There has been quite a lot said recently about how McCain has the power to appeal across party lines. While, surprisingly, fewer seem to talk about Obama Republicans, there has been more than a little talk about McCain Democrats:

His penchant to stray from the GOP herd is legendary, and explains his ability to attract independent voters and Reagan Democrats. McCain’s appeal across party lines emboldens wishful thinkers about a Republican victory in November.

I believe that the primary reason this impression persists is that Democrats haven’t been much exposed to McCain recently. They were, a bit, before his candidacy went under the first time, but that was a while back, and McCain strangely still seems able to draw upon his image as the “straight-talker” from eight years ago.

And eight years ago, McCain did appeal a lot to the left–albeit superficially. Known for his attacks on illicit campaign financing and pork-barrel spending, he spoke out against conservative Christian influence on the party and criticized the Confederate flag. He became a media darling because he allowed nearly unfettered access and answered almost every question put to him, or at least that was the image he maintained. He further gained sympathy from the left when he was mercilessly smeared by the Bush-Rove machine, and after the 2000 elections, there were even rumors that he was in negotiations to join the Democratic party. As late as 2004, there were rumors that Kerry might consider him as a vice-presidential candidate.

So is McCain really someone who would appeal to independents or even liberals? Despite his surface appeal, McCain is actually pretty solidly conservative. If you get past the popular image and see where he stands on the issues, and McCain comes across as more of a right-winger than most people are aware. He would repeal Roe v. Wade; he strongly supports the death penalty and wants to see it used more, with fewer appeals granted; he approves of school vouchers; he’s a military hawk, especially on Iraq, and sees us staying there for a long time; he has strongly supported the “Patriot” Act and save for his reservations on torture, has generally supported the attack on civil rights in the “War on Terror™”; he is not strong on health care; he is anti-union; he wants to privatize social security; the NAACP rates him at 7% for not supporting civil rights; and he supports the flag-burning amendment.

He gets wishy-washy on several issues: he opposes gay marriage, but not to the point of approving of a constitutional ban–he’s for civil unions, but seems comfortable with homosexual discrimination going on in the background. He has a mixed record on gay rights, but ultimately scores a low 33% in his voting record; he also has mixed records on education and the environment. He’s against the Confederate flag–kind of… he doesn’t want it on top of a state building, but in front is OK, and he acknowledges the “cultural heritage” many use to excuse the racist message behind it. He would not mandate prayer in schools, but is fine with “allowing” it. He believes in evolution, but wants school districts to decide on whether to add creationism to the science curriculum; he supports some gun bans, but ultimately supports the Second Amendment and wants to loosen already weak gun control laws; he is anti-abortion, though he supports an exception for rape and approves of stem cell research; he was against Bush’s tax cuts at first, but now approves extending them.

He is fairly liberal on immigration, but most of his “independent” image seems to come from his stances on economic and government reform issues–from budgeting and pork-barrel spending to campaign finance and special-interest influence. That, and his appearances on The Daily Show. But as far as being “moderate” on the issues, that’s about as far as he goes.

In fact, he is about as conservative as Obama is liberal; the are similar in that they are both fairly deep into their respective ideologies, but both also seem to appeal across party lines. The difference comes when you see why: while Obama get his appeal through his elegance and his ability to address people on core principles that can sway them across party lines, McCain seems to depend almost wholly on his “maverick” image from the 2000 campaign, the public perception that he’s a switch-hitter, rather than any solid reason or ability to use rhetoric in any way.

In the end, there’s only so far that campaign finance reform and his now-tarnished image from the “Straight Talk Express” can take him. There is too much awareness of McCain as having caved on his principles from eight years ago and sucked up big-time to the same conservative Christians and hard-right-wingers who trashed him eight years ago. And it won’t be too hard to use Iraq against him; the image of his meltdown where he claimed it was safe to walk the streets of Baghdad is not much helped by his recent statements about being in Iraq for a hundred years. Add to that the fact that he is a short-tempered 72-year-old cancer survivor. Not that the age nor the cancer detract from him personally, but when you’re looking at someone who may inhabit the White House for the next eight years, it does raise some concerns.

Whatever people say about McCain’s ability to cross party lines, when it comes down to it, I’ll bet on Obama’s record and charisma over McCain’s any day.