>>> THE LATE REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, JIM MCCAIN, WAS
RECENTLY YOU'LL JIESESSED BY FORMER PRESIDENTS WHO HE AT
TIMES HAD STAUNCH DISAGREEMENTS WITH.
MCCAIN WAS KNOWN FOR HAVING THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH BOTH SIDES
OF THE AISLE TO USHER IN REFORMS TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE, IMMIGRATION
AND MORE.
SID STARKS, A FIRST HAMPDEN AND HAMPSHIRE DISTRICT REPUBLICAN
COMMITTEE LEADER, AND DEMOCRAT AND PROFESSOR JERROLD DUQUETTE
OF CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY, EXAMINED MCCAIN'S
LEGACY RECENTLY WITH CARRIE SALDO.
>> SENATOR MCCAIN'S PASSING AND FUNERAL WERE SUCH A BIG DEAL
BECAUSE DURING THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF HIS LIFE HE WAS STILL
VERY ACTIVE, HE WAS STILL MAKING A LOT OF STATEMENTS, HE WAS
STILL A PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
AND HIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE HE WAS A STAUNCH REPUBLICAN, BUT WHO WAS A VERY
STAUNCH ANTI-TRUMP REPUBLICAN.
AND WHILE HIS FELLOWS WERE FALLING IN LINE BEHIND THEIR
PRESIDENT, HE WASN'T. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT ALONE BEFORE
HIS PASSING MADE HIS PART OF THE CONVERSATION MORE INTERESTING.
>> SID, WHY DO YOU THINK SO MANY AMERICANS WERE CAPTIVATED BY
SENATOR MCCAIN?
>> WELL, HE'S BEEN AROUND SO LONG.
HE'S A WAR HERO.
HE DID WORK WITH TRUMP ON A FEW ISSUES, SO THEY DID WORK
TOGETHER, BUT HE HAD THE COURAGE TO SAY IF I DON'T AGREE WITH
YOU, WHETHER IT'S A DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, HE WOULD STAND HIS
GROUND.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS DURING THE EULOGIES WAS, YOU KNOW, HIS
HUMANITY.
HE CARED ABOUT PEOPLE MORE THAN HE DID HIS JOB.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT IN THE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE
CURRENT DAY, AS YOU JUST SAID, HE WASN'T AFRAID TO STAND UP AND
VOTE AGAINST THE PARTY OR SPEAK HIS MIND VERY CANDIDLY.
IS IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF ALL THE CRITICISM,
WHETHER IT'S ON TWITTER OR FACEBOOK, THAT --
>> SENATOR MCCAIN IS A POLITICIAN OF A DIFFERENT ERA.
JIM MCCAIN CAME INTO POLITICS IN THE EARLY 80'S AND THE PEOPLE HE
ADMIRED WERE MIDDLE 20TH CENTURY POLITICIANS.
TO THEM PARTISANSHIP WASN'T A SWEAR WORD OR AN IGNOBLE THING.
HE'S A GUY WHO BELIEVED IN OLD-TIME PARTISAN POLITICS,
WHICH MEANT RATIONAL DEAL MAKING, NOT INSANE COMBAT.
SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT HE WAS TAKING THESE STANDS AGAINST HIS
PARTY.
THIS MIGHT BE CLICHE, BUT IT'S ALMOST AS IF HIS PARTY WAS
TAKING STANDS AGAINST ITSELF AND HE WAS SAYING NO NO THAT'S NOT
HOW THIS STUFF WORKS.
HE WAS A GUY WHO WAS A REPUBLICAN AND A CONSERVATIVE
AND HE WAS A CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE.
BUT HE WAS A PERSON WHO UNDERSTOOD THAT HE REPRESENTED
THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA AND SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA
WANTED SOMETHING NOT QUITE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE RIGHT
WING OF HIS PARTY.
AND HE REPRESENTED THOSE PEOPLE.
HE WAS A POLITICIAN WHO WAS NOT ASHAMED TO BE A POLITICIAN.
>> SID, FOR YOU AS A LONG-TIME REPUBLICAN WATCHING SENATOR
MCCAIN THROUGH THE YEARS, DO YOU HEAR WHAT JERRY IS SAYING, DO
YOU AGREE WITH SENATOR MCCAIN, DID YOU DISAGREE?
>> WHETHER YOU AGREED OR DISAGREED WITH HIM, YOU HAD TO
ADMIRE HIS COURAGE WHAT HE STOOD UP FOR.
AND YES, SOMETIMES I DIDN'T AGREE WITH SOME OF HIS VIEWS.
SOMETIMES THERE WERE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS THAT I DIDN'T
AGREE WITH.
HOWEVER, HE PUT THE PEOPLE FIRST.
IT WASN'T ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS, IT WASN'T ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS.
HE PUSHED POLITICS ASIDE.
IT'S INTERESTING THE EULOGIES, YOU HAD PRESIDENT BUSH, YOU HAD
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
AND THEY WERE STAUNCH ENEMIES WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT AGAINST BUSH IN THE PRIMARY AND AGAINST OBAMA.
STAUNCH ENEMY, LIES WERE MADE UP, BUT HE STEPPED BACK AND
ACTUALLY SAID ALL RIGHT LET'S WORK TOGETHER.
>> WERE YOU SURPRISED WHEN YOU HEARD THAT THE SENATOR HAD
REACHED OUT TO FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA AND FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH
TO SPEAK?
>> NOT PARTICULARLY, BECAUSE OF COURSE 30 YEARS AGO OR EVEN
LESS, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NORMAL THING TO DO.
BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PUTTING POLITICS ASIDE, PEOPLE
ARE THINKING, WELL, POLITICS MEANS WHAT WE SEE IN THIS PARTY
FIGHTING, BUT FOR GUYS LIKE JIM MCCAIN, POLITICS IS NOBLE,
POLITICS IS A PARTNERSHIP, IT'S WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT IT OUT BUT
WE'RE ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THAT'S WHAT POLITICS USED TO BE MORE LIKE.
>> ISN'T THE POINT OF POLITICS A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND GETTING
THINGS DONE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE WHO ELECT YOU?
>> RIGHT, AND AS YOU MENTIONED IN THE PAST, JERROLD, YEARS AGO,
REAGAN, TIP O'NEIL, MCCAIN, THEY WOULD GO ACROSS THE AISLE.
THEY WOULDN'T USE SOCIAL MEDIA, THEY WOULD SIT FACE TO FACE
AFTER HOURS.
THEY'D TALK ABOUT THE FAMILY, THEY'D TALK ABOUT OLD TIMES, AND
NAY WOULD HASH SOMETHING OUT WITHOUT HAVING TO BE IN THE
HALLS OF CONGRESS.
>> I WANTED TO POINT TO SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA
SAID DURING HIS EULOGY.
HE SAID WE NEVER DOUBTED THE OTHER MAN'S SINCERITY OR THE
OTHER MAN'S PATRIOTISM OR THAT WHEN ALL WAS SAID AND DONE WE
WERE ON THE SAME TEAM.
WE NEVER DOUBTED WE WERE ON THE SAME TEAM.
>> THAT'S THE QUOTE.
THE IDEA IS IT STARTED TO ERODE IN THE MID TO LATE 80'S BY THE
TIME NEWT GINGRICH HAD CHANGED THE WAY HIS PARTY OPERATES IN
CONGRESS, IT WAS A DIFFERENT PLACE.
BUT PRIOR TO THAT AND THIS IS WHAT MCCAIN CAME INTO AND SAW AS
THE IDEAL, THAT WAS A PLACE WHERE THERE WAS A CONSENSUS ON
GOALS.
AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW TO GET THERE, AND IT WASN'T
UNTIL ONE PARTY DECIDED, LOOK, WE HAVE TO FIGHT IN A DIFFERENT
WAY, WE'VE GOT TO ATTACK GOALS AND NOT JUST, AND THAT OBVIOUSLY
MADE IT HARD FOR THE TWO PARTIES TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THE
WAY THAT THEY HAVE.
TODAY IT IS NOT THE FAULT NECESSARILY OF A REPUBLICAN OR A
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN.
THEY'RE IN A SYSTEM NOW WHERE IF THEY TRIED TO ACT THE WAY A JIM
MCCAIN AND A TED KENNEDY MIGHT HAVE ACTED, THAT WON'T WORK FOR
THEM.
THEY ARE IN A WAY STUCK, IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN YOU'RE GOING
TO GET PRIMARIED IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DEAL.
IF YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT, YOU COULD BE PRIMARIED IF YOU WANT TO MAKE
A DEAL.
>> THEN HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD AS A COUNTRY?
>> I'M SO GLAD IT'S HIS TURN.
>> THANK YOU.
WELL, BEING STUCK CAN MEAN SEVERAL THINGS.
FIRST, WASHINGTON CREATED THIS MESS YEARS AGO, THIS JUST DIDN'T
HAPPEN.
AND WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING NEW PEOPLE IN.
IT'S UP TO THE VOTERS.
IT'S EASY FOR US TO SIT HERE AND BE PUNDITS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT
HAPPENED.
BUT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY
AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START GETTING NEW CANDIDATES TO GO TO
WASHINGTON, TO GO TO BEACON HILL, INSTEAD OF GET THE CAREER
POLITICIANS OUT.
>> TO THE POINT ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE, THERE WAS A PIECE IN VOX
WHO SAID MCCAIN IS REMEMBERED AS A MAVERICK, A MAN WHO CROSSED
THE I'LL AND BUILT RELATIONSHIPS WITH DEMOCRATS, BUT HE ALSO
BETRAYED HIS OWN VALUES HOPING TO WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
AND SENT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOWN THE PATH TO TRUMP.
>> YES, WELL, THAT'S NOT FAIR.
OBVIOUSLY HE DID APPOINT SARAH PALIN.
>> THAT WAS THE GIST OF THE ARTICLE.
>> BUT IT'S NOT FAIR, BECAUSE TO SAY THAT HE COMPROMISES VALUES
IN CHOOSING HER, IS THAT WHAT THE POINT IS?
I DON'T THINK SO.
THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS NO ROLE ANY WAY.
AT THE TIME HE MADE A DECISION THAT HE THOUGHT WOULD BE USEFUL
ELECTORALLY, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE IMPACTED HIS PRESIDENCY
THAT MUCH BECAUSE YOU CAN REAL REAL --
REAL GATE YOUR VICE PRESIDENT TO WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE.
SO THAT'S AN UNFAIR CRITICISM.
>> AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S THE DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY GAVE A GIFT
TO TRUMP BY HAVING HILLARY CLINTON RUN.
SHE WAS SO DETACHED, WE MAY DISAGREE ON THIS, BUT SHE
DOESN'T LISTEN TO HER HUSBAND, SHE FELT SELF ENTITLED.
DID SHE REALLY HAVE A PLATFORM, AND PEOPLE WERE DISGUSTED.
LOOK AT THE ELECTION THE OTHER DAY.
CHARLIE BAKER IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT GOVERNOR.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS A CONTINGENCY OUT THERE THAT FELT THAT HE HAD
ABANDONED THE REPUBLICAN VALUES THAT HE WAS ELECTED FOR.
>> YOU MEAN THE VOTES THAT CAME DOWN FOR SCOTT LIVELY?
>> YES.
SO AGAIN, THIS JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN.
TRUMP IS IN MAINLY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T THAT GREAT A CANDIDATE
RUNNING AGAINST HIM.
PLUS THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE FED UP WITH WHAT'S
GOING ON IN WASHINGTON.
WE TALKED ONCE BEFORE ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
BOTH PARTIES HAVE THAN IN POWER AND HAD A CHANCE TO FIX THAT.
BUT THEY REFUSE TO.
SO WHOSE FAULT IS IT, THE PRESIDENT'S OR CONGRESS?
>> WE'RE SHORT ON TIME, SO I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.
THIS PAST WEEK THERE WAS SO MUCH TALK ABOUT THIS IDEA OF GOING
BACK TO THE DAYS OF JIM MCCAIN, JOHN McTAKEN ERA OF POLITICS.
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
>> IT'S HARD TO GIVE A PRESCRIPTION, BUT WHEN
COMPROMISE IS GOOD POLITICS AND GOOD POLICY, THEN --
THE GOAL IS FOR POLITICS AND POLICY TO BE COMPATIBLE.
RIGHT NOW IT ISN'T ACTUALLY GOOD POLITICS TO GO AFTER GOOD
POLICY.
IN OTHER WORDS, EVERYBODY IS OBSESSED WITH A PARTICULAR
VISION OF POLICY, THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON THAT
POLICY.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S NOT GOOD POLITICS TO COMPROMISE ON
POLICY.
UNTIL IT IS GOOD POLITICS TO MAKE POLICY COMPROMISES WE'RE
NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO.
>> IT'S TECHNICALLY MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.
EACH SIDE IS NOT WILLING TO GIVE.
AND YOU'VE GOVERNMENT A STALE MATE, AN IMPASSE, AND WE'RE
GOING TO SEE THIS FOR A FEW MORE YEARS AT LEAST.