Broder pronounced McCain's return to "candor," despite reported efforts to pander to GOP base on former pet issues
In his April 27 nationally syndicated column, headlined "Straight Talking Again," Washington Post columnist David Broder wrote that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is "risking the ire of Bush fans" by "running as the anti-Bush" and concluded that, for McCain, "there must be at least some relief now in being able to speak his own mind -- whatever the consequences. Candor, even belatedly, becomes him." But elsewhere in the column, Broder acknowledged to some extent the seemingly contradictory fact that McCain has backed off certain issues because his prior positions were unpopular with the Republican base. Indeed, Broder noted that McCain "gives no emphasis to the campaign finance reforms that were central to his 2000 message, knowing that they are not popular with Republican power brokers." Broder further wrote that during McCain's official announcement that he is running for president, McCain "was notably silent on immigration reform, another issue on which he has found himself at odds with many of his fellow Republicans."
From Broder's April 27 column:
So McCain, recognizing that neither [fellow Republican presidential candidates Rudy] Giuliani nor [Mitt] Romney is likely to challenge him from the right, is risking the ire of Bush fans in order to position himself to compete against a Democrat in an election where independents will probably cast the decisive votes. His campaign aides insist that he has never changed. But this year's McCain gives no emphasis to the campaign finance reforms that were central to his 2000 message, knowing that they are not popular with Republican power brokers. And his announcement speech was notably silent on immigration reform, another issue on which he has found himself at odds with many of his fellow Republicans.
But while recognizing that McCain's latest posture on immigration reform appears to represent a departure from his prior high-profile support for the 2006 Senate bill, which included provisions for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, Broder minimized the full extent of McCain's apparent pandering to the right on the issue. McCain has not simply refrained from saying anything about the issue; he reportedly told GOP voters that he was "reconsidering his views on how the immigration law might be changed" and "said he was open" to more strict immigration reform proposals than he had previously supported, according to a March 20 New York Times article. From the Times:
As he left Iowa, Mr. McCain said he was reconsidering his views on how the immigration law might be changed. He said he was open to legislation that would require people who came to the United States illegally to return home before applying for citizenship, a measure proposed by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana. Mr. McCain has previously favored legislation that would allow most illegal immigrants to become citizens without leaving the country.
[...]
Mr. McCain, for example, appeared to distance himself from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat with whom he formed an alliance last year on an immigration bill that stalled in Congress.
"What I've tried to point out is we couldn't pass the legislation," Mr. McCain said. "So we have to change the legislation so it can pass. And I've been working with Senator Kennedy, but we've also been working with additional senators, additional House members."
Mr. McCain focused instead on the proposal by Mr. Pence, a conservative. "Pence has this touchback proposal," Mr. McCain said at a news conference. "I said hey, let's consider that if that's a way we can get some stuff."
Mr. McCain's aides said his identification with Mr. Kennedy accounted for much of his political problem on the issue with conservatives. One of his rivals for the nomination, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, has taken to attacking what he calls the McCain-Kennedy bill.
Broder's largely flattering portrayal of McCain came one day after his April 26 column, headlined "The Democrats' Gonzales," in which he compared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, writing that Reid is "a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance." Broder's April 26 column provoked a letter to the editor signed by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus praising Reid's "skill and aplomb."
From the April 27 Washington Post article:
Credit John McCain with one thing: When you're 70 years old, are running for president a second time and have been stumping through the country for many months, it's difficult to spring any surprises in your formal announcement speech.
The Arizona senator came up with one: He is running as the anti-Bush.
[...]
It is a big gamble on McCain's part, but a necessary one. The closer his ties to Bush have become, the more his standing in the polls has slumped. And an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll this week found that more Republicans believe that McCain would follow Bush's policies closely than believe Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney would.
While Bush remains highly popular among Republican voters, GOP consultant Steve Lombardo pointed out this week that "in no issue area does the [overall] public approve of the president's performance. This is likely to be a 'change' election," in which the majority of voters seek a new direction, whoever becomes the next president.
So McCain, recognizing that neither Giuliani nor Romney is likely to challenge him from the right, is risking the ire of Bush fans in order to position himself to compete against a Democrat in an election where independents will probably cast the decisive votes. His campaign aides insist that he has never changed. But this year's McCain gives no emphasis to the campaign finance reforms that were central to his 2000 message, knowing that they are not popular with Republican power brokers. And his announcement speech was notably silent on immigration reform, another issue on which he has found himself at odds with many of his fellow Republicans.
Still, the theme he sounded this week was the same one he voiced in his first campaign, when he said the nation could not "continue to tolerate a government that has become little more than a spectacle of selfish ambition, a government auctioned to the highest bidder."
[...]
Now, it is the manifest shortcomings of the Bush administration that McCain says he would not tolerate as president. In clear references to the faltering Bush performance on homeland security, Hurricane Katrina relief and the treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed, McCain said: "That's not good enough for America. And when I'm president, it won't be good enough for me."
He used the same words to characterize the failings of the president and Congress on balancing the budget, financing Social Security and Medicare, reforming the tax code, securing energy independence, and helping workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition.
And McCain did not exempt Iraq policy from his critique. Instead of underlining his support for attacking Saddam Hussein and his endorsement of Bush's decision to add troops this year, McCain emphasized the lessons of the war.
"We all know the war in Iraq has not gone well," he said. "We have made mistakes and we have paid grievously for them. We have changed the strategy that failed us, and we have begun to make a little progress. But in the many mistakes we have made in this war, a few lessons have become clear. America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success, and unless all relevant agencies of government are committed to that success. We did not meet this responsibility initially. And we must never repeat that mistake again."
That statement by itself will not appease those who think McCain has been wrong in supporting the war and who deplored his quick embrace of Bush after their bitter struggle for the 2000 nomination. The picture of McCain urging Bush's election at the Republican National Convention and at dozens of other rallies will not be easily erased.
But for John McCain, there must be at least some relief now in being able to speak his own mind -- whatever the consequences. Candor, even belatedly, becomes him.

















McCain was on The Daily Show last week, and Jon Stewart demonstrated how journalists need to behave toward our government officials. I don't expect to see anyone following suit, however.
What exactly is McCain's "Anti-Bush" image?
"I'm a Maverick, but I'm not insane!"
Or does it mean the Anti-Christ distances himself from Christ on a few pet issues?
Amazing how many Republicans actually still believe that their leaders want to stop illegal immigration.All they have to do is mention it on a regular basis.
Right you are, HBL. They don't want to be deprived of their slave labor type wages that they give to the illegals because they do jobs Americans won't do (at least for that wage).
Is someone forcing those people to come here? Did I miss the memo on that?
I guess you missed the memo and the point.
I probably did. Well, I'm all ears on how Democrats are going to go after these businesses once they take charge since Republicans didn't do anything.
I think they're going after Gonzles now, which, thanks to the Republicans, is even more urgent. And then there are a few other cases of corruption in the Executive and legislative branch.
I had to laugh out loud when that putz Glenn Beck had the audacity to whine about the Democrats wasting so much time "investigating".
One more troglodyte who hibernated through the 90s.
I agree that the illegal immigration issue is basically lip service from Republicans. There's no political will to do anything on either side.
That was my point, Bruce. Both parties benefit from illegal immigration in some way, I was remarking that many vote Republican because the GOP talks a lot more about doing something about the problem.
Well, that's true. But if one party is saying what you want to hear vs the other party who isn't saying what you want to hear or perhaps IS saying what you DON'T want to hear, you have to choose.
Now, the GOP has handed control to the Dems based on their incompetence so I don't think words matter too much right now. The Dems will regain total control by default and then we will see what THEIR words mean, if anything.
Nobody was talking about this much until the Republicans decided to make it a wedge issue. They wanted to take people's minds off of the other 101 scary things that they've done/are doing. So we now must do something about the scary brown people - that's what the Repubs wanted people to focus on. Of course they don't intend to do squat about it, just talk about since it's proved to be a good wedge issue like abortion ,which they also won't do anything about.
It sounds like you don't think it's a problem. A lot of people would disagree. Parts of this country are having a big problem with it. People from the left and right want a solution.
As usual, you say something not in evidence and try to make a point.....a point that fell very flat, btw. I never said illegal immigration shouldn't be on the table, only that it wasn't being discussed much before the Republicans decided to make it a wedge issue. They sure didn't seem very interested in until about a year and half ago.
JS did take him to task and refused to let him rifle through his standard talking point. I have lost some respect for McCain. He used to be the only Republican I had any hope for, I can no longer claim that.
Did you notice how McCain kept talking over John trying to get his righteous talking points in without saying anything of substance. This man is a complete fraud and I agree with Doris. He would be as dangerous as Bush. One Republican that I could possibly vote for though would be Ron Paul, here in Texas. This guy has some interesting ideas and has been outspoken against the Iraq war. I don't know if he's in the first debate this Thursday or not. But he's one to watch.
McCain- Candor?I do not think so.
John McCain is not a "straight talker" or a "man of candor."
John McCain is a political whore, pure and simple. And all is pandering is going to get him nowhere.
You say it better than anyone else here today so far. I would never trust McCain for a second, I think he is a complete fraud and more dangerous than Bushie will ever be. That is not a tall order either. His temper is scary .
If McCaine is elected (hope not) it will be four more years of Bush. This so called "maverick" is nothing more than a right wing shill. Broder is nothing more than a cold bowl of oatmeal, no milk, no fruit, no sugar, nothing... just a real old man writing about a real old man.
If McCain wins, look for a lot of the same characters in the White House. Karl Rove and all the other Bush Toadies will just keep their current offices. Dick Cheney will probably become Secretary of State.
Cheney would be in the cabinet, you'd have Condi as the Vice-Pres. (no substance), Wolfowitz as Sec. of Defense, Rove would keep his current office, and hell, McCaine is a "maverick", gotta be room for another Maverick (Tom Cruise), and come on in Mel Gibson...
Don't forget James Garner.
He could leave the answering machine message at the White House, with the Rockford Files theme on it. Sweet!
For a guy who's running as the "anti-Bush," he sure has, as of late, been sounding an awful lot like the old dubya.