The term Maverick was not invented by McCain, or championed by McCain until very recently.
It was applied to him by the media and pundits, repeatedly. And usually when they were in support of him for standing against the Republicans for one thing or another. It was a term used in an endearing way by people who opposed the right. I remember right wing pundits lambasting him repeatedly for just playing up to the left and trying to be friends with the left in order to advance his own agenda, rather than the parties.
There can be no greater testimony to his "maverick" status than the fact that so many on the right can't stand the guy, and were giving him little to no support before he put Palin (an apparent Regan Conservative), on the ticket.
In 2000 I repeatedly saw people on the left claiming that it was terrible that Bush got the nomination and how it should have gone to McCain because he was the only Republican they could ever see themsleves voting for. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting someone on the left who was speaking highly of McCain, the maverick, and how all the other Republican's should take his lead.
And now that he's actually got a nomination, all that is out the window of course. And the claim is made that he is falsely claiming to be a Maverick, when it wasn't even him who came up with the term (in regards to himself).
Forgive me for being confused. What is the truth? Did the left really love him in the past? Or did they only ever want McCain in the past because they knew he was the weakest candidate (in terms of base Republican support), and therefore easiest to beat?
Or was everyone honest about it then, but now they can't bring themsleves to admit that McCain is so much different than the average Republican, because it serves their purposes more to make him parallel to Bush in every way, in order to bolster their electoral chances? There is obviously still an ongoing campaign to link him to Bush, as was seen in the debate. While the mantra of the Democrats campaign is "change", at least half of their rhetoric is a rejection of the "past 8 years" and "Bush" more than championing what they will actually do.
Frankly, I don't think the left was or is being honest in either case. I think they wanted us to elect McCain in the past because they saw him as easy to beat, and now they want to keep claiming he's the same as Bush in order to tar and feather him to make him easier to beat now.
The idea that he is in lockstep with Bush is ridiculous. The idea that any area in which he has not made clear what his position is, is a position he therefore shares with Bush, is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It would be like someone on the right claiming that any areas in which Obama has not expressed an opinion is a place where he is in complete lockstep with socialists or communists. I can only imaging how much complaining we would hear if that claim was made.
Imagine if it were 2000 again. And instead of Gore running, he decided to retire, and there was a new candidate for the left. And for sake of fair comparison, let's say it was some blue dog Democrat / Regan /Conservative Democrat. Someone who was undeniably different from Clinton.
I can only imagine the cacophony of complaints if the right even dared to try to tie this new candidate to Clinton, and claim that he was just an extension of Clinton. It would be called smearing and dirty campaigning and lauged at by everyone on the Left. It would be claimed it was an attempt to tie him to Clinton just for the sake of making him weaker and beatable. It would be called for what it is, complete intellectual dishonesty!
