Not-quite-conservative-enough Senator John McCain made something of an interesting vote recently against a ban on torture, after having taken the position that the US should not torture. He made his point eloquently in the past, that he felt that it did damage to America's reputation around the world. Why then, would the "maverick" Republican make a choice at odds with his previously stated opinion?
One possibility is to alter the perception the GOP base has of him not being conservative enough. President Bush recently made comments concerning the Senator's being a "true conservative", and it appears there was room for doubt, particularly among vocal commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and James Dobson. It wasn't enough, apparently, that McCain has a reliable life-time conservative rating from the ACU, that he has backed the Iraq war, supported the surge, and made sufficiently war-like (and musical) noises regarding Iran.
No. Not exactly enough. And, apparently, he could not afford to withhold his vote on this issue, as he did on the economic stimulus package. On this issue, it was necessary to show solidarity, perhaps, with the President--to establish his conservative cred?
It's not exactly easy to see why--or why on this issue. It's not easy, after all, to see how siding with the pro-torture right would be palatable to any of the Independent or moderate Democratic voters he might have been able to win over in the general election. It's also not certain how much assistance the unpopular Bush can actually give him. Was there any actual gain?
After all, the conservative GOP base who don't know and love him by now, are unlikely to start this late. What is he offering to people who would consider a vote for the Democratic candidate (whomever that will be) a surrender to illegal immigrants or amnesty for terrorists (or, um, something like that)? In the debates, his stand on immigration was called out, he's admitted that the economy (an issue that is sure to be shaping up in importance in the race to come) is not his forte, and his "Bomb, bomb Iran" song won't really sound like a sensible policy to people already fed up with the drawn-out, mismanaged affair that has been the Iraq war. And really--how many people are going to say--"Oh--he's willing to permit torture? Well, then he's our sort of guy..."
Of course, Bush means to veto the thing anyway now that it's passed. But what would the stand have cost him?
(I know--not my usual book reviews and Youtube vids--but refraining from poli-blogging in an election year is more than I can do.)
No comments:
Post a Comment