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.  

[durasell]

Conservatives had given up the mantle of “fiscally responsible.”

My prediction: The upcoming budget cuts will be enormous. Those who suffer the most will be Red States, such as Alabama, that are on Federal Money Life Support.

[DancingMyRainbow]

McCain lost because, frankly, he went into this with the same mindset as Hillary. They both felt they were entitled to it. After 2000, he felt the republican party owed it to him. And yeah, he fought for it in the primaries. But that was it.

He had so many, many openings to crush Obama early, but he wanted to stay honorable. Instead he wanted US to do his fighting for him. Cripes, the independent ads did more damage to Obama than his did. He brought in Palin to bring conservatives to heel, then proceeded to muzzle her.

I think he wanted the nomination. Period. He reminds me of that dingbat actress who got an Emmy or something and screamed “you like me, you really, really like me” and then promptly forgot what the heck he was suppose to do once he got the trophy.

[durasell]

I have no idea what he was thinking. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, I really can’t read his mind.

I only judge pols on their behavior, and his behavior seemed orchestrated by someone who hadn’t been out in the real world in quite some time.

[Dahoser]

What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"?

He was thinking the truth, but you have to back up the truth when people question you on it. That's the story of Republican problems in Washington: They make an assertion that's at odds with the libs. The libs hammer them on it. The Republicans fold and the assertion becomes their epitaph.

The US economy is fundamentally strong. That doesn't mean it cannot go through a very rough time. A house with a a strong foundation can still take damage from a severe storm.

But McCain didn't defend his assertion like that and instead allowed the libs to hammer him. He allowed them to claim he was out of touch with economic issues because he didn't understand how bad things are or he never would have said that. He didn't defend himself and folded, and sure enough, the economy being fundamentally strong became his epitaph.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Right on! And he had Louis Farrakhan all those years as a mentor to teach him his speaking styles.

There were many years in Chicago that he and the Rev. Wright traveled with Louis Farrakhan and he learned a lot from both of them. I’ll post a link below which explains it from an insider.

Then in the 1970’s, there was a community organizer who taught “socialism”. Socialism for “change”. Sound familiar? It curled my hair when I read it!

His name was Saul Alinsky. Read about it if you want to know who a REAL “communtiy organizer” is and what the “spreading of wealth” is all about!

http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/alinski.htm

Here is link to the article that tells of his ties to Farrakhan and Rev. Wright and how his speaking changed.

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/farrakhan_obama_islam/2008/11/01/146685.html?s=sp&promo_code=6F7F-1

Praying for our country. They were all duped, but they did it to themselves.

May the Good Lord Protect us all.

[marktwain]

“We need to make sure that four years from now we are playing on an equal field.”

---

True. McCain could not do this because “campaign finance reform” is his major political legacy.

Campaign finance reform is now dead. No future candidate will dare risk the situation where his opponent will pull an “Obama”.

[MaggieCarta]

The money quote: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight.

[Robert A Cook PE]

F) Eight YEARS of 24-hour-per-day of anti-republican propaganda can’t be overcome by “TV advertisements” - particularly if you’re trying to “sell” an “old white guy” going against a cool hip black dude who wants “change”.

G) The democrats KNOW their guy is lying - and half the Obama voters don’t care that he is lying. They will vote for him anyway. (YOU CAN”T GET THOSE WHO HATE YOU TO VOTE FOR YOU. Quit trying to “make friends” with them.

H) The other half of Obama voters - the ones who “might” be persuaded IF they can be convinced Obama is fundamentallly lying about every point in his platform? THEY won’t be persuaded if you only run a few TV ads and talk to YOUR own supporters in speechs: because the other side has spent 8 years telling us that “Bush (republicans) lied.” and because the media will NEVER show those speeches to the people you are trying to talk to.

I) So McCAin HAS to run AGAINST the democrats in plain, simple language, and then REPEAT THAT MESSAGE over, and over, and over, and over, and over:

“The DEMOCRATS killed the economy
- by limiting oil development and running eco-forced fuel policies.
“The DEMOCRATS killed the economy
- by causing the stock market “crisis”
“The DEMOCRATS killed the economy
- by causing the mortgage bailout “crisis”
“The DEMOCRATS killed the economy
- by their taxes and spending in the last two years
“The DEMOCRATS killed the economy
- by their opposition to Bush from the 2002 elections (loss of Senate to democrats) until now.
“The DEMOCRATS will kill the economy
- by their future spending and delibeate lies about future taxes.

[ExSoldier]

Bookmark for class discussion today.

[Robert A Cook PE]

He reminds me of that dingbat actress who got an Emmy or something and screamed “you like me, you really, really like me” and then promptly forgot what the heck he was suppose to do once he got the trophy.

A bit "cold blooded" but telling.

[mikeus_maximus]

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.

Which should, once again, teach GOP moderates not to serve up anymore weak-kneed, left-leaning "moderate" candidates, and assume the country will play the "lesser of two evils game."

But it won't.

[MaggieCarta]

Did you ever think that this lady was so unprepared to begin with that there was little hope but to at least let her try

They had held her back for a reason and it’s apparent that she could only read from a teleprompter and not on her own (even her rallies she spoke off the teleprompter)

I wondered about that. There was something irritating to me about her speech patterns and delivery, aside from the content of some of her remarks. (Of course, living here in Michigan, I've just about had it with female leadership)

Perhaps Gov. Palin's nomination was put forth at this time as a pay back from some of the old boys whom she is reported to have ticked off. To scuttle her chances for any future advancement.

Who knows?

[patton]

Well said.

[anton]

McKook was my least favorite GOP candidate, even including the baby killers. He never deserved the nomination. I stood in line and held my nose and voted for him. Yuck!

If only his buttbuddy Lindsay Graham had gone down the toilet with him. Go back to Az Senator and campaign for amnesty for those deserving criminals who do the jobs Americans are too weak or lazy to do.

We can build a party and a movement around your running mate.

[patj]

What do you mean, "his people are going after Palin"? I hadn't seen that. I must have missed something big. Of course, what I really wanted to do yesterday was go to bed and cry. But I did stay busy and it sure wasn't watching any news shows. I can't stand to watch that guy or hear his voice.

Enough of the hand wringing. We do need to get together and pick some new leaders that aren't afraid of the fight. Sarah Palin comes to mind. Also, the point about picking the candidate rings true. That is a process that needs changing. Some here believe that FL had some shenanigans going on to pick McCain off the dust heap. Whatever. Change should start now.

We here, conservaties all?, don't agree on how a candidate should act. Everytime someone does fight back there are some here that insist that we play nicely with the other children. We argue amongst ourselves and eat our own, as Rush likes to say. Let us all pick our candidate and then all get behind that person.

[dforest]

McCain was an awful candidate. He is not a good speaker, he was too old to convince anyone he would change anything, he was constantly crowing how he would take on his own party, which made us puke when we heard it, he was for cap and trade, amnesty, knew nothing about the economy etc.

I could go on and on. It isn’t hard to pinpoint when the whole bottom fell out for McCain. He was on a little roll after picking Palin. When the economic crisis hit, he made a big deal about going back to DC and suspending his campaign. Then he asked Obama to do the same. Obama laughed at him and McCain looked the old fool, because he did nothing. What made matters worse, he voted for the pork laden bailout of Wall Street when he didn’t have to. If he would have stood against it, he could have looked the maverick for the people.

McCain was his own worst enemy, He is why he lost. Has nothing to do with Palin or the voters.

[mtntop3]

Oh great analysts/pundits - is it just possible that the economy had anything to do with it?

Run for office yourselves. Put your feet where your mouth is. And that includes, you, Limbaugh, who decline to even walk around the block for exercise.

[jetson]

Old

no charisma

can't call a spade a apade

talks like tito the mouse

short

is not a conservative

looks bad on camera

has no clue how to run a campaign

SO WHY THE HELL WAS HE NOMINATED?

[traviskicks]

well, McCain didn’t get my vote in the swing state of NV, for some explanation see:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/

[imintrouble]

Isn’t hindsight a tool to make us seem knowledgable?

Perhaps a behavior analyst should be consulted for future candidates provided with an accurate description of what an acceptable a winning conservative Republican would have to resemble in order to overcome the taint of other philosophy.

Then we would have to determine how this candidate could present a charismatic affect with the public audiences, what platform would sway new voters (the numbers are waning), and what the GOP must reinvent within its party to set a straight course to attain the goal once again.

I am sorry this has become a bash McCain topic. Instead of listing everything he did incorrectly, let’s get together a recipe for a positive future candidate.