Why McCain Lost

American Thinker ^ | November 05, 2008 | Jewish Odysseus

[neverdem]

John McCain's incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn't deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn't fair.

John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.

The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.

Conservatives must understand McCain's candidacy in its full context: McCain's nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects -- the Media/Political Left's project, and McCain's own.

McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist "hive"-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering "state party activists" to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as "the anti-Republican Republican." And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?

McCain's own project planned to draw massive numbers of "moderate" Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain's uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate.

Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.

With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain's strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the "risky," even "ideological" choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about "lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama."

Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain's nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.

History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama's campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.

With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a "checkmate" position since March -- no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain "who knew his place" and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.

Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush's previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it.  He choked.  And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.

At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is "worth maybe 15 points" in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way -- he'd need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?

- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama's "bitter clingers" comment

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons.

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!)

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's plan to "bankrupt" the US coal industry. (and where was McCain's research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?!  Simply inexcusable.) 

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's "price of arugula" comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made. 

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign's many tough arguments against Obama -- he could have just quoted Hillary!

That was McCain's (and our) downfall: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?

It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.

So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since...Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?

First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn't, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic.
Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place -- or don't place -- on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled "The Great Communicator." This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan's successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive's acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.

Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican's have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best "poor" in communications. As the 1960's Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, "public policy" think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.

The author blogs at jewishodysseus.blogspot.com.  

[neverdem]

Not a bad analysis!

[org.whodat]

The broken down old rino lost because more people voted for the real liberal.

[ncalburt]

yep

[unspun]

McCain opposition research: F

[yldstrk]

I thought he ran a helluva campaign against an avalanche of evil and foreign money. I’m proud of him

[Gay State Conservative]

I can put in about a dozen words...McCain lost because he's a RAT and has been for years.

[Wonderama Mama]

very good. i think some of our talk radio show hosts might make great candidates. Dennis Prager and Larry Elder right off the bat.

[JRios1968]

Not a bad analysis!

I'll take it you mean "Spot On."

[Slump Tester]

The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan DemocRAT.

There, I fixed it.

[Navy Patriot]

I thought he ran a helluva campaign against an avalanche of evil and foreign money. I’m proud of him

I gotta admit, McCain refused to take a bribe to throw the game.

[television is just wrong]

We as Americans certainly did NOT deserve to have what we have ended up with. Anyone who voted for Obama, or just didn’t vote for McCain is responsible for what is going to happen with the DEMONCRATS letting loose on us.

[goldstategop]

Compromise and moderation is being played for fools. The Left will have you for breakfast, lunch and dinner and then spit you out. We need to have people who can talk about conservatism instead of choking on it and being nice to those who hate our guts. If conservatives won't change, they better get used again to permanent minority status.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Buchal]

BTTT

[Fast Ed97]

McCain lost because of Bush and he ran one of the lousiest campaigns in history. McCain offered no incentive to vote for him other than Obama was a socialist. Bush is extremely unpopular..in particular due to his foreign policy and the war and his lackluster of handling domestic issue. 2006 should have been a wake up call. The fact that McCain fared so poorly in states like New Hampshire, Colorado and even Montana suggests there is alot of discontent

[MtnClimber]

McCain was only close because he chose Palin. He is a ‘RAT and many that hate government tyranny hate him for that and would never vote for him. Why Palin did not take him behind stage and whup his A$$ really good is beyond me. He fights republicans and shakes hands with the most foul democRATS. What is up with that?

[Randy Larsen]

It’s really easy to understand for me...He ran, AGAIN!

[Big_Monkey]

I think this is one of the better critiques of the disaster that I’ve read so far. McCain is a a hero, but that’s just not enough - not in the age of media and celebrity.

Palin was so energizing and a great story. But, she was equally disappointing in her interview performances, not only on the substance of the issues, but also in her ability to manage the conversation. Say what you will about Obama but he’s a master of managing the interview.

I hope she does some honest self analysis. And, if she decides to run again, she has two years to hone her craft and polish her skills. I’ve seen some of her other performances and they were ok - not great but ok. I think she can improve. But, she really needs to look inside herself and find her political ethos, grab onto it and never let go.

She could be a champ, but she’s got a lot of work to do before she gets in the ring with Obama.

[neverdem]

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Eight Wasted Years - And the ratchet slips free.

A Change in Climate for Climate Change Policy

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[DemonDeac]

“I thought he ran a helluva campaign against an avalanche of evil and foreign money. I’m proud of him”

I still have no earthly idea what his message was.

[possumdawg]

I am a homeless Conservative. Where do folks like me go now? My local GOP office ignored my advice, they preached moderation and getting alone with Democrats, they told me if I spoke kindly to the ranting of democrats they would be nice to me and keep their word, and my Local GOP officials told me to keep my mouth shut when I said McCain couldn't carry the traditional republican states.

I am not alone in my homeless state, there are millions of us looking for a warm and friendly place to work and spread our conservative ideas. We aren't as pretty as the elite GOP folks and we don't try and appease everyone, we have our beliefs in America, Service to our country and fellow man, we believe in human life and God. Many of us are small business owners, we work 60 to 80 hours a week, we don't write books or appear on tv, and we don't throw our friends under the bus when times get hard.

If anyone knows of a political party that needs folks like me please let me know and I will spread the news.

Homeless in Georgia.