John McCain appeared on “Meet The Press” with Tim Russert today and, personal dislike aside, it has to be said that he did quite well. There are obviously some issues on which I disagree with him, especially the way he talks about Mitt Romney (especially during yesterday’s debate), but he presented himself quite well at “Meet the Press” and I think that his appearance will help him in New Hampshire.

You can watch the show by clicking here (netcast). You can read the transcript here. 

If you would like to read about one specific issue or two, just scroll down, I’ve divided the post into clear parts.

Bush Tax Cuts

Russert started off by asking a reasonably tough question. He showed a short video of McCain talking about how the people have lost faith in the government because of corruption, but also because of failures (and misinformation with regards to) in Iraq and, perhaps even more so, because of the horrible natural disaster that struck New Orleans. “That’s a denunciation of George W. Bush,” Russert asked.

McCain’s answer: “it’s criticism” not a full denunciation. He’s honest about that, and certainly fair points on which one can criticize Bush and the Republican leadership who ruled Congress for quite some years.

Russert than showed an ad Romney has been airing in New Hamsphire. In the ad, the narrator said that McCain supported last year’s bill that would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and that he voted against Bush’s tax cuts. Russert explained that he didn’t vote against them just once, but twice. McCain’s response: “The major reason I was opposed to it, was because there was no spending cuts” (awkward use of the English language indeed, but who am I to complain?).

This is, to fiscal responsible voters, indeed a strong argument. But American fiscal conservatives would probably argue that cutting taxes results in higher revenue. Not only that, they’d probably also consider it simply fair to cut taxes for the higher income classes.

He went on to say that “without spending cuts it was clear that we would be facing the financial… fiscal debacle that we’re in today.” He added that he too had “a tax cut proposal which had significant tax cuts, but it had spending restraint in it too. Unless we cut spending, then… then, you’re going to end up in the serious, serious situation we’re in today. I will cut spending and I will continue to support making the tax cuts permanent.”

And then, oops, little flip-flop: “but you voted for the tax cuts the third time, but there were no spending cuts,” Russert said. McCain’s reaction: “no but I voted to make the tax cuts permanent because if we would’ve increased taxes, which that would have the effect of, I would’ve voted any other way…”

What? That doesn’t make any sense. You vote against the tax cuts two times, because there are no spending cuts, but then you vote for it because … if you don’t, the tax will basically come back which will mean a tax increase? Huh? That would be an increase to what it was when spending was what it was (which was actually lower then). That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever from a fiscally responsible point of view, but I’m fairly sure that many voters will not look through the rhetoric and take what he says at face value, so it probably doesn’t make that much of a difference… but still.

But then:

Russert: “Do you believe that voting against the Bush tax cuts was a mistake?”

McCain: “Of course not.”

That means:

1. That he still opposes the Bush tax cuts (Romney: put this into your ad!)

2. That his vote for them the third time around was a political vote, not out of principles

What I found refreshing about this part of the conversation is that he didn’t go after Romney like he did during yesterday’s debate.

Illegal Immigration and Amnesty

When asked about immigration and amnesty, Russert confronted McCain with something he said back in 2003. I wrote about that earlier today, here’s what McCain said back then:

“I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible. And at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of” the  “country.  Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here,” paid ““taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.”

The only thing McCain’s rivals have to do is to repeat what McCain said back in 2003 time and again. It’s fairly easy to beat him up with that. McCain’s reaction:

Look, I have said time after time that no one can be reward for—rewarded for illegal behavior.  The context of that conversation, don’t you call that “amnesty.” Look, I have said and, and hundreds of hours of debate on the Senate floor, we reward no one for illegal behavior.  They have to pay fines.  They have to take the naturalization.  They have to—we have to put them into certain categories.  I have said, as Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has said that we have a lot, about two million people here in this country who have come illegally, have committed crimes here in America, and they have to be deported immediately.  Then…

At that moment Russert asked him how he would do that. McCain answered: “you round them up,” which may sound good to conservative voters, but it seems to me that many independent and moderate voters won’t exactly like the way he worded that one. But… his stance on immigration is pretty moderate, so I don’t think that he has to worry about alienating moderate voters on this issue. In that regard he also very wisely reached out to Democrats saying that they should work together on this issue and that he thinks that’s possible.

But… conservatives greatly distrust him when it comes to illegal immigration. His reaction sounds OK to them, I am sure, but they also will realize that he didn’t really answer the question and that he, indeed, said back in 2003 that he supported immigration. When Russert pushed him on how he would deport these illegal immigrants McCain didn’t really have a good answer. It continues to be his main weak spot, and Russert clearly exposed it as such (although he has treated other candidates far more aggressively imo).

Romney

When Russert asked him about Mitt Romney, McCain said that he believes that Romney’s “a good man, a good family man” and that he doesn’t really know him well. Russert pushed him and pointed out that the other candidates attacked Romney aggressively yesterday and that McCain doesn’t seem to like him. McCain stuck to his guns, only saying that he didn’t enjoy the negative ads. He also repeated that Romney has changed his views quite often, which may be true, but the same can be said for McCain himself (and virtually every other candidate).

His response was good, generally, one hoped that he would’ve acted like that yesterday. Yesterday he truly showed his worst face. Today he did better and looked less snide, but to me it’s too little too late. At least for the Republican nomination at least. You all can differ on that of course though.

Iraq And The War On Terrorism And Pakistan

 With regards to Osama Bin Laden McCain once again criticized President George W. Bush. When asked how we would catch Osama, the senator from Arizona said: “Well, first of all, I will dramatically—I wouldn’t have passed up some of the opportunities we passed up, such at, as at Tora Bora, and President Clinton passed up.  But most importantly, I’ll improve our human intelligence.”

Russert pushed him and asked:

If your advisers said to you, “Mr. President, this is where Osama bin Laden is.” “But understand, if we go in, we could very well destabilize Pakistan, perhaps bring about the overthrow of President Musharraf.” Would you trade Osama bin Laden for Musharraf as president?

McCain’s - very good answer: “I would, I would never have that situation arise, because Musharraf and I have an, a relationship that goes back a number of years.  I would be in constant communication with him, and I’m sure that maybe publicly or privately he would be working very closely.  That’s the benefit…”

He went on to say that - with regards to whether Musharraf isn’t surrounded by Taliban sympathizers - “I think there’s a real problem, part of it bred by us back when we cut off all relations with their military.  I think there’s a problem, and there’s a problem in their intelligence service.  But Musharraf himself, I think he’s a good man.  But I think he’s made mistakes, don’t get me wrong.” He added:

 And we’ve got to have—move forward with these elections and have them free and fair.  But I can work with him.  He understands the threat to his country that the Taliban and al-Qaeda present.  I mean—and radical Islamic extremists.  He’s a very smart man.  He’d be one of the first to go. They’ve tried to kill him nine times, OK?  Nine times they’ve tried to kill Musharraf.  He’s not their favorite guy.  So I would be able to work with him, and, and, and I—as I have in the past.  So I don’t, I don’t see that scenario arising.”

This is one of the reasons that I think that he would generally make a good president, at least with regards to foreign policy issues. It’s unlikely that he will make any big mistakes that destabilize the region. He understands the region, he knows the people and he knows what work and what doesn’t.

Iraq

 About Iraq McCain said - and I’m quoting him in full because he put it so well:

SEN. McCAIN:  Most importantly, so would the American people if Americans aren’t dying.  We have a base in, in the neighboring country of Kuwait, very large base.  We have a base in Turkey.  We have a base in Japan, Germany. We’ve had bases there.  It’s not American presence that bothers the American people, it’s American casualties.  And if Americans are safe wherever they are in the world, Americans—the American people don’t mind that.  So what I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying, we’re supporting them, and, over time, then it’ll be the relation between the two countries.  With Kuwait, they want us there and they want us there for a long time, so we’re glad to be there.  The Saudis?  They didn’t want us there for various reasons, so we left.  That’s going to depend on relations between the United States government and the Iraqi government.  My point was—everybody says, “How long are we going to stay?” My point is, how—when are we going to succeed?  Which we are succeeding now so that the Iraqi government is functioning, and we have stability in the region.  Instability in Iraq means instability…

MR. RUSSERT:  What kind of troop levels for the next 10, 20 years?

SEN. McCAIN:  I—you know, that’s very hard to say.  But they—but the troops would be out of harm’s way.  That’s the key to it.  And…

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you have permanent bases?

SEN. McCAIN:  If, if that seems to be necessary, in some respects.  It depends on the threat.  I mean, look, what if, what if Jordan falls?  What if there’s another war with Israel?  What, what if Egypt, that, that there’s tremendous upheaval?  This is a very unstable part of the world as we just found out in Pakistan.  So it depends on our national security threats and the needs to meet them.  But right now I just want to look you in the eye and tell you that al-Qaeda is on the run and they are not defeated.  But we are succeeding, and many, many experts said that the surge would not succeed and said that I was wrong.  And, my friend, I was right.

He also said that “the invasion was not a mistake, the handling of the war was a terrible mistake.”

And then:

SEN. McCAIN:  I am suggesting, in fact strongly recommending, my candidacy because I have the experience and the knowledge and the background and the judgment.  I’m the only one that’s running that said “Rumsfeld’s strategy is going to fail, and I have no confidence in him, and we’ve got to change the strategy.” That’s why I’m running, because of the transcendent challenge of the 21^st century of radical Islamic extremism, of which Iraq is the central battleground, as we speak.

You don’t necessarily have to agree with him, but he knows how to put it and this issue is certainly his strength. Russert tried to push McCain into saying something negative about Romney (that the Governor wouldn’t be up to the task) but McCain refused to take the bait and made clear that it’s not about Romney not being able to do it, it’s about him being able to do it.

Conclusion:

As I said, he presented himself pretty clearly, in a way that will - most likely - convince many Independents and Moderate Republicans that he’s the best candidate. As such, I think that his appearance won’t hurt him… at least not with them. Russert - as usual - asked his guest some tough questions, and McCain’s answers are unlikely to satisfy the conservative base. What his appearance, then, will have accomplished is that he looks less snide than yesterday, that moderate Republicans and independents will support him even more, but that conservative Republicans may be even more convinced that McCain’s not their man for the nomination. The good news, though, is that although conservatives will most likely not support him for the nomination, he is acceptable to them, meaning that they’ll support him once he’s the nominee.