Support McCain?
by Donald Devine
Issue 102 - February 27, 2008

Should conservatives support John McCain? One would like to take him at his word, especially seeing him in uniform. But he is a puzzle. How about if he set-up a think tank and raised millions of dollars to support it? Would you assume he believed in the principles it espoused?

In 2001 after his defeat for the Republican nomination, the Arizona Senator announced the formation of the Reform Institute with his former finance chairman Merrill Lynch chief Herb Allison and former campaign counsel Trevor Potter. Sen. McCain’s previous and present campaign manager, Rick Davis, became the Institute chief executive and his top finance operator Carla Eudy, his former press secretary Crystal Benton and his Hispanic outreach director Juan Hernandez all went on the payroll, the manager at $110,000 per year. This was McCain’s team and he became the Institute’s Honorary Chairman, featured in its materials and promoted by its media releases.

What were the principles of this McCain Reform Institute? Here is its agenda as outlined on its website http://www.reforminstitute.org:

• Campaign Finance Reform. Not surprisingly, the number one priority is to support the principles behind the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, to regulate “special interest” money in elections. It also “works to plug the loopholes created by the FEC including the 527 political organizations,” to reform the “defunct FEC with an independent agency that has the tools to enforce the nation’s campaign laws” and to promote “state-based comprehensive campaign reforms that include soft money bans, 527 reforms, disclosure, and public campaign funding.” Of course, most conservatives have opposed these laws as serious infringements on First Amendment rights to the most important free speech, political participation and advocacy, especially against extending these restrictions to the states. Conservatives are concerned that “regulating special interests” really means keeping citizen groups from scrutinizing incumbent politicians too closely and exercising their 1st Amendment right to influence their government’s policies and candidates.
• Democracy and Elections. The Institute’s second priority is to “break down restrictions on voter registration” and to provide “hotlines” for those claiming discrimination in voting, to promote open primaries, to ban signature requirements to gain ballot access, and other “progressive” reforms. These reforms grew out of McCain’s supposed inability to get his “nonpartisan” campaign on the ballot during the 2000 nomination process. Conservatives have supported reasonable restrictions on voting such as registration, and proof of citizenship and residence to prevent fraud, and have favored closed primaries so that each party can reflect the values of its own adherents.
• Homeland Security. This program actually promotes “innovative technologies being enlisted in the effort to defend the nation, featuring technologies from established companies such as Google, Motorola, Sprint Nextel, GE and Alcatel Lucent, as well as from smaller firms such as Planet Associates, Inc., Communications-Applied Technology and ICx Technologies, Inc.” Although technology has no ideological implications, the reason for this priority will become apparent below.
• Immigration. The Institute supports “comprehensive” immigration reform along the lines supported in the McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill opposed by most conservatives. The Institute offers an annual prize for expressing views on the “border fence” issue. Its current prizewinner pictorially advocated tearing down the Mexican-American border wall.
• Climate and Energy. This is a new program that seeks a “centrist” energy policy between the positions of the two political parties. Sen. McCain has declared that global warming is a serious problem and presented comprehensive solutions to limit energy production in his McCain-Liberman bill mostly supported by Democrats. Conservatives question the degree to which manmade energy production contributes to global warming and chose market solutions that do not hobble productivity and cost American jobs rather than government dictates.
• Economic Policy. This is another area emphasizing “nonpartisan” solutions. For Social Security it would “maintain intergenerational equity” and “promote a multi-ethnic, intergenerational dialogue” that produces consensus; it would set priorities and promote “accountability, transparency, efficiency, and fiscal responsibility in the budget process,’” and it would increase “fiscal literacy” to increase retirement savings. How these competing priorities are to be balanced is not stated but presumably solutions agreed to by all would be impossible to find, muddled or very expensive—or all three. The Institute also proposes to create a new health plan that all are required to join and to pay premiums, provide additional support for post-secondary, college, early and continuing education programs, and more aid for retraining those affected by global competitiveness—all involving more spending rather than fiscal responsibility. The only study with specifics concerns the subprime housing crisis. Its two main conclusions are for more government funding for regulation of and enforcement over the mortgage lending “special interests” and supporting the interests of mortgage appraisers when these two disagree. Conservatives believe all of these activities are better regulated by the market by allowing those interests which properly satisfy consumer demand to prosper and those that abuse them to fail, and government prosecution of fraud under existing laws to punish abuse. It is interesting that special interests are criticized in the study but that appraisers are singled out for help--and that the Appraisal Institute is a major contributor to the Reform Institute, and is even cited positively by name in the notes to the report.

This is a progressive liberal agenda if there ever was one. In fact, when interviewed by the New York Times Sen. McCain himself did not object to the reporter’s description of the program as “progressive” but simply defended it as being nonpartisan. His campaign manager even admitted that the Institute’s “issues are sort of counterproductive to John McCain becoming president” because they would be opposed by conservatives who form a majority of the nomination electorate.

The Appraisal Institute was not unique. The largest contributor to the Reform Institute at $200,000 was Cablevision’s CSC Holdings, a donation that was solicited one week after its chief executive testified before Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee. Chairman McCain also pushed the government and CSC’s competitors to adopt Cablevision’s “a la carte” pricing methodology and program, which would give CSC a large competitive advantage as the others spent time and resources to catch up. Other major contributors among the top dozen with obvious Commerce Committee business were Echosphere Communications, Web Services and American International Group.

Condemning special interests and soliciting special interest contributions is just business-as-usual Washington back-scratching hypocrisy. Conservatives should be even more concerned about the Reform Institute’s ideological support. Among its largest contributors were the progressive Carnegie Corporation and the OSI Constitution & Legal Policy Program, an organization founded by leftwing billionaire philanthropist and Democratic 527 political organization impresario, George Soros. Other large contributors were the “reproductive justice” promoting Tides Foundation, the anti-abortion supporting Educational Foundation of America, the pro gay marriage Proteus Fund and the global warming promoting Environmental Defense Fund.

It is often said in Sen. McCain’s defense that his American Conservative Union lifetime rating for his votes in Congress is 82 percent. Yet, what they do not say (full disclosure, your reporter has been closely involved in the ratings for many years) is that 80 percent is the organization’s minimum rating to be considered a conservative at all--and that in recent years Sen. McCain has often fallen below even that minimal standard (with a 65 in 2006 and a 73 percent last year, for example), and his lifetime score is below that of 90 percent of his fellow Senate Republicans. He opposed both of the Bush tax cuts, is the major sponsor for cap-and-trade restrictions and taxes on energy development, and has been a leader in regulating telecommunications and health insurance markets on his Commerce Committee.

What is a conservative to do about a presumptive Republican presidential nominee who received significant support from the radical leftist George Soros? Many conservatives will object to mentioning these matters as a threat to winning the presidential election. But conservatism is not about winning elections. That is for the political parties. Indeed, sometimes it is good to lose an election. If Gerald Ford won in 1976, there would have been no Ronald Reagan and we would still probably have stagflation. The job of the conservative is to conserve America’s heritage and pass it on. Of course, conservatives would like to both win and conserve but even Jimmy Carter knew the wisdom about life in this world sometimes not being fair.

The story will get out anyway. It was The New York Times (on March 8, 2005, as well as the Associated Press) who first exposed the Reform Institute and the Cablevision contribution. The Times would be content keeping quiet to allow a progressive to win the Republican nomination but anyone who thinks the Times will not resurrect both the issue confusion and the fundraising problems for the Fall election is living on another planet. Just last week after essentially winning the nomination, the Times exposed the less important news about the Senator’s supposed romantic links to Cablevision’s lobbyist. The bigger story of the contributions to the Reform Institute was actually underplayed because of the Times’ attempt to be too cute about the less important sex charge. But the main charge will be raised again by the media and will make a telling contrast against a Barack Obama running to change the culture of Washington’s special interests.

John McCain gave a great conservative speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month. Maybe he is so cynical that he can switch from the progressive agenda of the Reform Institute to that of CPAC without missing a step. There is some history here. He did oppose the first Gulf War against Iraq initially but switched and criticized President George W. Bush for not pushing strongly enough in the current war. He has changed his stated position on immigration and taxes too, so who knows? Or maybe he is simply confused. He told the Boston Globe “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He has pointed to Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Pete Peterson as examples of those he would rely on for economic advice—but Peterson opposes tax cuts until after the budget is balanced and future entitlements paid for, Kemp is uninterested in spending cuts and supports tax cuts immediately and at all times, and Gramm wants both tax and spending cuts.

Conservatives only hope is that Sen. McCain is either a hypocrite or confused and will appoint people like Gramm rather than Peterson. Only one action of his really counts before the election and that is his vice presidential choice. In response to a question whether he would choose a conservative, he told one rightist leader that his closest friend was Tom Ridge, the former moderate governor of Pennsylvania. Another favorite supposedly is Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who reneged on his no tax increase pledge and is a big global warming regulator. The nominee’s selection of his VP will tell conservatives all they need to know about what they should do in November.

Let’s see who he picks—and let’s see what his convention and platform look like. To support Sen. McCain before he selects a VP tells him he can do whatever he wants and conservatives will follow like sheep. He may be the best of a bad lot but we should have no allusions about where he will lead the nation.

Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.