hassett wrote dow 36,000.

the best and the brightest indeed.

Posted by: rdg at August 21, 2006 05:27 AM | Permalink to this comment

What an aggregation of dim bulbs McCain has chosen as advisors. I remain mystified as to how McCain has acheived a position of political prominence. About the only thing that comes to mind is his stint in a North Vietnamese prison camp. Somehow the media seem to think that qualifies him for an exalted position in our society. He does manage to sound independent from the Right now and then with some pronouncement that has won him the "maverick" title, but when you examine his voting record he is a garden variety dumbass conservative.

Oy.

Posted by: global yokel at August 21, 2006 06:54 AM | Permalink to this comment

Is it a very important question concerning McCain's chances of winning the Republican nomination and the presidency?

Or is it a very important question concerning how McCain would govern if he does indeed win the presidency?

Posted by: monkyboy at August 21, 2006 07:31 AM | Permalink to this comment

The bilateral face of the FP advisors is political. McCain is attempting to walk an increasingly thin line between supporting Bush and rejecting Bush. Note his appearance on Meet The Press yesterday: hacking away at Rumsfeld while still praising Bush. It's an illogical position since criticism of Rummy implies criticism of Bush but McCain does it anyway cause he has no choice: to win he has to appeal to blinded neocon Bush acolytes and realists at the same time. This dynamic is revealed in his 'choice' of FP advisors. Note also on MTP how McCain reiterated is call for MORE TROOPS deployed to Iraq. Again, everyone knows this is both a political and practical impossibility but McCain goes with it anyway. Why? Because on a theoretical side it IS the only way to stave off the coming crisis there but because it ain't ever going to happen it allows him to look like a hardnosed supporter of Bush while giving him an out: Iraq went so badly because Bush's advisors [Rummy] failed him.

It's a good strategy but quite frankly the only one he has if he hopes to not only win the primary [where he'll have to appear loyal to Bush] but the presidency as well. Unfortunately for him if Iraq goes as badly as it appears it might the logical inconsistencies of the position may start to weigh him down.

But then again, when has the American voter ever cared about logic?

Posted by: saintsimon at August 21, 2006 01:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

McCain has a simple strategy. Appeal to the religious right, which upended his last campaign, and cuddle into bed with Bush through the primary days. Then after he gets the nomination by being a Bush clone, then he will conduct his campaign more as a centrist attempting to con the American people into thinking he’s no Bush.

The American people are tired of the Bush agenda and are desperately seeking a change. McCain’s success will depend upon who is put forth by the Democrats. If it is Hillary, McCain might win; any other Democrat he will lose. McCain hopes everyone has forgotten about Keating but we will all be reminded of him as the campaign progresses.

Posted by: Mat Conoly at August 21, 2006 03:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

You will find a longer list of advisors
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0811mccain-advisers-ON.html

in this March Arizona Republic article

Note that Henry Kissinger (not listed by NYT) served as an advisor in both 2000 and 2004. (Kristol, if I remember right, also supoported McCain in 2000) The NYT list is so obviously a "famous people in the GOP" that it strikes me as useless.

Greg, I'd be honored if you figure something out from the longer list, that you'd share it with us.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at August 21, 2006 04:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

OK. It looks like the radical diversity of advisors thing is a consistent McCain style. See:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_10_16/ai_60130255

This is the style of someone who: (i) trusts his own mind, so wants suggestons from all sources, from which he'll make the synthesis; or (ii) has no frigging clue, or (iii) is just looking for an impressive press release.

McCain doesn't need (iii) and doesn't seem to be (ii).

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at August 21, 2006 05:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Nice graphics, Greg, but the presence of Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan at the tail of the list is a glaring alert, AFAIC, for anyone who might want to seriously consider John McCain as a realistic candidate for the Presidency.

Personally, I think PNAC ought to be officially made into a proscribed organization, and anyone at all who ever, at any time, hand any association with it publically hooted into retirement and obscurity (and for good measure, all its writings burned on bonfires, and its headquaters razed and sown with salt!).

It is the baleful influence of hubristic "national greatness" radicals like PNAC which are the source, imho, of most of the very real problems which adherence to its neoimperialist doctrines have caused for US foreign policy. That McCain might seriously engage these cranks as "advisors" is a scary beyond belief.

Posted by: Jay C at August 21, 2006 06:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think that's a little harsh, Jay C.

The neocons seem almost human at times.

I think we all know that John McCain isn't the Chosen One. The fact that he's considered the front runner to be the next president says more about America's sorry state than it does about him.

I assume this list of advisors is just a carefully market tested list designed to help McCain win the nomination.

Almost all of them owe their fortunes to the government, so I doubt we'll get any defecit reduction under McCain.

No Asians, so China will complete its rise as the next superpower under McCain.

No Muslims, so we'll continue our genocidal policies in the Middle East under McCain.

No one who makes under, say, $150,000 a year, so poverty and income disparity will continue to increase in America under McCain.

In short, this looks like a photo gallery of the "root causes" of the mess America is in now...

"Stay the Course! in '08!"

Posted by: monkyboy at August 21, 2006 07:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm going to go against conventional wisdom and predict that McCain won't have a problem with the religious right. I don't think he lost in SC because Bush is an evangelical, he lost because Bush is Bush as well as being an evangelical. Err, does that make sense to anyone else?

McCain, at the end of the day, is just as much a right-wing conservative as any other right-wing conservative, give or take a gay marriage amendment, and I just don't think it's going to be an issue when push comes to shove.

Posted by: jon at August 21, 2006 08:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

I had expected to see Lorne Craner, the IRI president and former Asst. Secretary for human rights or democracy or something, on the list. He was McCain's AA for a while, and their association goes back to when Lorne's father was a POW with McCain.

to "monkyboy's" points - frontrunnerhood at this point means pretty much nothing more than name recognition. Just like with Hillary on the Dem side, it's McCain's nomination to loose, and he's almost certain to loose it.

Also, the fact he doesn't have a rainbow coalition of advisors means nothing, one way or the other, about his (or their) politics. President Bush has been particularly good at appointing women, hispanics, token environmentalists, etc. to high office, with minimal import or impact.

Posted by: Matt Chanoff at August 21, 2006 08:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

matt: lorne craner is on the longer list in the arizona republic article that another commenter links. go check it out. while the Hanoi Hilton bond (if anything happens to us, let's take care of our kids...) is kinda interesting, I doubt craner is a major player, certainly not a cabinet-level player, in a prospective mccain administration.

Posted by: greg at August 21, 2006 08:27 PM | Permalink to this comment

Matt,

There's a difference between "token" advisors and actual ones...all I see above is a bunch of hammers ready to treat every problem like it's a nail.

It would be nice to see a Bill Gates or an Arundhati Roy pictured next to the future Politburo members.

Posted by: monkyboy at August 21, 2006 09:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

I must say that I am struck by the tone and cynicism of the other posters with regards to McCain. I think that his warming to the religious right is an obvious tactical move for election purposes rather than any major change in the man. I sincerely believe that he is the same guy who essentially called out Robertson and Falwell as the cooks they are.

There is an unfortunate reality in our political system - one must slum with unattractive elements in one's party to win a national election. This is true in both parties. His policy advisors appear to be in this spirit as well - looking to appeal to a broad section of the Republican base.

Even if they are not, I would suggest that it is a show of strength that there are diverse opinions among the advisors. I believe that the largest weakness of Bush is his unwillingness to surround himself with the best from VARIOUS camps - too much inbreeding. This tendency fits with a religious fundamentalist mentality and I think that McCain has shown throughout his career that he is hardly a fundamentalist.

Posted by: james at August 21, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

Well, this strikes me as complex. You see, in terms of overall foreign policy, I fear that the Senior Senator from Arizona will be a "Bomb all the bastards we don't like," Bill Kristol Conservative (radical "neoconservative"- "Kristol Conservative" if you prefer. A conservative family member told me he finds "neocon" anti-semitic). This, frankly isn't much of a "foreign policy" at all and is wholly unimaginative in dealing with Islamism/Jihadism.*

BUTTTTTT, when in a war, I do believe he'll follow the Powell Doctrine: Clear purpose, with OVERWHELMING force. As a liberal, radical "Kristol Conservatism" makes me exceedingly nervous, but at least execution of wars will be improved, and that is a step.

So, Kristol will "set" (beyond the Senator's inherent beliefs) the agenda, the likes of Powell would execute it (despite their overall misgivings)

*"Kristol Conservatives" do get 2 things right. 1. The Middle East needs to change and 2. This is a unique struggle. Unfortunately, they haven't the slightest idea how to do #1, and they forget #2 since their answer is utterly conventional: "Bomb the hell out of them!" For example, did these folks think, as seems to be, that they could change the ME just like that, on their own schedule? Change takes time, effort, hard work, and pushing it prematurely is the height of foolishness.

Posted by: KevinA at August 22, 2006 01:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

Since many of Bush's advisors have signed onto McCain's campaign, we can deduce that McCain is not only the Annointed Successor, but that he intends for his policies to benefit the same people who've benefited from the Bush Administration.

Since McCain will apparently give PNAC an important role in his Administration, that means a continuation of Bush's foreign policy, which means more war in the Middle East. I don't know how McCain intends to do that with the military in its current sorry state. He might believe he's popular enough to risk bringing back the draft.

If McCain intends to follow Bush's example by pursuing regime change via military action, the military budget will continue to grow. That means no deficit reduction, no matter what Crippen and Holtz-Eaken say - unless McCain also intends to raise taxes (which I doubt) or make good on the long-held conservative dream of ending non-military programs altogether. I consider that far more likely. So, goodbye SocSec, Medicare/Medicaid, and federal funding for education, health, and environmental issues.

So a McCain Administration will still have the stated priorities of the Bush Administration, and will still pursue the idea of the Unitary Executive. There might be less torture, but probably no less surveillance, and certainly no more oversight. Gitmo and similar prisons will still be in business, and prisoners will still be shuffled off to other countries in secret.

So, if you thought the biggest beef with the Bush Administration was ineptitude, rather than any substantive issues, a McCain Administration might be to your liking.

Posted by: CaseyL at August 22, 2006 02:41 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg, sorry -- too lazy to look at the long list. I agree Lorne isn't cabinet level.

Regarding the line up of top advisors, you've got to think about it politically, vis a vis the expected opposition. I haven't done the necessary oppo research, but a broad stroke would probably be something like:

Romney: His own money; governer of a wealthy state (governors can generally raise more than Senators) strong on management and collaboration with the Dems, significant acheivement to trumpet on health care, vulnerable on the social right for his flip flop on gay marriage, no fp experience.

Frist: hard right on social issues, likely able to leverage his leadership position for money and publicity. Weak on fp.

Guiliani: NY base means he's likely able to raise money. moderate on social issues, which will alienate a lot of the base, but may work for GOP legions who think the rightward drift has gone too far. No fp experience but rep as a trustworthy tough guy.

A GOP hopeful has traditionally got to touch three bases in order to make it to the nomination: make America look strong in the world, pass the social litmus tests, (guns, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and hate taxes like the plague.

Like any rational conservative, McCain's got a tough obstacle course to run. First, he's got to appear tough and yet be a critic of this unpopular fiasco of a war. (interesting, btw, that none of the GOP hopefuls are associated with Iran) Second, he's got to attempt some fiscal responsibility without smelling of taxes. Finally, he's got to dance a bit around the litmus tests in order to be a viable national candidate after the nomination.

In the context of his opponents, McCain must drive home his solution to the two trickier obstacles, fp and taxes. Scowcroft, Armitage, and Powell all spell tough guy but still critical of the war. At the same time, Kristol implies that he's not just a realist - he's got a vision. I can't see any better way for a Republican to position on these issues; McCain has the best card here, and he appears to be playing it well.

On the social litmus test side, he's pretty dyed-in-the-wool - any potential problems on this won't matter much unless and until he gets the nomination.

McCain seems to me weakest on the domestic policy side. As a Senator from a little state, he's poorly positioned to raise money compared to his opponents. He's got to be out in front publically in order to do it. But his strengths in this area - budget balancing and cutting pork through campaign finance reform -- are exactly the wrong positions to take in the money raising phase.

I don't know much about McCain's domestic policy people, but my guess is that they're likely to make him look more palatable to lobbyists, but in a way that doesn't scream "sell out" to the masses.

Posted by: Matt Chanoff at August 22, 2006 05:56 AM | Permalink to this comment

Matt,

You really think Powell and Armitage have any foreign policy credibility left? Powell is the one who sold the Iraq fiasco to the country and the world, even though he knew he was peddling lies...does anyone take him seriously anymore?

I agree on Scowcroft, but he is over 80...

Posted by: monkyboy at August 22, 2006 09:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

You have to read the NYT piece closely, which says:

"They cautioned that many on the list would likely play no role in a McCain candidacy."

This is just an overbroad list. They don't want to say anything bad about big shots in the party -- this is the big-tent phase of the campaign, and anyone they can associate themselves with is a plus. "Who are my advisors? Well, just about everybody you can name!"

What's really remarkable to me is how much leeway people continue to give McCain to straddle. He has the priceless political gift of sounding like a straight-talker when he's speaking in contradictions. I heard him on the Sunday talkers this past weekend, on which he said if he were President he'd fire Rumsfeld, but also that he has confidence in the President and his team to manage Iraq. Pardon? Yet the tone of his voice and his manner conveyed that this was the most sensible, obvious combination of views to hold. Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of "confidence" is.

Posted by: TedL at August 22, 2006 05:00 PM | Permalink to this comment

I was liking the foreign policy team until I got to Kristol. Jesus. Has that crank ever been right about anything? It's like having Lyndon LaRouche as an advisor. I like that "salt the PNAC earth" policy Jay C.

(And I'm sorry for that outburst. I apologize to Mr. LaRouche for comparing him to Bill Kristol.)

Who are the fundies gonna vote for? Hillary? They'll suck it up and do as they're told as always and vote for McCain because, like Jesus, he has a "R" after his name.

I think if McCain makes it through the primaries he's a lock. What are the Dems going to run against him?

Posted by: Brian at August 22, 2006 07:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

Monkyboy,

Good question about Powell. I'm reading the Ricks book at the moment. Check out pp 90 - 93, where he discusses Powell's preparation for that speech. This is one of the points in the book where Ricks uses an unnamed source to support Armitage, who's a self-interested source. But the argument is still pretty strong that Powell was totally lied to and fucked over.

Here's a quote from Armitage, who was also an internal dissenter on strategy who got into line on the war:

"Armitage, who had gone out to the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to help prepare Powell for the speech, recalled the effort that the secretary of state put into it. "He worked for three days, and parts of all those nights," Armitage recalled....he went through each point in the speech, every single one, and looked at everybody in the room, and nobody dissented. Are we sure of the information? Are we sure of the sourcing/ Is there anything wrong with the sourcing? And I don't know what more he could have done." George Tenet, the CIA director, was also there as Powell prepared..."

And this is a speech, remember, where a lot of the most damaging details had been provided by an informant to German intelligence who turned out to be the brother of one of Ahmed Chelabi's aids. That and the stuff about the aluminum tubes, which Tenet had been informed wasn't true.

So as to whether they have any credibility left, I find that a difficult question to answer. I'm one of those people who were following Peter Galbraith when he started talking on Capital Hill about the Anfal. I was ashamed that America had hung the Shiites out to dry in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and I thought it was our moral responsibility to go in and finish the job, especially as it became clear that sanctions were not working to change the regime and were instead impoverishing and killing the Saddam's subjects. So I wasn't pro-war because I believed the WMD hype, but I was an uncritical audience for Powell's speech.

If that history leaves me with any credibility at all, then I would say that knowlegeable people think Powell was a good soldier who lost the bureaucratic infight with Rumsfeld. His reputation was thereby weakened, but not fatally. For less knowlegeable people, Powell's reputation is pretty seriously damaged; but America is famous for giving people second chances.

Oh, and re TedL's comments: Yes it's an overbroad list, but whoever you sign up, your opponents' can't. And I'm sympathetic to McCain's "thumbs down Rumsfeld; thumbs up, Bush" stance. Not because it's rational, of course, but he's running in a Republican primary, for Chrissake. If he can't play politics, you wouldn't want him as President.

Posted by: Matt Chanoff at August 22, 2006 07:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

If that history leaves me with any credibility at all, then I would say that knowlegeable people think Powell was a good soldier who lost the bureaucratic infight with Rumsfeld. His reputation was thereby weakened, but not fatally. For less knowlegeable people, Powell's reputation is pretty seriously damaged; but America is famous for giving people second chances.

there is a problem with the "Powell was lied to" theory.... Powell's abject refusal to tell the American people flat out in 2004 that the people running the war were liars, and should not be allowed to run the nation for another four years.

Powell, in other words, is just another opportunistic scumbag who has sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans -- and tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children -- to keep his seat on the GOP gravy train.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at August 22, 2006 07:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

p. lukasiak,

Powell's refusal to come out against the war has troubled me too, but it doesn't necessarily lead to a conclusion that he's "another opportunistic scumbag." Maybe he thinks that Kerry would have done a worse job.

Posted by: matt chanoff at August 22, 2006 08:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

I agree, matt.

Between hero and "opportunistic scumbag," lies another rank...ordinary human being.

If Powell were a hero, then somewhere between, say, June of 2003, when it was obvious he'd help get America into another Vietnam, and the 2004 election, he could have resigned and campaigned against Bushie.

No doubt Bushie's trolls would have smeared him with charges of incompetence, adultery, war profiteering, etc. I seem to remember he had something to do with the attempt to cover up the My Lai massacre.

Or, being an ordinary human being...he could serve out his term, quietly trying to do his best to fix things, then retire to spend some well-deserved time with his family while receiving millions of dollars a year from Republican front companies for keeping quiet.

I think 99.99% of Americans would have chosen the same option Powell did...

Posted by: monkyboy at August 22, 2006 09:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

McCain's people are trying to cover his bets. He's going to straddle the BushI/BushII regimes; he's going to combine realists with AIPAC agents.

Let's face it - Hillary Clinton and John McCain are as in thrall to AIPAC and the Likud as any other candidate. I can't think of anyone who has dared raise the issue of Israel's culpability for the American ME morass.

Actually, I can think of a few -- and AIPAC and cutout PACs have systematically destroyed their political careers.

This is going to be sorted out -- as Lebanon and Iraq have made clear -- by the New Lethality of the network-centric, well-armed Islamist irregulars that we're seeing in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. It will be interesting to see if the Brits and NATO can handle the current Taliban probes.

A better Balance of Violence may not be a bad thing. Traditionally, we've had Hoodlum Arab Police States (HAPS) one one side, the American/Israeli Imperium (AAI) on the other and the Islamist Irregulars (II) with AKs stuck between. This was a recipe for disaster.

Now, the Israeli/American Imperium is looking rather like a creaky, rust-belt, armor-dependent Russian style monolith; the Police State elites are lining up Cayman Islands bank accounts and offshore passports....and the irregulars, having effectively shut down both Israel and the US expeditionary forces...are no doubt planning new probes.

McCain is an older gentleman with a 20th century mindset. A McCain presidency will do very little to adjust to the new strategic realities...

Posted by: John in LA at August 24, 2006 07:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's late and you're probably not checking comments here at this point, Greg, but you might want to check out McCain's latest statement on Iraq. Basically, he still supports Bush's decision to invade, supports Bush's conduct of the war, and supports keeping the troops there. In other words, McCain supports the status quo.

Now, you might be able to make a case that McCain "has" to say that, in order to be Bush's annointed successor. If so, it's another nail in the coffin of McCain's "maverick" status. Also, the fact is that whatever interest groups he feels he has to placate by endorsing Bush's Iraq policy are the very interest groups that got us into the mess in the first place, and therefore are not people we want still dictating US policy. In contrast, there are other Republicans with an eye on 2008 who haven't felt the desire or need to keep endorsing Bush's Iraq policy, who have been able to call a spade a spade.

If you're looking for a Republican to support in 2008, I suggest you look elsewhere than John McCain.

Posted by: CaseyL at August 26, 2006 02:00 AM | Permalink to this comment