Don't Bush it, buddy.

Ariana Huffington recently reported John McCain told her that he did not vote for Bush in the 2000 election and that he only nominally supported his run out of obligation to the GOP.

While McCain quickly denied the story, it was confirmed by several sources at the party, including, get this: two cast members from the presidential drama The West Wing. Jed Bartlet for president!

Even without confirmation, I don't know that I would've denied the story so quickly. Bush's campaign made some shockingly nasty attacks on McCain and his family in the run-up to that election including accusing him of being crazy and fathering an illegitimate black child. Talk about putting swiftboaters into context!

With Bush's approval ratings falling to historic lows, rejecting the current administration may be McCain's only chance.

There's a lot of talk lately that Clinton's supporters will shun the polls if she doesn't get the nomination and vice versa. Can John "McGain" from the animosity?

Let's say Clinton is Democratic nominee. How can McCain capture disaffected black voters? Well, his association with Bush isn't going to help.

"You would have to get a really finely tuned GPS to find any African Americans who approve of Bush," David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Economic Studies, told me.

In fact, the headline of a recent Gallup poll says it all: "Bush May Be as Harmful to McCain as Wright is to Obama."

And what about the more likely alternative of Obama being the blue candidate?

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women wrote in a recent "Below the Belt" column:
"What if we end up with a Bush sequel that looks frighteningly like the last eight years? If Sen. John McCain becomes the next president of the United States, he will carry on Bush's tradition."

Considering she refers to the Bush administration as the "Conservative Misinformation Network," it's safe to say she'll make it to the polls for the Dems even if Clinton isn't the nominee.

It may turn out to be impossible for McCain to remove himself from the Bush hook.

"The Democrats have no intention of letting him put any distance between himself and Bush," said Bositis. Not only that, Bush lovers may be McCain's only chance. "If he doesn't have their support, he doesn't have any at all."

However, this alliance may a "what have you done for me lately?" case.

As I've written previously, the "campaign finance candidate" is in a fair amount of campaign finance trouble. Not the Clinton kind of trouble, mind you. Quite the opposite, McCain might have too much money. The FEC is due to rule on whether McCain can eschew the public funds he asked for when his campaign was desperate for money.
The FEC hasn't been able to rule on it, however, because they didn't have enough members to reach a quorum. McCain appealed to Bush to restock the FEC so that the matter can be resolved. Bush complied, with a cherry on top: he dumped chairman David Mason, who had indicated he didn't see things the way McCain would like.

If Bush can't get McCain any votes in the electoral college, perhaps the FEC is the next best thing?

Well, let's just say the FEC is no Florida.

"This election is going to be about a referendum on George Bush and Bushism," said Bositis. "And it's going to be a negative verdict."

McMarketing

This past Sunday, I was listening to the Tavis Smiley Show and his first guest was none other than Sen. John McCain (via telephone).

They talked about the economy, the war, media coverage...then McCain brought up the African American community, asking if Smiley minded if he switched gears.

Well, we all knew Tavis was going there, and the host said as much himself. "But go ahead," he told the Republican candidate.

"I'm a realist. I know I'm not going to get a majority of the African American vote," McCain conceded. "But I'm going to go all around this country...I'm gonna fight for their votes."

Smiley acknowledged that McCain has been on the right side of several issues of concern to the Black community, mentioning his support of the MLK holiday in Arizona and his views on immigration reform. But Smiley made a thinly-veiled reference to McCain's willingness to switch sides.

"I've said before, if this John McCain shows up...he has something to say to Black America," Smiley told McCain.

"There really isn't much that Sen. John McCain can do to convince Black voters to vote for him," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "The Democratic Party has spent the past 40 years convincing them Republicans are the racist party, when really it's the exact opposite."

Though she says her organization doesn't endorse specific candidates, she told me they support all Republicans and that they might even change their stance this year and endorse McCain.

"We may decide that this is a good year," she said.

...if the "right" McCain makes an appearance? I have a feeling her idea of the right McCain and Smiley's might differ. Now, if Bush's McCain shows up...

How about some electoral history?

Bush got 11 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and 9 percent in 2000. And this is the guy who ignored the country's premier civil rights organization until 2006!

Going back to the B.W. ("before Dubya") era, Republicans scored 12 percent in 1996 and 10 percent in 1992. But these numbers are even more shocking when you consider America's "first Black president" only got 83 and 84 percent in those two elections, significantly less than both Gore and Kerry (Perot stole a good share of the African American vote both years-7 and 4 percent, respectively). I am really more surprised by George W.'s success with the Black vote than Clinton's failure, however. Not that I'm an identity voter, but it would piss me off if a male candidate that only goes to church every once in a while was billed as America's first woman or agnostic president...

In all, I think Tavis got it right. Support the right issues and you'll get the votes you deserve. Identity politics is so out of style. Or if it's not yet, it will be by the time we get to November.

Bleeding ears

I was reading the New York Times editorials yesterday and saw an interesting section where readers wrote in with what they wanted to hear the Democratic presidential hopefuls say (as opposed to the current vitriol being spewed).

I especially liked the advice from George Waldstein to Obama's speech writers:

“My fellow Americans: I hope to become the Democratic nominee in this election. But if Senator Clinton becomes the nominee, I will enthusiastically support her, and she will be an excellent president and will undo the wide damage caused by the Bush administration and its chief enabler, John McCain..."

Apparently, Obama's been reading the NYT, too. Here's what he told CNN after his Mississippi victory:

"I've been careful to say that I think Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. I'm not sure we've been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

Ok, so a little extra snark in there for good measure, but it's better than sicking famous campaign staffers with racial innuendos on one's opponent.

Former vice presidential candidate and Clinton consultant Geraldine Ferraro says Obama's victory is unfair:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Yeah. I'm sure we can all agree being a black man in America means you got it easy. Not that being a woman in America is any easier, but whining about it will get us nowhere. That's how feminism became a dirty word, remember?

Instead of chastising Ferraro, Clinton stood behind her.

Maybe Clinton should be reading the NYT. Or at least listening to what Americans want to hear.

What's up, doc?

I was in a doctor's waiting room today when a couple came in inquiring about adoption counseling. I watched from behind a newspaper as they got a serious run-around and ended up leaving in frustration.

I thought about when I was sixteen, just having seen that awful video in health class of the woman giving birth. I got totally grossed out and vowed never to get pregnant. My health teacher was glad to hear it, I'm sure, but asked me what would happen if I wanted children later in life. I said I could always adopt. And the reply was, "no, you can't always adopt."

While any idiot can get pregnant, adoptive parents have to endure a battery of tests and monitoring by health professionals of every stripe in order to "have" a baby.

Being a parent is an important job, to be sure.

However, being president is arguably the most important job in the country, and the only test is whether you're approved of by the American people. Don't get me wrong, I dig representative democracy and all its wacky implications. And I don't mean to imply that any idiot can become president. But I do think the American people should be given more tools with which to judge the suitability of their future president and I'm not the first to suggest it.

McCain, if elected would be the oldest person to be inaugurated as president. He hasn't released medical records since 1999, the last time he ran for president. I'd imagine even the healthiest septuagenarian's health could change quickly, and anyone's bound to be a quite different person after more than eight years of political life.

Also, McCain's been treated for skin cancer and takes medications for high blood pressure, heart attack prevention and allergies.

In an interview on 60 Minutes McCain said he'll release his medical records within the next two months. Why the wait? He's already the nominee. He's already been to the doctor; why can't his campaign release the results now?

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign didn't respond to my two press requests for information on the subject. Too busy redacting?

Another note: yes, I want to see Hillary's tax returns, too. But what about her medical records? And how about the less and less transparent Sen. Obama? He could explain his friendship with "T.R." at the same time and save us all a truckload of speculation.

The McKing-unmaker

Now that Sen. John McCain has been anointed the Republican frontrunner by the media, everyone seems to be falling in line behind him. Giuliani dropped out and endorsed him, but with the former mayor's liberal leanings and lack of delegates, he's unlikely to be much of a king-maker. Same goes for the independent Republican Governator of California's McCain endorsement.

In fact, McCain himself is somewhat of a king-unmaker. His success is draining the life out of rumors of a presidential bid by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It appears that McCain has filled the moderate Republican hole convincingly enough.

Either way, with the conventions looming, there is no doubt that McCain's surge is having an effect on general election projections.

A friend of mine is an active Obama supporter in Minneapolis and frequently indulges my inner political junkie via Gmail's chat function. He recently told me he's concerned about this turn of events.

"I hate Hillary. I hate Romney. I fear McCain," he typed.

McCain has been criticized for being too liberal by almost every right-winger who counts in this country. He is too centrist, they say.

Which is why my friend fears him, instead of hating him. McCain has the ability to draw independents that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee do not. In fact, Romney has been calling for Huckabee to drop out and stop splitting the right-wing vote. Huckabee counters that Romney should do the same, albeit less convincingly so.

The only threat to McCain's middle ground would be if Ron Paul decides to run as a Libertarian. Or whatever he is these days.

With all these left-leaning Republicans in the limelight, whither the hard-core right wing? If McCain is nominated, will they stay home? Watch Super Tuesday carefully, kiddies. It'll be the beginning of the beginning or the beginning of the end.