whether the text of a law contradicts the text of the Constitution. There’s the amendment process, by which the text of the Constitution is changed. There’s judicial ruling, when a judge makes a decision on a case based on the law and Constitution. And there’s judicial activism, which is an overstepping beyond judicial authority in a ruling.
Let’s get specific. In the Miranda ruling, the Supreme Court invented a new right which isn’t stated in the Constitution, isn’t contained in a law, and broke with all prior Constitutional rulings on the subject. That’s judicial activism. There’s no grounding for the Court’s reinterpretation of the Constitution in that case; no just-uncovered research into the original intent of a clause or some previously-forgotten precedent. There’s a judge deciding to do what’s “right”.
The judicial system has never been about the right thing. It’s the legislature’s job to make the laws conform to ethics. It’s the judiciary’s job to rule on matters of law.
Jon, you guessed that I’d define judicial activism as decisions made against my side, and you’re wrong. Judicial activism is a matter of the way a ruling is reached. So let’s take a tougher example, Brown vs. Board of Education. Young lawyer Thurgood Marshall argued that segregated schools were failing to meet the equality promised in the “separate but equal” rule in Plessy. Now, some originalists put emphasis on the original text, and say that the words of the 14th Amendment prohibit school segregation. Some others focus on original intent, and point out that the authors of the amendment didn’t believe it to prohibit school segregation. Originalists can argue about this, and the role of precedent, till the cows come home.
The one thing you shouldn’t do " which the Court did " is abandon the Plessy rule on the grounds of moral authority. They threw out the rule without establishing a new one, or justifying their decision. They left themselves wiggle room, which ultimately lead to confusion and more cases. The queen of wiggle room was O’Connor, whose inconsistency screwed up a quarter century of jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court is in a unique position to provide guidance. If they were doing their jobs, we’d have a lot less confusion.
16 - bliffle
If the dems decide to Swift Boat McCain they certainly have a lot of material to work with. His battlefield time is less than Kerry, and there are plenty of dissenters from his captivity self-portrait.