The Rolling Stone Interview: John McCain

This year, no politician in Washington has had his fingerprints on more nationally significant legislation than Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Conservative on some issues (he is pro-life and favors strong military spending), moderate on others (he's concerned about global warming and is a champion of the patients' bill of rights), he is articulating a calculatedly centrist position. In doing so, McCain has built a following with the American public as large as that of either the Republican or the Democratic Party. While he remains a Republican and frequently votes with his party, on key legislation he now often votes with the Democrats, increasing his influence in the closely divided Senate and, in the process, elevating his status as a national figure.

In August, McCain's successful battle with skin cancer was highlighted by a story in Newsweek that featured the left side of his face, clearly scarred from surgery, on the cover. Why is this important to the world of politics? If McCain should ever decide to run for president again, the American public must perceive him as healthy.

Since he will play a vital role in Washington as Congress reconvenes this month, I spent a day with McCain in Phoenix in mid-August. The first part of the interview took place in his office — an understated suite of rooms in a nondescript business complex far from downtown Phoenix. He sent out for a lunch that he seems to have often — a Big Mac, french fries and a Coke. We concluded the interview at his home in a Phoenix suburb, where he, his wife, Cindy, and their four children live in the house she grew up in. McCain seemed comfortable in the children's "DVD room" as he relaxed in a recliner and talked. During the day, we covered a range of subjects, from presidential politics to Vietnam, Russia and the Middle East.

After Vermont Sen. James Jeffords switched parties in May and gave the Senate to the Democrats, President Bush showed a new interest in you. You and Cindy both had dinner at the White House?

Cindy and I, Laura and the president, and the two food tasters [laughs].

How was the evening?

Cindy and Laura get along very well, and the president is a very congenial man. We had a very pleasant dinner, and we had a drink on the porch — sort of a terrace — that overlooks the Mall and the Washington Monument.... You know, it sort of made me a bit nostalgic.

For what?

For what might have been.

You were kidding about the food tasters, but obviously there is animosity between the Bush and McCain camps.

The camps, yes.

Was this an effort to heal that rift? Bush asked you to dinner, right?

Sure, yeah [laughs]. Our reconciliation really took place in Pittsburgh, back during the campaign. He and I, personally, have always had a very cordial relationship. Of course there's ill will that has existed between our two camps.

I'll tell you a small example, just as recently as a few weeks ago. Larry Eagleburger, former secretary of state, was asked by Gen. Brent Scowcroft to join a thing called PFIAB: the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. And Eagleburger told Scowcroft he'd like to serve. Then Scowcroft called him back — I saw Eagleburger three weeks ago — and said, "No, you can't be on it, because you backed McCain."

To be very honest with you, if President Bush knew that Larry Eagleburger, the former secretary of state, was nominated, I think he'd say, "Absolutely, that'd be great." But somewhere in that hierarchy, it was blocked. And numerous others have been also. So, yes, there remain bad feelings. People invest their hearts and souls — and blood, sweat and tears — in a political campaign.

In June, the Senate passed McCain-Edwards-Kennedy, the patients' bill of rights, by a substantial margin. Then, right before the August recess, the House passed a significantly different version when Rep. Charles Norwood cut a deal with the White House. Did you feel Norwood and the president sold you out?

Ultimately, Norwood made an agreement with the president in the Oval Office — and that agreement was not something we agree with, to be honest with you.

What is the major difference?

Probably the absolute right of a patient to get redress for wrongs. They changed the language to favor the HMOs.

After Charlie made the agreement, he met with us afterward that evening. And, obviously, it was a rather tense meeting. The bill passed the next day. The HMO lobbyists were celebrating, in the view of many, after the passage of that bill. But it was a very narrow vote, as you know. And so we'll be in conference now, and I'll be one of the conferees.

Do you believe the president is too indebted to the insurance companies?

I'm not sure what it is that has made the White House treat this legislation the way they have. Clearly, there are legitimate concerns about out-of-control litigation and increases in the costs of health care. But those concerns are badly undercut by the fact that in states that have passed a patients' bill of rights — in Texas, Arizona and the other eleven states — there has been no explosion in litigation.