So just how mavericky is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who proudly donned and then curiously shed the mantle of the “original maverick”? Well, not nearly as mavericky as he once was:

So who are the true mavericks? Sides posts these graphs of the top 10 mavericks in the 111th House and Senate. It’s worth noting that seven of the top 10 mavericks in the House, and the seven most mavericky senators, are in the Democratic caucus — although, as Sides points out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is only on the list because he frequently votes against Democratic legislation for procedural reasons.

I don’t know whether he’s angry about his loss or whether he’s preparing himself for the next presidential run.

The odds of McCain — who will be 76 years old when voters go to the polls in November 2012 — mounting a third presidential bid are, needless to say, not good.

In passing, Raju and Martin mention McCain’s “damaging criticism of the Democrats’ climate change plans when he was an early supporter of cap-and-trade legislation.” This might be the most important decision McCain has made. In 2008, when environmental legislation had little chance of surviving presidential vetos, it was the sort of thing that self-identified mavericks like McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) latched onto. In 2009, with Democrats ready to actually pass environmental legislation, it’s transformed from a “common sense solution” issue to a “liberal” issue — and thus of no interest for the likes of McCain.

Sen. John McCain (WDCpix)

BIRMINGHAM, Mich.– Battleground no more.

For the past several months, the Republican and Democratic nominees for president have targeted this fading center of the Rust Belt, with its 17 electoral votes, as a winnable state — part of each party’s electoral strategy to take the White House.

Now, that plan for one ticket, that of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, lies in smoldering ruins. As early as yesterday afternoon, reports began to filter out that the McCain campaign had suspended its efforts here and would be cutting staff as well as advertising.

McCain was essentially giving the state that George W. Bush narrowly lost, by five percentage points or less in 2000 and 2004, to Sen. Barack Obama.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Before I traveled here, Debbie Dingell, the wife of the venerable Rep. John Dingell, talked with me about Michigan. A Democratic National Committee member, General Motors executive and political power in her own right, she explained why the state is so complicated and considered such a political prize:

“Michigan is the definition of a battleground state. It’s got a divided legislature. It’s gone back and forth on who its governors are. You’ve got two Democratic senators. But in a 15-member congressional delegation, six are Democrats and nine are Republicans. It’s a split state, and that’s what people forget. You have distinct urban agendas next to distinct rural agendas. You’ve got unions but also a strong religious community.”

To be certain, McCain’s move–or move-out–took all sides by surprise. As the darkened Detroit afternoon turned into a chilly night, political operatives and reporters alike were left a little like the characters in “Heroes” — disoriented and confused after the Haitian guy wipes away their memories.

For months now, Obama and McCain have been in a statistical dead heat — with the Democratic nominee only pulling ahead a little bit in the past few weeks. As a result, Michiganders have grown accustomed to frequent visits by the two candidates, who both promise to reroute the internal wiring of Michigan’s economic engine to make it a state that will thrive from the new, clean-energy-based economy. One half-expected McCain to ride out of Detroit in a Chevy Volt. As late as July, McCain told an audience here, “The state of Michigan, as it has in many elections in the past, will determine who the next president of the United States is.”

Now the Michigan GOP must travel alone — fighting in their leader’s name but without their actual leader. While polls over the past week have showed as much as a 10-point swing in favor of Obama, it’s precisely that volatility that made Michigan a state to stay in and fight for.

In a state where the Reagan Democrats were virtually born, there remains strong support for McCain despite recent events. But in the wake of the economic implosion, McCain has fallen behind Obama by an average of 7 percentage points in most polls.

McCain’s lack of authority on the economy and his fumbling response to the Wall Street meltdown have hurt him as the financial crisis seized the national psyche. He first said he would put his campaign on “hold” to help solve the problem in Washington, and then he returned to the hustings, which has led some voters to regard him as erratic. One report even cited that a fear among McCain campaign officials in Florida of a recent Obama surge in the Sunshine State contributed to the Arizona senator’s decision to quit Michigan.

But still, McCain defeated Bush in Michigan during their testy primary battle in 2000, and it is the home of a substantial number of white, working-class voters who Obama struggled to win over in the Democratic primary campaign. In short, this was a race McCain might have won.

“I certainly would have waited till after the debate tonight,” said Republican pollster Steve Mitchell before Sen. Joe Biden and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin faced off in Thursday night’s vice presidential debate. “If Palin did well, that would have moved up [McCain's] numbers drastically. It’s a mystifying decision.

“It’s my understanding that it costs $1 million a week to run a campaign in Michigan,” Mitchell continued, “so it’s a multimillion-dollar decision. But it just seems like a really premature decision based on a couple of bad polls.”

McCain, by one account, had spent $8 million in television ads before pulling out.

According to many political experts, what McCain did by saying “no mas” to Michigan was to abandon a winnable race. It’s true that, to date, he hasn’t run the most efficient campaign here. More so than in some other states, the Obama campaign has been successful in linking McCain’s record to President Bush’s here.

In addition, going back to the Republican primary here earlier this year, McCain, to many Michigan business and union leaders, never really decided how to engage the auto industry. One day, he was the castigator; the next, he was ready to feel their warm embrace.

But these were supremely fixable things.

As much as McCain had going for him, several factors were also in play against Obama. Chief among them — and perhaps the one thing that many people seem most uncomfortable addressing — is race.

Late Tuesday morning, I sat down with William Black, the Teamsters’ political director in Michigan, in his office on Trumbull Avenue in Detroit. It was a cluttered space decorated with a “Hoffa” movie poster signed by Jack Nicholson and a photo of the union leader with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Black was blunt about his biggest concern going into the November election.

“It’s the race issue,” Black said, leaning back in his chair, his arms folded over his chest. “It’s a concern for all of us. I don’t think it is for our age group — but it shows up in the older age groups.”

Black asked: “Will people put race over their pocketbook, over their financial well being? I think that’s the real issue here.”

Black had reason to worry. Two years ago, polls taken before the vote on a ballot measure that would have effectively eliminated affirmative-action programs in Michigan’s universities predicted a tight contest. The measure ended up winning 58 percent to 42 percent.

Moreover, Black said, the Obama campaign seemed at odds with itself. As the candidate of change who raged against the establishment, Obama had stormed into Michigan after not being present for the farce that was the Michigan primary, in which Clinton and Dennis Kucinich were the only candidates on the ballot. And his campaign hadn’t effectively used the machinery offered by the political establishment that has run Michigan for decades.

“[The Obama campaign] needs to do better outreach at the district level–I’ll tell you that right now,” Black said. “[It] needs to engage the John Dingells of the world and say, ‘John, what do you need?’ I’d like to see that. It’s not happening much, particularly down river or in Macomb County with the Reagan Democrats who need to be [targeted]. That would be the area I would be focusing on.

“John McCain is a guy you can never count out. Look at the Republican Party, look at what he did with Palin. I think he’s an amazing guy. I just can’t see him being president.”

But McCain is someone who many in Black’s own union ranks — a third of which he says are solidly Republican — could. That’s because they had seen the great promise of a young and energetic leader with limited executive experience who fizzled out as governor of Michigan.

Granholm stormed into office on the force of her personality and smarts and one term as state attorney general. In 2002, she ran for governor as the candidate of change, won and maintained a high approval rating as a new kind of Democrat.

Her approval rating remained strong until her first budget crisis. It’s been sliding with each subsequent crisis. With Michigan’s unemployment rate currently the highest in the country, Granholm’s approval rating hovers around 30 percent, equal to that of the Texan in the White House.

“[The McCain campaign] barely tied Granholm to Obama,” said Detroit News editorial page editor Nolan Finley when we sat down in his office late in the day Tuesday. “It ought to be doing that constantly. The Democrats have done a very good job of tying Bush to McCain,” added the influential conservative. “In this state, [the Republicans] could very well tie Obama and Granholm together — and do very well.”

As I’ve written before, one key reason that the presidential race remains close is that McCain is not Bush. His story–that of courage in combat, of standing against his own party when called for–has been effective when executed properly.

Indeed, given McCain’s image as a maverick, he could emphasize the idea of execution. Yes, he could say, the Bush tax cuts were a good idea, but they should have been followed by spending cuts. Yes, he could say, you hate the war in Iraq, but if I had been running things, we’d have been in and out.

“People aren’t looking for 10-point white-paper sheets,” Finley said. “They’re looking for a leader who can be confident. If he can come here and tell a story — his story — and show the confidence that he’s the guy who can lead them to a better place. He doesn’t have to come in here and say, ‘I’m going to do these six things, these eight things.’

Finley laid out how he would advise McCain to run here. “He shouldn’t give up on his foreign-policy issues just because of the financial crisis,” Finley cautioned. “He should remind people of that growing threat from Iran. Iran, Russia and other dangerous places are not going to go away.

“But he’s got to find himself domestically. One thing he could do today is say, ‘I’m going to appoint Mitt Romney as my Treasury secretary,’ and the people of Michigan would perk up and pay attention. He would have won Michigan if he’d put Romney on the ticket and said, ‘You take care of Michigan, Colorado and Nevada, and I’ll see you on Election Day.’ He needs Romney here. Whether Romney will do it or not is another question.”

Even without Romney on his ticket, McCain could still have advanced his position in Michigan with the GOP’s new political star, Sarah Palin. As Dingell has said, Michigan remains a divided state, a place where the Republican base still cares deeply about the issues that McCain holds dear–his stance against abortion, his opposition to gun control.

Palin would have drawn huge crowds from now until Election Day in the western part of the state, would have become a regular attraction on local newscasts and would have generated the kind of free publicity that a campaign relying on public financing needs. Gosh, golly, gee whiz, couldn’t you just see it? Wowzers!

But now that will not happen. The McCain campaign has all but shuttered its shop in Michigan, brushing off the state and conceding the ground that, only a few days ago, seemed one for the taking.

In coming days, McCain’s campaign advisers will explain their actions, provide a rationale that the climb was too steep, that resources were needed elsewhere. But should he lose on Nov. 4, the old soldier might look back at today as the beginning of the end, an opportunity lost. For once, McCain counted himself out.

According to Alaska state records, during her tenure as governor, Palin accepted dozens of gifts worth a total of more than $25,000 from “industry executives, municipalities and a cultural center whose board includes officials from some of the largest mining interests in the state.”

Palin received the majority of these gifts in the early months of her administration, while she was pushing her much-ballyhooed ethics reform package through the state legislature — which banned state officials from accepting such gifts.

From The Post:

The 41 gifts Palin accepted during her 20 months as governor include honorific tributes, expensive artwork and free travel for a family member. They also include more than $2,500 in personal items from Calista, a large Alaska native corporation with a variety of pending state regulatory and budgetary issues, and a gold-nugget pin valued at $1,200 from the city of Nome, which lobbies on municipal, local and capital budget matters, documents show.

About a quarter of the entities bestowing gifts on the governor are represented by one of Alaska’s most influential mining lobbyists, who said in an interview that she was not involved in the tributes. The lobbyist, Wendy Chamberlain, has a relationship with the governor’s family through the friendship of their teenage daughters.

On forms disclosing the gifts, Palin, who is the Republican vice presidential nominee, routinely checked “no” when asked whether she was in a position to “take official action that may affect the person who gave me the gift,” and a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain‘s presidential campaign said the gifts had no undue influence on her.

In response to e-mailed questions, Meghan Stapleton, who is based in Alaska for the McCain-Palin campaign, wrote: “Throughout her career Gov. Palin has stood for the highest standards of ethics. She spearheaded new ethics reforms in Alaska and took on her own party and entrenched interests to return Alaska’s government to its people.”

Records show that 23 of the gifts were offered during Palin’s early months in office, when she was pushing the legislature to address a state corruption scandal by passing a package of ethics reforms. She accepted 18 gifts after the law passed in July 2007. Among other provisions, the law forbade executive branch officials from taking gifts from lobbyists or from interests with pending state business.

According to the article, Palin introduced her ethics reform legislation in January 2007, her first month in office.

That month, she accepted three gifts from Calista’s chief executive, Matthew Nicolai: a $2,200 ivory puffin mask, a woven grass fan worth $300 and a $150 ivory necklace. Nicolai, who did not return phone calls, runs the large corporation, which profits from a multibillion-dollar gold-mining operation on its land.

Palin, who holds significant sway over budgetary issues affecting cities, also accepted for “personal use” the gold-nugget pin from Nome. Mayor Denise Michels said the memento was meant to remind the governor that “Nome is a historic mining community.” Palin approved about $6 million in funding this year for a public safety building in the city. “Anything our state can do to help us in capital projects, we’re very grateful,” Michels said.

Palin’s husband, Todd, also accepted two fact-finding trips sponsored by mining companies as gifts, according to The Post. A list of all the gifts is available here.

The article does not appear to allege illegal activity. But much like the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of earmarks Palin requested for her state, it clearly pokes another hole in the alternate reality that the McCain campaign has tried to create around Palin’s record in Alaska.

As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted Thursday on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” because Palin was a relative unknown on the national stage when McCain chose her as his running mate, the campaign saw in her a blank slate on which to project the image of their choosing — in this case, that of the maverick reformer, which neatly coincided with the image McCain has sought to project for himself.

However, the more information has come out about her past, the more difficult it is to square that image with the facts.

A Boeing 777 touches down. (Flickr: News46)

At 12:01 a.m. Pacific time Saturday, 27,000 Boeing Co. machinists, protesting a lack of job security, went on strike. A lengthy walkout would halt the assembly of several pricey Boeing planes, including its 777.

The aeronautic giant’s 777 is supposed to have enough fuel capacity to win the Air Force’s most lucrative contract: a $35-billion deal to replace 179 aging aerial refueling tankers. Even before the strike, Boeing said that it needed more time to put in a contract bid.

For the past month now, the Pentagon has been unable to lay out it final bidding specifications for a contract expected to pit Boeing against the combo of Northrop Grumman and Airbus, a subsidiary of the European Aeronautic and Defense Space Co., or EADS.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

In February, Northrop Grumman and EADS surprisingly won the contract to build the aerial tankers. Boeing immediately filed the protest with the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. The company also claimed that 40,000 U.S. jobs were on the line — including ones held by the striking machinists– to make the jet aircraft and then install mounted tanks for midair refuel transfer. Boeing and its allies in Congress pointed out that Northrop Grumman/EADS tankers would at least be partly designed and built in France.

GAO had upheld the Boeing protest and voided the deal in June, assailing the Air Force for not communicating contract requirements and not accurately computing costs. Because Boeing is asking for more time to submit its latest bid, the Pentagon’s third attempt to reward the aerial tanker contract could now be delayed until the next administration.

In other words, Boeing’s labor dispute is just the latest twist in a tangled seven-year defense contracting fiasco to procure “gas stations in the sky.” But it’s also something more. It raises questions about whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Republican presidential nominee, is the crusader against Washington corruption that he claims to be.

In 2001, the Air Force handed the tanker contract to Boeing, the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. But in 2005, the Air Force terminated the deal after McCain led a three-year investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee that unearthed potentially illegal conduct by Air Force and Boeing officials. At the time, the media hailed McCain as a heroic, lonely crusader who had saved taxpayers millions of dollars.

But there may have been another side to McCain’s investigation — one that may undercut a central premise of his presidential campaign: that he will be a reformer as president.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Here’s the issue. The Associated Press revealed in March that five registered lobbyists for EADS were working for McCain’s presidential campaign, including Tom Loeffler, who served as the campaign’s co-chairman. Also, in 2006, McCain wrote two strongly worded, and likely influential, letters to the Pentagon, arguing that EADS acceptance of European Union subsidies should not be factored into who gets the tanker contract.

A top McCain Senate aide, Chris Paul, has said the Arizona senator wrote the letters without lobbyist’s help and that they reflect his interest in “full and open competition.”

But McCain’s presidential campaign rarely details the Boeing investigation as evidence of his reformer bona fides. Instead, it has been mostly Democrats, with Boeing employees as constituents, who bring up the case. They highlight a different side of McCain — his campaign’s continued ties to current and former lobbyists.

The McCain-spearheaded investigation, which began in 2002, discovered that Darleen A. Druyan, then the No. 2 weapons buyer for the Air Force, had awarded Boeing a $23-billion contract to lease rather than buy 100 aerial tankers — though purchasing the aircraft would have been far cheaper.

Druyan’s reason: She was grateful that Boeing had given her daughter and her boyfriend jobs. Boeing had also promised Druyan a job. In 2005, the Air Force ended the contract. That year Druyan, along with former Boeing Chief Financial Officer Michael Sears, were sentenced to prison.

At the time, McCain’s investigation mostly got rave reviews in the media and from taxpayer watchdog groups. “It’s the best example of congressional oversight that we’ve seen in a decade,” said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “It was before the completely bone-headed decision to bring on all those EADS lobbyists.”

EADS Lobbyists in the McCain Campaign

Chief among the EADS lobbyists was former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler. “Loeffler has been at the intersection of special-interest money and politics for decades,” said Andrew Wheat, research director at Texans for Public Justice, a non-partisan, nonprofit policy and research organization.

Loeffler, who was finance co-chairman for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, joined McCain’s campaign in February 2006, before McCain officially announced his candidacy. “If needed,” Loeffler said at the time, “I’ll wash bottles and change tires on the Straight Talk America van.”

McCain’s cash-strapped campaign become dependent on Loeffler, who assumed a central role as fund-raiser. In 2007, the Loeffler Group earned $220,000 lobbying for EADS. Loeffler resigned in May, when McCain purged his staff of registered lobbyists to signal that his campaign does not have conflicts of interests

While Loeffler has formally left McCain’s presidential campaign, Loeffler Group lobbyist William Ball, a former Navy secretary, remains an unpaid McCain adviser.

Meanwhile, Susan Loeffler has stayed as the campaign’s co-finance chairman and recently left her position at the Loeffler Group. The Loeffler Group said it was their policy not to talk with the press.

The other two EADS lobbyists formerly associated with McCain’s presidential campaign are Kirk Blalock, a lobbyist at Fierce, Iskowitz and Blalock and the president of Young Professionals for John McCain, and Wayne Berman, who works for Oglivy Government Relations.

Blalock, who has bundled more than $250,000 for MCain’s presidential bid, did not return calls for comment. The Arizona Republic reported that he has stayed on the campaign as an unpaid fund-raiser. A spokesman for Berman said that he no longer holds his former campaign title of deputy finance chairman, and is instead an unpaid adviser and fund-raiser.

Loeffler and the other EADS lobbyists joined McCain’s presidential campaign soon after the Arizona senator, in his capacity as chairman of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked the Pentagon to rewrite its bidding requirements for the aerial tanker program. In September 2006, the Pentagon’s request for a contract proposal was still in draft stage. But it appeared the Air Force would take into consideration a suit filed by the U.S. in the WTO court that sought to end the European Union’s policy of giving no interest loans to EADS.

McCain argued in the letter (pdf), obtained by The Washington Independent, that there was no legal right for the Air Force to include a WTO matter in the contract proposal, and that including the dispute amounted to giving Boeing the contract. On Dec. 1, 2006, McCain wrote a similar letter (pdf) to Secretary of Defense-nominee Robert Gates, who four days later appeared before McCain and the rest of the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearings. The committee and full Senate swiftly confirmed Gates.

Indeed, after assuming his Cabinet post, Gates wrote a letter (pdf) to McCain confirming that the Pentagon’s thinking had changed — the final request for proposal would not include the WTO dispute.

McCain says that EADS lobbyists did not help write any of his letters to the Pentagon or influence his actions. But he does not deny that he used his role as a high-profile reformer and subcommittee chair to ensure Northrop Grumman/EADS could bid on the aerial tanker contract.

“I had nothing to do with the contract,” McCain said in March in response to audience questions in St. Louis, home of a Boeing plant, “except to insist in writing, on several occasions, as the process went forward, that it be fair and open and transparent.”

Criticism from Across the Aisle

Infuriated Democratic lawmakers who have Boeing employees in their districts — like Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.) — have called the letters “a game changer” in tilting the second contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS.

“I hope voters of this state [Washington] remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs,” said Dicks after the contract was rewarded. Washington state has more than 70,000 Boeing employees, including the vast majority of the machinists on strike.

The criticism hasn’t stopped. At the Democratic National Convention in Denver two weeks ago, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has about 3,000 constituents employed by Boeing, said that if McCain becomes president, “the tanker will be made in England and France instead of Wichita and Seattle.” Sebelieus subsequently told Crain’s Chicago Business that, “It really comes down to a American company versus a European company.”

If Boeing wins the contract, the aircraft is expected to be modified into refueling tankers in Kansas.

McCain’s campaign press office did not return repeated calls for comment. McCain’s last statement on the contract was in July when he approved of Gates re-opening the contract and facilitating “full and open competition.” McCain did say in his presidential nomination acceptance speech Thursday at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul that he “fought crooked deals at the Pentagon.” But he did not elaborate.

“It’s tough to read McCain,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog organization seeking greater government transparency. “He’s makes a lot of moves toward reform, and the next moment does something that’s questionable.”

No, that would be the pseudo-Democrat-Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who once served in that same role for Al Gore on the 2000 Democratic ticket. In a way, McCain being pulled back by his advisers and the more conservative base of the party is a shame. There’s something that happens to McCain when he’s around Lieberman. There’s a mutual admiration that beams through when McCain speaks with Lieberman at his side.

Perhaps it’s the shared experience of being shunned by the base of your party. Perhaps its just that they like each other. Whatever the reason, the result is always the same: the shedding of the meaner McCain, who many (including myself) have written about during this campaign; and the re-emergence of the friendlier, even boyish maverick, whom we got to know during his 2000 GOP primary bid.

McCain, of course, can put on his best face for Palin — whom he hardly knows, and whom the evangelical base simply loooooves. But one has to wonder about the residual effects this non-choice of Lieberman will have for McCain going forward. The two played off each other like brothers, bringing out the best in one another. Of course, Lieberman will continue to be a surrogate. But it seems unlikely that he will fight in the same way had McCain chosen to have him on his ticket. No. Now the old soldier must go forward alone.