McCain needs to distance himself from Bush

Everybody whose last name is not Clinton knows that the field in the race for the White House is set. Political pundits have moved past Hillary's once all but certain candidacy, eager to run down the tale of the tape in a new match. John McCain has been waiting in the wings, like a champion awaiting a challenger.

In an article at Politico.com, Ronald Reagan's former chief of staff points out that which so many analysts have said; McCain cannot put himself in a position to defend the last eight years of executive leadership. There is almost unanimous agreement in the political world that distance from Bush is necessary for a Republican victory, regardless of his opponent. Distance is an open-ended objective though. If you push past distaste for the current commander-in-chief, you will see an administration that is anything but conservative.

The invasion of Iraq is hailed as the brainchild of the neoconservatives, and to a great extent it is. The naïve promises of expedient victory and welcome from the civilian population gave no account for strong terrorist resistance or insurgent supplies and forces from other countries. They believed that the war would be simple; in retrospect it seems like a silly thing to believe, but many of us bought in.

Iraq has become the hottest burner on the political stove, and most people who run left of center would like to see John McCain step back from the aggressive stance of the current administration; thus far they have been disappointed in that desire. McCain's commitment to seeing the Iraq campaign through to a manageable conclusion should satisfy a large portion of the electorate; I still believe that most Americans want victory above all. It will alienate the left, who despise the war. Oddly it will also alienate isolationists on the right who are deeply disturbed by the outlandish spending. They would argue that as an investment, Iraq pays little American dividends.

Bush and McCain have walked in virtual lockstep on immigration as well. The so-called compromise legislation spear-headed by McCain would have brought a guest worker program into being, a long-held goal of the president's. It's also a goal of the far left who believe that open borders, costly and dangerous as they may be, serve the greater cause of human rights.

This is another issue where most Americans, I believe, are pinned in the center. Those whose views run center-right want to see the borders secured, and a system in place which allows law enforcement and immigration officials to track the movements of foreign nationals in and out of the country. The Wall Street Journal right wing disagrees though, they stand with the lefties who want the border open because it serves their financial interests. Potentially the left has alienated the unions here, because American unions, trying to protect good wages for skilled laborers, feels legitimately threatened by an influx of cheap, undocumented labor.

In a typical sense people view Republicans as a low tax, low spending party. They see the Democrats, driven by social goals, as a party willing to tax and spend to achieve through government. That doesn't really work in this political paradigm. If John McCain wants to distance himself from George Bush, then he has to take a hard position on spending. An April 3, 2006 USA Today report says that, “The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.”

When you break the numbers down, the Roosevelt administration actually grew the budget by 14.8 percent, so Bush's 2.8 percent growth may seem paltry. Consider that under Clinton the number actually dropped by almost two percent, and once again it leaves you to wonder who the conservatives are. The Medicare prescription drug entitlement represented one of the largest growths of government since the New Deal.

Frankly it's the kind of thing that should please liberal lions like Senator Edward Kennedy. He voted against the entitlement though, as did Harry Reid, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton (Senator Kerry was not present). Republicans like Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback voted to open the new black hole of spending.

If John McCain has to distance himself from George W. Bush, then he'll have to figure out how to run in two directions simultaneously. His position on the war will take him down a hawkish road, committed to victory where it seems Bush has only been committed to commitment. The breezy declarations which say that he'll have to move left of Bush to succeed are simply wrong; the truth is that the 43rd administration has been, at times, tremendously socialist. Federal spending has bloomed like ragweed in springtime, entitlements are growing, and Senator Kennedy has been in the Oval Office engineering education reform with the president, raising the ire of mainstream conservatives.

The next president, says conventional wisdom, will be different than the current one. A prediction like that doesn't take you too far out on the intellectual limb. It would be hard to imagine finding another big spending, no taxing, government growth, warhawk liberaservative so quickly.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Barry Gadbois has been employed behind the scenes with several news organizations, and is a former employee of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin. He is presently employed by a Boston-based news network, and resides part time in Barstow. He can be contacted at talkback@gadbois.us.