Posted on 11/20/2008 6:44:58 AM PST by Rufus2007
As it turns out, swaying from conservative principles doesn’t always pay off for a Republican presidential candidate. Sen. John McCain learned that lesson that hard way.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to McCain’s failed campaign, said Nov. 19 that McCain’s support for the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector was the “key strategic blunder of the entire campaign.”
“We also make mistakes,” Holtz-Eakin told a group of conservatives at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. “There’s no doubt about it--20/20 hindsight. I think the key strategic policy error of the entire campaign, that is mine, is believing that the bailout bill would help.”
...more (w/audio)...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
The KEY strategic blunder? Please...it was picking McCain from the ebgining and allowing him to run a campaign that was 30 years behind the times. Picking a much better Veep was not enouh, not fighting back in the debates when you could have buried the opponent was horrible and a whole host of things. So no, there is not ONE key strategc thing...it was the person as w hole. Accept this, Senator and company.
ya can't betray something you never had to begin with.
he had a game changing moment but the same old policy crap. And don’t forget that he tried to cancel the first debate. And then it came out that he had a katie Couric interview before going to DC.
Moral of the story is don’t nominate someone who views principles as strategy.
“Douglas Holtz-Eakin”? Sounds like something you put ointment on to clear up.
Don’t fret, Dougie-it’s not like your stupid blunder meant the ruination of our country or anything......
Oh, wait-it did.
If the GOP had run a genuine conservative, that candidate would probably have picked a RINO running mate, and Sarah Palin would still be toiling away in obscurity in Alaska.
and we would have won
But Kennedy and Feingold never cross the aisle to work with Republicans. They both have 100% leftist voting records, as does Obama. They never “reach out” to the GOP and go along with an occasional conservative proposal in the spirit of bipartisanship.
McCain's desire to be bipartisan is based on a desire to be liked by his enemies. Maybe it's a psychological quirk dating back to being tortured by his enemies in Vietnam. In his old age, he feels a need to submit to the other side since he's no longer a young man capable of withstanding punishment. It gets reinforced by the media, who praise him and elevate him every time he does it.
So when the financial collapse occurred, McCain had two choices. He could be partisan and side with his GOP base and a majority of the public and say “hell no” to the bailout. Or he could cross the aisle, reach out to his opponents, and do exactly what the media wanted him to do, namely side with Obama and support the bailout. Naturally, he did the latter.
This is why Obama walked away from the debacle unscathed, while McCain probably sank his campaign. Obama’s voters are either the ultra-rich, who supported the bailout, assorted groups who don't pay taxes and therefore don't care if there's a bailout (welfare bums, college brats, etc.), minorities who would vote for him no matter what just for being black, or morons who sit around watching Oprah & Jerry Springer all day and were generally clueless about the bailout.
But McCain's core constituents were white, middle and working class folks who were outraged about the bailout and were sick of hearing McCain brag about “crossing the aisle”, especially when the rabidly partisan Democrats never reciprocate.
McCain's doom was sealed when, at the first debate, he let Obama blame the meltdown of GOP policies. In response, McCain blamed it on “Wall Street greed” since he didn't want to blame it on his “friends” Chris Dodd & Chuck Schumer, even though they were in fact responsible for it (along with Barney Frank and Obama advisers Franklin Raines & Joe Johnson). Obama saw McCain's weakness and upped the ante, claiming that he had warned against Fannie Mae excesses two years ago, which was a flat out lie. Not only did he not do that, but he was the number two recipient of Fannie Mae cash out of the 535 members of Congress, exceeded only by Dodd, chairman of the Senate committee overseeing Fannie Mae. Ironically, McCain actually had warned against Fannie Mae excesses a few years ago, and introduced a bill to reign things in (which the Democrats killed), but he didn't mention this.
And so McCain proved once again that moderate, bipartisan Republicanism is a loser.
“I think I see part of the problem here.
LOL! The only thing worse than a hyphenated B**ch is a hyphenated Bast*rd.
I think you nailed it. I wonder if this guy keeps his testicles in his fireproof safe or if he just threw them in the trash?
I think it’s a problem with all war heroes. They fought hard in the past, they did their duty and they don’t want to do it again.
I think that was Dick Morris, and he was right that it was a chance for McCain to show some leadership. Morris was apparently for the bailout, and said "McCain will go in and break the deadlock, and get the bailout passed, and get all the credit for showing leadership".
However, all McCain did was stand around and show no leadership, and he eventually became just another guy who voted "aye" on the bailout. Frankly, I wish he had opposed it. But, from a political point of view, even if he was for it he could have benefited if suspending his campaign had actually accomplished something and showed some leadership. But it didn't.
Morris thought the crisis was going to show McCain as a "get things done" kind of guy, the way LBJ was in the Senate. It actually made McCain look a bewildered old man who didn't know what he was doing.
Absolutely. His support for the bailout showed most voters that there really wasn't a substantive difference between Obama and McCain, so they voted for the more popular guy.
Who's saying anything about having it both ways? Did you ever hear Palin endorse or support the bailout? In the debate? In stumps? In interviews? No. She obviously wasn't a supporter, but she couldn't rail against it while the top of her ticket voted for it. Palin's responsibility to the campaign was to fight Obama/Biden, not the guy she shared the ticket with.
I read that at the WH meeting the democrats had Obama take the lead and he just about broke up the meeting when he blamed republican intransigence.
the mistake was that he didn’t consider the House. the bailout had no problem passing the Senate
It's actually worse because he went back ostensibly to corral the House republicans who were making noise that they wouldnt support it, but in spite of him they voted it down. So even though he supported the thing his base and his coalition didn't (vintage McCain!) he looked ineffective at leading his party. Had he gotten the house to pass it, you could say well I don't like his position but he was a leader. In this case you didnt like his position AND you thought he couldnt lead.
Did you ever hear Palin endorse or support the bailout?
yes
“It’s just too impacting, we had to step in there.”
He looked weak and cowardly ( no leadership when he voted with no speech , worse was afterward when he attacked the bill, and claimed he was different than GWB.
He should have stood up to GWB. He erased his summer lead that he got from showing leadership by joining house republicans on drilling.
But my question here is even bigger. Did republicans even deserve to win? And second, what if Hannity’s dream came true, and McCain won barely on Ayers and Wright alone, with a democrat majority? What do you think that presidency would be like? I would guess endless sellouts to democrats to try to appease the resentment. more fractured demoralized republicans. Another nightmare!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.