Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
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.
Advertisement
There are rumors that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wants a ten percent cut in the defense budget.
My understanding of what they're contemplating is a ten percent cut in some of the services in order to make room for missile defense, etc. Obviously, I would disagree with that.
We still have military personnel on food stamps. Why?
Well, the cynical answer is, privates and seamen don't make campaign contributions. But the other answer is, clearly, that to give that kind of pay raise to all of them would be very expensive and would take away from some of the funding for the defense hardware that we continue to purchase, much of which we don't need.
Are you for a missile-defense system?
Yes. But I would approach it somewhat differently, in that I would try to improve on existing systems — both the Patriot, a ground-based surface-to-air missile, and the Aegis, a sea-based missile-defense system. We've spent $40 billion so far on missile defense, and we don't have a system to show for it. It's disgraceful. And sooner or later, unless we have something really to show for it, the American people are going to lose patience.
You are friends with Sen. James Jeffords — until May, a Republican. What made him become an Independent?
The first thing that happened was that Jim Jeffords was bypassed as chairman of the Labor and Education Committee on the education bill. They gave it to the next guy down the line, Judd Gregg. I think that upset him.
Who's "they," the Senate leadership?
Yes, the Republican Senate leadership. And the White House agreed. They all agreed to that.
Did they do that because Jeffords was outspoken in opposing the Bush tax plan?
No. I think it was because they felt that Sen. Gregg would shape a piece of legislation far more to their liking than Jeffords would, working with Kennedy. But let me back up a step. There was a fundamental failure to understand that Jim Jeffords represents a state that elects a Socialist, Bernie Sanders, as their congressman — that Jim Jeffords represents a state which, very proudly, is very liberal. And so Jeffords' voting is very different from that of Trent Lott or Richard Shelby. There was a fundamental misunderstanding there. And then they bypassed him on the committee chairmanship. Finally, the White House threatened, and Senate leadership threatened, that they would torpedo the Northeast Dairy Compact.
Which is really big in Vermont.
Oh, it's huge, because they have so many of these small dairy farmers. So I think all those things compounded. Plus, comments made about him by his colleagues, most of them anonymously — you know, we'll teach him a lesson, this kind of stuff — that showed a fundamental intolerance that, I think, just clearly drove Jim Jeffords to say, "OK, enough."
Historically, how will the Jeffords shift be viewed?
It will be viewed as rather significant, because it allowed the Democrats in the Senate to set the agenda. We would never have taken up the patients' bill of rights if it hadn't had been for the Democrats' gaining the majority. I'm told that when we get back, after a couple of appropriations bills, minimum wage will be up next.
You must have seen the recent poll showing that, if it were a three-way race in 2004 with you, Gore and Bush, it would be Bush thirty-seven percent, Gore twenty percent, McCain thirty-three percent. There are a lot of people in America who want you to run for president.
Yes, and I'm very flattered by that. The nicest thing that happens to me is, as I go through airports and traveling around, that young people come up and shake my hand and say nice things. I can't tell you how wonderful that is. But, look. My job is to accept the verdict — I lost.
But what do you tell these millions of people who want you to run again?
Help me with my reform agenda; stay involved.
The newest rumor going around Capitol Hill — and this is coming from a well-placed Democratic congressman — is that for 2004 the Democrats want to get John McCain to join the Democratic Party, run for president and put John Edwards on as VP. What do you do with rumors like that?
I wonder what they've been smoking. But, look, the best way I can serve this country is to repeat: I have no intention of leaving the Republican Party and causing any tension. What I want is to do the best job that I can in the United States Senate. For me to engage in these hypotheticals — it's just not productive. And it would reduce my effectiveness.
Is there any way that you could leave the Republican Party?
I envision no scenario.
Well, let me give you a scenario, then.
Sure.
You fight for these issues that are important to you. The White House blocks them. You get in a position — two, three years from now — where, in order to continue advancing your agenda, you decide that you'll follow in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt and form your own party.
I just don't envision that. Because I believe that I will work with the White House on many of these issues. I really do.
Would you like to be president of the United States?
Oh, sure. I mean, to say that I wouldn't have liked to be president — I wouldn't have shed all the blood, sweat and tears that I did in the last campaign.
But right now, would you still like to be president?
I would love to be emperor. But the fact is, what I want is just to do the best job I can in the Senate.
When you were a pow in Vietnam from 1967 to 1973, what contact with the outside world did you have?
Very little. We had a loudspeaker in the prison, and they would play a program that we called "Hanoi Hannah," that was a propaganda program that supposedly was beamed to the South. It was sort of like Tokyo Rose, you know? It was a lot of slanted stuff. I found it kind of entertaining.
There were never any newspapers or magazines. They told us on "Hanoi Hannah" when Martin Luther King was shot and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. And in October 1968, [President Lyndon] Johnson stopped the bombing in North Vietnam, and they didn't resume any of it for about a year and a half, two years. So there were no new POWs coming in. When they did arrive, we would get in contact with them, eventually — through tapping on the walls — and then they would give us information.
"Hanoi Hannah" would give us the bad news. But we didn't find out about the moon landing until two years afterward, when a new POW came in.
Advertisement
You came back from Vietnam in 1973 and were elected to the House in 1982. How did you make the transition?
Well, first of all, I was hospitalized for a period of time. Then I went to the National War College in Washington. Next I was able to go down and be the executive officer, and then commanding officer, of an A7 squadron. Finally I was sent up to Washington to be the Navy liaison officer to the Senate — and that's where I first got very interested in politics.
When I saw, literally, a senator write an amendment on the back of an envelope that affected the military to a significant degree, I thought, "Hey, this is something that should interest you."
Do you visit the Vietnam Memorial in Washington often?
Every couple of months.
And what do you do there?
I just walk around. I try to go there early in the morning or in the late afternoon. One, it's prettier, but also there's fewer people, you know. A lot of times, when I go there now, they recognize me, and —
What do they say?
Oh, they're very nice. But I'm there for other reasons.
And why do you go regularly?
It keeps my priorities in order. But also I think it's appropriate for me to sort of pay homage to them.
Do you ever cry when you're there?
[Pauses] No. But I do not hesitate to admit feeling very emotional when I think of many of the individuals. Collectively, it's hard. And then when you think of the individuals, that's when you get somewhat emotional.
How do you think that history will view the Vietnam War?
It was the most divisive conflict, besides the Civil War, in our history, and was a tragic loss of thousands of young Americans. I think the second way that it'll be viewed, hopefully, is with the lesson that we should never engage in a conflict without a clear, definable goal, and without the support of the majority of the people. In fact, since Vietnam we were able to reform our military, and our thinking, to the point where we were able to win one of the greatest military triumphs in American history, and that's the Persian Gulf War.
When you look back, are you proud? Are you ashamed?
I'm proud to have served my country in a cause that I believe was just. I am saddened by the way that it was conducted, which caused the tragic sacrifice of so many innocent young lives — I think the average age of the names on that wall is nineteen and a half. That grieves me beyond description.
Do you believe there are any living POWs in Vietnam now?
I do not. But I believe that we should continue the efforts to identify those who remain missing in action until such time as our military experts tell us we've exhausted all our efforts.
There've been moments in the past when POW families have been angry at you. Why is that?
In the late Eighties and early Nineties, there were a lot of things that came out of Vietnam that appeared to be hard evidence that Americans were still alive. There was a picture on the cover of Newsweek of three people, who turned out later to be Soviet farmers. And there were manufactured pictures — dog tags, etc. Many Americans, understandably, were absolutely convinced that we left Americans alive in Vietnam.
So when I came out on many occasions and said, "Look, we don't have the evidence — I'm not saying they aren't there, but we've got to have the evidence" — [some people] were very disappointed in me, and then angered, because, obviously, I had been one of them. And they felt that I betrayed those whom I "left behind."
Well, we had a select committee that met for a year, and our unanimous conclusion was that there was no compelling evidence that Americans were alive in Vietnam. That anger has dissipated over the years, clearly — as the American military has been able to go anywhere in Vietnam and search for people and they haven't found anyone, nor have they found any evidence.
At the moment, no American politician is more questioned and examined than you.
I agree. And there's always complaints, particularly by people who don't like me, that the media give you a free ride. Then there's a backlash to that. There's media people who say, "You know, we're not being tough enough on McCain." I understand that. But you get certain elements — particularly in the conservative media — who get very angry.
The last time we talked for Rolling Stone, you and I discussed Rush Limbaugh, who pounds away at you regularly.
Sure. And that becomes almost personal with them. It's one thing to disagree with me, and it's another thing to have this personalization that sometimes takes me aback. I may not agree with Bob Novak, but I would never manufacture a story out of whole cloth about him. About three weeks ago, Novak wrote a story in his newspaper column saying that John McCain sat alone at a lunch of Republican senators. It's physically impossible to sit alone. Now, maybe they'd like for me to sit alone, but it's physically not possible. You see things like that and you think, "What's happening here? Do they view me as a threat?"
Have you ever met Bob Novak?
Oh, many times.
What do you think of him?
I think he's very smart, I think he's very tough, and I think, many times, he doesn't pay any attention to the facts.
Do you believe the House leaders — Majority Leader Dick Armey and Whip Tom DeLay — are too conservative?
I believe they're intolerant. I think that they ought to understand that there are people — Republicans from other parts of the country — who don't share their views. Everybody doesn't have to agree on every issue. That's where they don't help the Republican Party.
Let me give you a small example. During the campaign-finance-reform debate, Dick Armey, on the floor of the House, made comments about [soft-money opponent] Chris Shays that I just think are totally unacceptable. And in a conference that they had — a Republican conference — they just excoriated Chris Shays. That's not right. Shays doesn't deserve that.
You're pro-life and always have been. Why?
Because of my belief that life begins at conception.
Is this an unwavering position for you?
Yes. But I've also, over the years, become more and more convinced that we should have a plank in our platform — although nobody ever reads platforms — that says we are a pro-life party, but we not only tolerate but embrace those individuals in our party who hold a difference of opinion on this specific issue. Now, in 1982, I probably wouldn't have said that.
That's an example of how you have matured as a politician.
I hope that that's the word.
Advertisement
But that statement right there about the GOP platform is what will set off the right wing against you: "There goes that John McCain again. He doesn't stand for anything."
I understand that.
And what do you say to them?
I say to the right wing, "Your great hero and icon is Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan continuously espoused the big-tent theory. The reason why we were able to have a majority under President Reagan was because we got the so-called Reagan Democrats. We don't have to betray our principles, but we need to reach out and be an inclusive party, so that we can be a majority party."
The presidential campaign got rougher than you probably expected. During the South Carolina primary, your wife, Cindy, was hit hard by the opposition. There were false rumors spread about her. What was your reaction?
It made me feel terrible for her because she didn't deserve it. You know, whatever they wanted to say about me is ok, but I didn't feel that was... I felt it was very unkind and cruel. And yet, I knew if I let it upset me, and affect me, then that would accrue to the benefit of the opposition. So I kept my game face on, but deep down I was very unhappy about it.
You were angry.
Sure! Let's face it. The phone calls that said, "Do you know that Cindy McCain's a drug addict?"
Those were the rumors.
Yeah. Phone calls saying, "Do you know the McCains have a black baby?"
And these are phone calls that went out to the voting public of South Carolina.
By the hundreds of thousands, yeah. And, you know, that's really the ugly underside of politics.
Did you ever establish in your mind where those calls came from?
No. We just put that behind us.
The general feeling was that the Bush campaign was the source.
But you have no proof of that. I don't have proof of that, nor do I seek it. One of the more entertaining vignettes in South Carolina concerned a professor at Bob Jones University who was blasting out e-mails saying, "John McCain has fathered illegitimate children." Well, CNN tracked him down. And they asked him, "You've been saying that John McCain fathered illegitimate children." He said, "That's right." They said, "Do you have any proof of that?" And he said, "No." And they said, "Why are you doing it?" And he said, "Well, it's up to John McCain to prove that he didn't." [Laughs] On CNN!
And, for the record, the black child is —
— is our adopted child, Bridget, who Cindy got from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh.
And that's the black child that you're the father of.
Yes, I'm very proud to be so.
That was the ugly side of politics.
But you cannot let it get to you. Otherwise you'll get bitter. And I'm not going to let anything that happened destroy the wonder and beauty and honor of that experience. I mean, look: I'm the guy that stood fifth from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. You know, to be able to do what we did was miraculous.
In recent weeks, tension in Israel has heightened enormously. Some people in Israel believe they're in a warlike situation right now. In your opinion, what's the main immediate problem causing this unrest?
The immediate cause of the problem is the failure of the peace negotiations at Camp David.
Is there a person or organization responsible for that?
Well, as far as the failure of the peace talks is concerned, President Clinton is a major culprit, because Arafat told him, before Camp David began, that he could not make agreements. He was not prepared to do so. So therefore, President Clinton allowed his ambition to override good sense and convene this meeting, believing that somehow — through sheer force of will and personality — he could get these people to agree.
Look, Jimmy Carter's great achievement at Camp David was simply to get a withdrawal of the Israelis from the Sinai. I mean, come on. What President Clinton tried to do was incredibly and totally unrealistically ambitious.
Was it politically smart even to convene the talks?
It was obviously disastrous to have this meeting, to heighten expectations to a level that, when it failed, the consequences are what they are today.
What do you think of Yasir Arafat?
I believe that he is corrupt and lacks either the courage or the ability to make decisions that would lead to peace but may lead to his loss of power. I think he represents a constituency that never seriously addressed the issue of relations between the two countries. In other words, as long as they are teaching their children in textbooks that the Israelis have to be destroyed, that's not the peace process as we contemplate it.
Can we find a way for the Israelis and the Palestinians to live in peace?
This is a very harsh statement. Ever since the Oslo agreement, we have been trying to find a way for the Israelis and the Palestinians to live together, in peace. Now we may have to find a way for them to live apart, in peace.
This decision has got to be made by the Israelis and not by the U.S. government. But it may mean that the Israelis may have to set up secure boundaries between Israel and Palestinian lands. This is much more difficult than would first appear, because you've got [Jewish] settlements that are way deep in Palestinian territory. To have a secure border, it would mean incredible construction challenges, as well.
But what are their options? More pizza parlors being blown up by terrorists, or basically separating the two sides? It's a very intractable situation. But I don't think, if Canadian citizens were coming into Niagara Falls and blowing up pizza parlors, that the American people would be very tolerant of the situation.
Do you hold the Israeli political leadership responsible for the inability to achieve peace?
If I had been running Israel, I would not have allowed those settlements to continue, because they're a major, major problem. But I have to say, with all due respect, the majority of the responsibility for this failure, in my view, rests with the Palestinians.
What do you think of the current situation in Russia?
I think you've got a leader in Vladimir Putin who is very nostalgic for the old Russian empire, and who would like very much to reassert Russia into the world stage. I think he has no background or experience in the functions of democracy, and so I think he is a person who will be difficult to deal with. But, at the same time, he probably can be dealt with.
Russia has 2,000 nuclear warheads?
At least, yes. The threat of them triggering a nuclear war, I think, is minimal. But I think the proliferation of these weapons is a very important issue. If I were a penniless scientist out there, where those things are manufactured and stored, I would have no compunctions about making sure the Iranians got one or two, for the right price.
If the president were to ask you how to handle Russia and Putin, what would you tell him?
Trust, but verify. I think that anything you do with the Russians has to be totally verifiable. I think their actions in Chechnya are very indicative of a very ruthless regime that has at least visions of a restoration of a Russian empire — clearly, a nostalgia for the past, when Russia was a world power.
Advertisement
Do you believe the Confederate flag should be allowed to fly over state buildings? Obviously, I'm referring to South Carolina, but it could apply to Mississippi and other states as well.
I do not. And I speak as one who really agonized over this issue. But I don't, because of the fact that, to a significant number of Americans — i.e., African-Americans — it's a symbol of slavery and oppression. Therefore, even though it may not be offensive to other people, it is patently offensive to them.
What do you tell those Southerners who say that it's a symbol of their heritage?
I say, "I, too, am proud of my Southern heritage and the fact that I had forebears who fought in the Civil War — on the Southern side. But after really spending an incredible amount of time on this issue, I come down on the side of taking it down." And I'm not happy about some of the things I did in the campaign, some of the mistakes I made. But probably the only one I'm embarrassed about is the fact that I didn't take a stand against the flag.
You did something that I've never seen an American politician do: You admitted that you made this mistake for a political reason, to get votes.
Yes, well, maybe that's laudatory. But it doesn't change the fact that, when it counted, I didn't say that.
Could you run as a third-party candidate?
I don't envision that. The only time there was a viable candidacy in recent years was Ross Perot's. And he literally had his billions at his disposal.
But that's my point. A politician of your stature — do you need the billions?
I don't know. As I say, I haven't looked at it enough. Jesse Ventura, in Minnesota, is sort of, in a way, a classic example. Both candidates of the major parties were on the extremes — at least in the view of the voters — and he came right down the middle. So that's sort of a scenario. He didn't have billions, but he had, also, significant help from the Internet.
What is your stance now on the tobacco companies?
I have nothing but contempt for them. I don't blame them for trying to make money, but I do blame them for years of their practices of enticing young people to partake of a substance that their own science showed them caused death.
Do you think marijuana should be legalized?
No, I don't. But I think that we have to look at the entire drug issue with an admission that the War on Drugs has not been won. In Arizona, first-time offenders — I'm talking about hard-drug use now — have the choice of going to a drug-rehab program, run by the state, with frequent drug testing. We have a very high success rate on that program. And very few people fail. If they fail, they go to jail.
That program has assisted us in not sending people to jail who are first-time drug offenders. I think we ought to look at that success. And then other states ought to look at it, those that have mandatory sentencing for first-time drug offenders.
A first-time offender should be given the opportunity to go through a rehab program. If he fails that rehab program, fine — whatever the state wants to do with him then. If the state wants to give him a second chance, give him a second chance. But a first-time drug offender should have an option of a rehab program and not jail.
That's where you would put the resources.
Yes. The fact is, we are creating a demand in the United States. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Right now it's coming from Colombia — a country that's in danger of being taken over by narco traffickers. We shot down the coca production in Peru and Bolivia. Guess where it went up? Colombia. It's like squeezing a balloon. And we have to acknowledge that.
Minimum wage is going to be an issue that's debated in the fall. Where do you stand?
I think we should raise the minimum wage. I also favor a modest, reasonable tax-break package for small businesses — not for major corporations — who have to incur additional costs.
As of the fall of 2001, what is the legacy of John McCain?
Oh, I think a footnote somewhere in the history books. That he ran, for a while, a surprisingly good campaign for president. He motivated a lot of young people. And he was one who was not afraid to take on issues — even though he was going to lose — because he tried to do the right thing.
Do you think that legacy might be different five years from now?
You don't know how history will judge you, and you don't know how you'll behave, because you don't know what lies ahead.
Are there any kinds of events that could take place that would allow you to run for the presidency again?
All kinds of things could happen — but I don't envision any likely scenario that would call for that.
But you would never say "never."
I'm not sure how you say "never" when, obviously, life is full of those twists and turns.
There are some people in Washington who for years plan out their careers. You don't live that way.
No. I live for the issues, and then the rest takes care of itself.
But a year from now, your whole vision of your place in the political landscape may change.
Oh, well, that's true, yeah. But I continue to believe that we're the noblest experiment in the history of the world. And my job is to do what very little I can to see that that dream continues. All nations throughout history have fallen — they've risen and fallen. And someday America will fall. But I want that day to be put off for as long as possible.
You're as influential, if not more influential, now than you were before you ran. That's unusual.
Of course I'm aware of that, and I'm very grateful. And, no — I did not anticipate it.
You didn't anticipate this role that you have now.
No, I did not.
Which is almost as if you're the prime minister of your party, although it's a party that's very uneasy with you.
That's for sure.
From RS 878 — Sept. 27, 2001