Mark Schmitt over at Tapped highlights a remarkable passage from a press release from Public Citizen:
We are compelled to note something that has been lost in the recent criticism of Sen. McCain's association with lobbyists: Regardless of how many lobbyists are working on his campaign or raising money for him, John McCain fought for 14 long, hard years for reforms that seriously limit lobbyists' power. He has fought for campaign finance reform, limits on gifts and travel from lobbyists, and extensive public disclosure of lobbyists' activities - all of which limit the influence of lobbyists and the companies that hire lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? Because John McCain has at various times throughout his career fought hard with lobbyists, he gets a free pass now when he does not? What the hell kind of standard is that? Just because someone has done something wonderful in the past does not mean that they must by definition be doing something wonderful now. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, right?
Yes, McCain has often battled lobbyists throughout his career. Except, of course, when he hasn't. Like, for example, now. But John McCain is "honorable," therefore the lobbyists traveling with him on his Straight Talking bus must be honorable, too.
"Regardless of how many lobbyists are working on his campaign or raising money for him..."
If you honestly believe that McCain spent 14 years acting honorably, shouldn't it concern you that he has now chosen to break that pattern and act in a manner that he would have once condemned. Doesn't that make it an even bigger deal than it would have been for someone else who never claimed this issue as his own? McCain chose this fight. Now he has apparently abandoned it. And now we're just supposed to look the other way? Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense?
UPDATE Jay Carney at Time makes precisely the same mistake:
Dionne is right; we should and will pour over McCain's record in the Senate, including his years as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, looking for inconsistencies between the actions he took and his image as an anti-lobbyist reformer. But in the Times, David Brooks is also right when he reminds readers that McCain's record is replete with examples of him stiffing lobbyists from major moneyed interests, including ones closely tied to the GOP. It is simply a fact that no other member of Congress has, over the past dozen years, engaged in so many high profile battles with well-funded special interests, often in direct conflict with his own party.
That record of reform will likely be an asset for McCain with independent voters in the general election. I suspect that by going after McCain's strength, Democrats are not really expecting to erase that history so much as they are hoping to muddy it. The larger goal will be to portray McCain, age 71, as part of the past, a practicioner of the old ways of doing business in Washington, while Obama, 46, comes off as the future, the change agent unsullied by the old Washington battles. The argument will be that McCain's rhetoric about lobbyists doesn't match his record. The problem with that line of attack is....McCain's record.
Erm....no. The problem isn't with McCain's record, or with his rhetoric. It's with his actions. If McCain's record (i.e. his past) does not match his current behavior (i.e. his present), this will be a problem for McCain, not Obama. McCain has built a mythology that portrays him as a crusader against evil lobbyists. Today, that crusader is riding around on a bus being advised by very well paid and well-connected corporate lobbyists. If anyone has muddied the waters here, it is McCain. His reputation was crystal clear, and now he's trashed it. No one else is responsible for that except him.
But if journalists at Time Magazine can't even see this, god help us....
Subscribe to this blog's feed
