The Rolling Stone Interview: John McCain

Why would President Bush strongly oppose a bill that so distinctly resembles the Texas version? As governor, he refused to sign that bill, but he allowed it to go into law. He then took credit for it during the campaign. Does this make any sense to you?

No. But I can tell you that, in everything we do in Washington, the power and influence of big money and special interests fundamentally dictate our agenda.

It seems the patients' bill of rights and campaign-finance reform — your signature issue — are directly connected.

Clearly, they're connected. When you have organizations such as the insurance companies giving tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, of course it affects the legislative agenda on their issue.

The president has received a lot of this money since his first campaign for governor in 1994.

You know, I'm not putting the blame on the president — I'm putting the blame on the system. This system makes good people do bad things. I can't accuse the president of the United States of being affected by this. But I'm saying we're all affected by it — including myself.

How are you affected?

There have been times when so-and-so major contributor — the head of whatever company or corporation — wants to see you. Come on in, you say. Money buys access, and access is influence. For me to say that I have never been affected by it would just not be accurate.

How would you assess the way that North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic co-sponsor of the patients' bill of rights, has handled himself through this debate?

Extremely well. This is the first time I worked on a bill with him, but now we've been working for a year. It isn't just a short-term relationship. We've spent many, many hours together. He's a bright and rising star.

Is he the next star of the Democratic Party?

I certainly think he's one of them. I think that Joe Lieberman has a bright future, if he wants to have it; I think John Kerry would be a very potent force in the next presidential nomination for his party. So I see Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman as being three people who are very capable.

Edwards is presidential material?

I'm sure he is.

That's a pretty strong endorsement from you, isn't it?

Well, maybe I ought to put it in more correct terms. I think he is clearly a contender for the nomination of his party. Now, whether he would be better served to wait four more years or eight more years is a decision he has to make.

You and Sen. Lieberman recently announced you would hold hearings on carbon-dioxide emissions. How did you evolve into a spokesman for the environment?

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, beginning two or three years ago, I began having hearings on climate change. We tried to get the best scientific minds in America before the Commerce Committee. As time has gone on, an accumulation of scientific evidence is now clearly, to me, indicating that we have a major, major challenge in the issue of climate change.

Let's make it clear. You believe in the concept of global warming.

I believe global warming exists, and I believe that it is a question not of whether it exists, it's how severe the consequences are. Each new scientific study becomes more and more definitive as to the conclusions that climate change — let's call it climate change because some places get colder — is certainly taking place. Temperature is going to increase. As we melt the polar ice caps, we may see flooding of coastal areas — where eighty percent of the American people live. A great percentage of the coral reefs are dying, and they are the beginning of the food chain. There will be more severe weather patterns, which, obviously, cause significant impact, and as the ozone layer gets thinner, we'll see increases in skin cancer. One of the major contributors to climate change is, of course, CO2.

You didn't necessarily believe this in 1982, when you first came to the House from Arizona.

I had no clue. But climate change, to me, is a severe concern. I did not agree with the Kyoto treaty — and I agreed with the president that it was flawed. But I would not have withdrawn from the Kyoto treaty. The president, in my view, should have said, "Look. This is unacceptable in its present form, but I will do everything in my power to work to fix it, so that it is acceptable to the United States."

Was it a mistake for Bush to have taken the position he did?

Well, I can't say "mistake," but I wouldn't have done it myself. Every president goes through a learning process, no matter who that president is. I just think it was a tactical error, which is not uncorrectable, to totally withdraw from the treaty.

What do you think of the president's energy policy?

I haven't looked at it in depth, because it's not before the Senate yet. But I have to say, in all candor, that the amount of tax breaks that are given to the energy industry — I just wouldn't vote for those.

What should we have learned from the 2000 race?

The first thing we learned is, there's a compelling requirement for electoral reform. Not just in Florida, but all over America, groups of Americans are underrepresented because their votes were not counted. I think the second lesson we learned is that campaigns do matter. You could argue, in some ways, that in a healthy economy — and with a pretty good record over eight years — Al Gore did not maximize his opportunities to be elected president. A seminal aspect of that was the three debates.

Did Gore run a bad campaign?

His biggest problem was that he never clearly identified himself to the American people: Here's who I am and what I stand for. That's why the three debates are sort of the quintessential aspect of it, because he was three different people in three different debates. What the American people want is a person who can articulate a vision for the future to them. This was why great Americans, such as [the late Washington senator] Scoop Jackson and John Glenn, were never able to secure the nomination of their party. Al Gore was never able, for whatever reason, to articulate a vision for the future of America.

Should Gore run again for president in 2004?

I think, from a practical standpoint, you might argue, if you were one of the Democrats seeking the nomination, "Look, he had his chance, at a very opportune time" [laughs]. But that would be entirely up to Al Gore.

Do you believe Bush's presidency is legitimate?

Oh, sure, yes. I don't know if we'll ever know what happened in Florida. But I do believe that that's a very sore point with many Democrats and could be used to energize their base.

Do we need electoral reform?

Without a doubt. It is as great a priority as campaign-finance reform. We need to act. We don't have to have a huge package. We could take this a few steps at a time. But to do nothing is obviously reprehensible.