-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Todd Purdum has published a lengthy article in Vanity Fair arguing that not only is John McCain now untrustworthy, bitter, erratic, and angry, but that he always has been. This is the price McCain pays for running for president — now he gets special attention as a senator. And being a senator involves a certain amount of flip-flopping and politicking.
I don’t think that Purdum brings too much new evidence for the case that McCain is more loathsome than the average D.C. player. But one of his passages was thought-provoking:
At one point last summer, J. D. Hayworth said the country was better off with Obama as president than it would have been with an unreliably conservative McCain. McCain took great umbrage, but it’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine what the first two years of a McCain-Palin partnership in the White House might have produced. There would probably have been no stimulus bill, and the country’s economic condition would be no better (and probably worse). General Motors and Chrysler would have been allowed to go bankrupt rather than helped to emerge into a state of healthiness, as they may well be doing. There would have been no significant new regulation of the financial industry. The Bush tax cuts for those Americans with the highest incomes-something McCain had opposed before reversing himself-would have been extended. There would have been only modest health-insurance reform, at best-McCain’s proposals were Republican boilerplate and meant for use in the campaign, never a serious program. Perhaps there would have been greater progress on immigration, though McCain had already abandoned that issue, and it’s easier to imagine his taking the more nativist stance he has since adopted. There would be no Supreme Court justices Kagan and Sotomayor, but there would likely be two more conservative justices, and the days of Roe v. Wade would be numbered.
Would we be in a worse situation now if McCain had been elected? Let’s take these one by one.
There would probably have been no stimulus bill — madness. Of course there would have been a stimulus bill, maybe even a bigger one than Obama passed. It would have consisted of tax cuts, not spending, but Republicans have shown themselves willing to pass stimulus bills. Has Purdum forgotten this already?
General Motors and Chrysler would have been allowed to go bankrupt rather than helped to emerge into a state of healthiness, as they may well be doing — It is jumping the gun a bit to use GM and Chrysler’s level of health as the premise that the auto bailouts worked. Redirecting TARP toward GM and Chrysler, and the associated trampling of the rule of law with respect to GM’s bondholders, was one of the worst abuses of power during the financial crisis.
There would have been no significant new regulation of the financial industry — that might be preferable to the status quo, in which Congress passed new financial regulations that only strengthened the relationship between banks and the government.
The Bush tax cuts for those Americans with the highest incomes-something McCain had opposed before reversing himself-would have been extended — good.
There would have been only modest health-insurance reform, at best-McCain’s proposals were Republican boilerplate and meant for use in the campaign, never a serious program — does Purdum have any idea what he’s talking about? McCain’s proposal included a lot of good ideas, most importantly getting rid of the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance (EPHI). Candidate Obama demogogued that part of McCain’s plan as an unprecedented tax hike, even though separating health insurance from employment would probably be the single best reform measure possible. Meanwhile, Obama ran on a plan that would forbid insurers to reject sick applicants, a policy called guaranteed issue. Yet his plan did not include the individual mandate that is part of the new health care law. Guaranteed issue without an individual mandate cannot work — people would just wait until they got sick to buy insurance. That Obama ran on the one without the other demonstrated that his plan was meant for use in the campaign, never a serious program. And his cynical exploitation of McCain’s EPHI tax showed just how unserious he was.
Perhaps there would have been greater progress on immigration, though McCain had already abandoned that issue, and it’s easier to imagine his taking the more nativist stance he has since adopted — OK, this one’s a toss-up.
There would be no Supreme Court justices Kagan and Sotomayor, but there would likely be two more conservative justices, and the days of Roe v. Wade would be numbered — if only.
I’ve never run throught this thought experiment before. But on the basis of these points, the McCain presidency sure is looking good.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/08/in-late-breaking-news-mccain-i
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Grant Johnson| 10.8.10 @ 10:26AM
Clearly it would be hard to be worse than Obama on policy, but McCain would be close. McCain is more gung-ho on amnesty than Obama, equally supportive on cap and tax, and nearly as anti-business as Obama. If given two Supreme Court picks, he probably would have picked a Souter for one and let the democrats pick the other (reaching across the aisle and all). And remember, it was McCain who actually suspended his campaign to redirect his enthusiasm to the first stimulus, TARP, etc.
But the worst damage from McCain would have been making these disasterous policies bipartisan, thereby denying the public any effective means of repudiating them at the ballot box. What chance or choice would we have in the upcoming election if we had 90% of the same awful policies, but with the Republicans tarred with responsibility as well? There would be no enthusiasm of the TEA party for Republicans, no lever on the party, and insufficient time for the TEA movement to organize a viable alternative.
Alan Brooks| 10.9.10 @ 10:12PM
Machine gun rattling and artillery percussion in 'Nam softened McCain's brain.
Siegfried X| 10.8.10 @ 10:53AM
Yes, I think 2008 was the rare case where winning was better than losing. The Republican party was about to go off the left side of the cliff, and all the conservatives were asleep, so the only solution was a bucket of cold Obama water in the face, to wake the party up.
If McRino had won, he'd still be acting like a rino. Specter would still be a Republican and all his RINO crew would be rubber-stamping whatever McCain threw out. We conservaties would still be lulled to sleep by hearing 24 hours a day: "The Democrats are bad, bad, bad. So hold your noses and bow down to your RINO rulers."
Siegfried X| 10.8.10 @ 10:59AM
I meant to say "where losing was better than winning".
Jack Bauer| 10.8.10 @ 5:30PM
Sieg X -- one point you missed. By February '09, the GOP and Republican establishment had thrown in the towel and was abasing itself to the regime and Obama.
They were in no shape mind or mood to fight.
It took a TEA PARTY to smash that cosy arrangement up.
Siegfried X| 10.8.10 @ 6:31PM
I absolutely agree. And as Gingrich's #2, Dick Armey said, Republicans in Congress had given up on Reagan conservativism by the end of 1998.
Conservatives pushed back on Bush in 2005 against his amnesty and Harriet Miers nomination. Lack of conservative suport let the Democrats throw out that Republican Congress of 2o05-6. And then as you said in 2009 full scale Tea Party rebellion against the RINOs finally broke out.
Curly Smith| 10.8.10 @ 10:54AM
Are you seriously suggesting that McCain would have vetoed the economy saving Stimulus Bill? That McCain would have put tens of thousands of people out of work by vetoing bills saving GM and Chrysler from predatory lenders? That McCain would have sacrificed the ill and infirm to the Insurance Lobby by vetoing nationalized RomneyCare? That McCain would have stood for the rich by taking money from the mouths of the poor?
If so, you must have expanded your thought experiment to include Conservative control of Congress and the Media. The disastrous bills weren't Obama's agenda - they were Pelosi's and Reid's. Obama was just a rubber stamp of the filibuster proof Democratic Party controlled Congress.
I'm with Grant. Mr. "Reach across the Aisle" would have signed anything that the Dems sent him and the RINOs would have joined the bipartisan lovefest. His Presidency would have destroyed the RINO-wing of the GOP, which was a good reason to vote for him.
Siegfried X| 10.8.10 @ 11:05AM
Shortly after McCain locked up the nomination, his people were openly talking about purging conservatives out of the Republican Party. McCain refused to meet with any conservative groups. McCain originally wanted Democrat Joe Liberman as his vice-president; he only gave up after legal problems were encountered and the party leadership threatened to tear the convention apart. McCain was clearly moving the Republican party towards the War Democrat party which the neo-cons have always wanted.
McCain didn't choose Sarah Palin and start working with conservatives until very late in the campaign when the RINO approach had failed.
Warrior | 10.8.10 @ 12:35PM
Mr. Lawler:
You are making assumptions that McCain would have exerted some control over Pelosi and Reid.
He would have given the liberals cover to make the health care bill even worse than it is now. He has already proven himself to be no stranger to closed door dealings with democrats as proven by his attempt to give illegals amnesty in concert with his then buddy Ted Kennedy. He would have given cap and tax credibility in the senate, which of course all that Snowe, Collins and his RINO buddies needed to vote yes. Stimulus was a guaranteed pass, however, again you assume that the republicans could exert any pressure on the democrats to change. Instead, the democrats would have made th bill even larger by getting all their pet projects and giving some additional concessions to the republicans to get the bill through. Like his buddy W., McCain would have never let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, he may have done it differently, but he would have bailed them out without hesitation. The final nail in the coffin would have been McCain's mutilation of the already damaged republican brand. The liberals would have enjoyed super majorities for the next two decades.
The only advantage to McCain would have been less liberal SCOTUS appointees. There is no doubt that as President, McCain would made things worse than can be imagined.
Tish | 10.8.10 @ 3:41PM
I am second to few in my dislike of John McCain, but I can't see how anyone short of George Soros could have been worse than Obama.
serfer62| 10.8.10 @ 4:33PM
McNasty would have been far worse then The Won.
Cap & Trade, no drilling anywhere near the USA, VP Palin vanished from sight. Just look at all the damage that the Gand of 14 did (thune was an enthusiast member) and projest it...
Siegfried X| 10.8.10 @ 5:10PM
Electing McCain would have damaged the Republican Party, which is the only tool which can defeat the Democrats. But electing a Democrat like Obama hurts the country but helped the Republican Party.
It is losing a battle in order to win the war.
A rejuvenated Republican Party has defeated most of Obama's left-wing agenda, and will beat the Democrats many times in the future. RINOs are now more afraid of the Tea Party than the Democrats.
Penny| 10.9.10 @ 5:36PM
Obama/Soros...class:Reptilia (non-avian)
lately discovered sub-species of the older Tyrannosaurus.
bluecollarbytes| 10.9.10 @ 10:44PM
McCain's loss allowed Obama and Democratics to reveal the true extent of Democrat intentions. We ain't seen nuttin yet, but already voters are saying no, waking up to the long-term threat. We shall Not be organized.
McCain and like-minded politicos still have a service to render, if they're willing to support the grass roots rebellion seeking to put govt in its place. If not, may they become footnotes to real change.