John McCain wants you to know he is really the change candidate, not Barack Obama. In making that claim, McCain likes to rely on his image as a bomb-thrower in the Republican Party. After all, if Rush Limbaugh is scared of you getting elected, it must be because you are going to shake up the coziness of the Washington establishment.
Putting aside the contrary statistics for a moment (McCain voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time these last four years), let’s examine the change McCain promises.
On McCain’s big issue, the War in Iraq, he emphasizes victory without timetables. Democrats hopped all over his recent statement on "The Today Show" that it is not important how long American troops remain in Iraq so long as they are not being killed. McCain has consistently compared a peaceful American presence in Iraq to our presence in South Korea, Germany and other far-flung corners of the globe. The essence of what he claims cannot be denied, the public does not care about the large numbers of our troops stationed around the world so long as they are not in harm’s way, but maybe that is because the people do not see the connection to the serious threat to our mission and the damage it is doing to our economy.
Putting aside the question of what constitutes "victory," McCain’s position on the war is hardly a change. It is an extension of the present policy. That policy posits the surge is working and there is still hope Iraq will become the beacon of democracy the Bush administration hoped for when it invaded. McCain’s position is no different. His emphasis, like the current administration’s, is on reduced casualties. Like the president, McCain offers only the fuzziest idea of how victory is going to be achieved. He ignores legitimate questions such as what happens when American troops leave. He ignores the fact the Iraqi Parliament is bitterly divided over whether it wants a continued American presence.
There is something else McCain does not want to change. He accepts the proposition large numbers of American troops still need to be stationed around the world to ensure peace. A real believer in change would at least question this assumption. American troops were stationed in Europe to contain Russia during the Cold War. The Cold War has long since ended and the original purpose for our troops being in Germany, etc., has disappeared, yet McCain uses them as an example of what would be a good result for Iraq.
It is not as if we don’t have problems maintaining these deployments. The cost alone should cause a presidential candidate to question the need for a large American troop presence around the world, but there also is the question of whether it is the best use of our military at a time when terrorism is our main threat. McCain challenges none of these assumptions.
McCain has made his rep challenging pork-barrel spending. While this is praiseworthy, pork-barrel spending amounts to about 1 percent of the federal budget. And even here McCain shows a stubborn resistance to change. In voting against what he considers pork-barrel spending, McCain has often thrown the baby out with the bath water. He has voted against spending for Katrina, the Everglades, numerous health issues affecting women and children, all in the name of defeating pork-barrel legislation. Yet not once did he introduce any of these worthy measures on its own so the issue could be voted upon without the pork-barrel spending McCain detests.
With the cost of the budget deficit having successfully been passed on to our children and grandchildren, what is McCain’s proposal for change? Again he fails the test. McCain proposes to extend the Bush tax cuts for the affluent, something he once rightfully opposed.
John McCain may not like the change his Democratic opponent promises, but that does not make McCain an agent of change. So if you loved the last eight years, you’ll love John McCain.
If you love good journalism and politics then you mourn, as I do, the passing of Tim Russert. Mr. Russert and "Meet the Press" was a mainstay for many of us on Sunday mornings, mornings that won’t be the same without him. The industry has still never been able to replace the giants such as Edward R. Murrow, Eric Sevareid and David Brinkley. Now another giant is gone, whose like we probably will not see again.
