Among the misguided notions in American politics is the belief that government can and should stay out of business matters. Government is best that governs least, goes the argument. Keep taxes low, our regulations light -- get out of the way and let us run our companies.

In fact, government is deeply embedded in business. If you run a corner grocery store, you want a safe neighborhood (police) and supplies delivered on time (roads). If you run a large company, you think about even larger matters, such as airport connections, trade policies, tax policy, lending rates and more -- all set by decision makers in government. Who we elect directly affects business. It's the way of the world.

As we go through another presidential election, the political parties are pumping out their economic plans. Let me save you some reading: Democrats talk more jobs. Republicans talk lower taxes.

In Washington state, there's a particularly interesting wrinkle in how we look at the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

McCain has a very serious problem with one of our state's largest employers, the Boeing Co., and Boeing has a very serious problem with him.

Both have an interest in repairing the relationship, but how? The breach is public, their positions fixed. It doesn't look good for McCain to have a feud with one of America's largest exporters. Nor does it look good for Boeing, a leading defense contractor, to have a conflict with the possible next president of the United States.

What brought this into focus was the decision in late February by the Air Force to award a $35 billion tanker contract to the parent company of European airplane manufacturer Airbus, maker of the A330 airplane. Boeing was supposed to get the contract in 2004 for its 767 airplane, but McCain uncovered the scandal that sank it. Later, as a candidate for president, McCain boasted of his role. "I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," he said. In March, it was revealed that three of McCain's advisers had lobbied for Airbus.

Ouch. Boeing is protesting the Air Force decision and is downplaying any talk of a feud. Even so, Boeing supporters are blasting McCain by name. Sensing an opening, Washington state Democrats are trying to tie GOP gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi to the controversy. Gov. Chris Gregoire and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray led a rally in Everett in support of Boeing. (Efforts to get comment from Boeing and the state GOP were not successful.)

Business bashing is nothing new in American politics.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." And on it went. Teddy Roosevelt bashed Wall Street and railroads. Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex. John F. Kennedy stood up to the steel companies.

More recently, politicians get applause lines for smacking tobacco companies, oil companies, or chief executives who draw bonuses while shareholders take losses. Once in a while, Congress lassos some executives for a public scolding. So tell me, Mr. Airline Big Shot, what's with those tiny bags of pretzels?

It's not always clear whether such displays create good policy. It's populist stuff aimed at entire industries. Less common and certainly more risky are high-profile attacks on specific companies by leading candidates for office.

Over the next several months, it will be interesting to see how or whether Boeing and McCain can patch things up. Boeing has many friends in Congress, so it may yet win the Air Force contract.

McCain is already changing his rhetoric. Rather than crow about the troubles he began for Boeing, McCain now says, "I will be interested to learn how the Air Force came to its contract award decision and whether it fairly applied its own rules in arriving at that decision." Notice the points of emphasis: "its decision" and "its own rules" and "that decision." Not his, in other words.