Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a potential McCain running mate, on McCain and bipartisanship:
Look at senator McCain's record on the big issues of our time. Changing the strategy in the war, being for climate change, cranking down on pork barrel spending, being against earmarks, reaching across even on things that are controversial like campaign finance reform. as a United States Senator. Not casting a vote as a state legislator, but leading, being the person that's in the middle of it.In this morning's post on "McCain, Obama, Bipartisanship" Andrew Sullivan concurs with Pawlenty's assertions, stating that "the kind of bipartisan initiatives that McCain has pioneered have had much more far-reaching scope and were more likely to piss off his own party" than Barack Obama's bipartisanship. Sullivan has become more and more feckless in his defense of Obama against the claims that he has less achievement than McCain, or in defending the argument that Obama is too liberal, or that Obama combined with a Democratic House and Senate present a risk.
Gang of 14, that Senator Obama was against, that gave us Justice Roberts and Alito... Senator Obama was even against that. Senator McCain was right in the middle of it, Leading that bipartisan charge. again, whether it's energy, whether it's ethics, whether it's reform, whether it's spending, Senator McCain time and time again has been saying I'm willing to lead, I'm willing to take risks. We have not seen that kind boldness from Senator Obama.
There are many things that are just wrong with Tim Pawlenty's comments about McCain's so-called bold leadership and bipartisanship, beyond the basic argument that McCain has been inconsistent with respect to even the issues raised. Count me as one who doesn't ascribe great leadership (but does ascribe great media savvy) to the man saying exactly what the polls indicate the public wants to hear, given the general consensus on issues such as the problems with money in politics or the risks to the environment.
But the argument that McCain is so bold and bipartisan with respect to the Gang of 14 is just absurd. As Pawlenty points out, the Gang of 14 led to the placement of Justices Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. It effectively eliminated the judicial filibuster from the Democratic arsenal, getting the agreement of a sufficient number of Democrats to vote for cloture -- to abandon for their party the right to "filibuster" -- and put through the conservative selections to the Court. As Matt Yglesias has pointed out, it was a great tactical move by McCain (made great by the decision of some Democrats -- either due to poor tactics on their part or an attempt to legitimize their weakness on blocking the nominations by hiding under a banner of bipartisanship) which enabled the appointment of conservative justices. McCain didn't go against conservative Republican principles; instead, he advanced them in a way that created an illusion of bipartisanship.
All to the benefit of nobody more than John McCain.
