Where did the real John McCain go?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
J

jefa_IHB

New member
You know, at the beginning of all of this, I thought it was going to be McCain vs Hillary, and I wished the democrat party would nominate someone less divisive, since the extreme right seemed to loathe her so much. I wanted a non-polarazing election.



When it came down to McCain and Obama, I thought, wow, I wonder if we will see an election of substance.



We haven't really seen an election of substance. Both candidates try as hard as possible not to say anything too specific, and try to be everything to everyone.



The extreme left and right have revved up their anger machines, but not to the degree we saw in 2004. I'd say it's about half as mean as it was back then.



That being said, what happened to John McCain? I never thought he was a right-wing extremist, but why has he bought into pitching himself as one? He essentially touted Obama's tax plan back in 2000. Now he's touting George Bush's tax plan (plus). Didn't he hammer the religious right way back when? He was the guy who had an open door to all journalists, and now he's gone all Rumsfeld and Sarah Palin on us (keep the ship locked up tight. No reporters here!)



Is it because the majority of the money being spent is through the RNC? They want to get their local people elected, and so they preach to the extreme base? Obama controls most of his money so he preaches more to the middle who he needs to swing to get elected?



On a side note, I have to say I've been less than impressed with McCain's advertising campaign. I keep seeing images of Palin or McCain with the words "proven maverick" and they're standing in front of a spangled blue background. It's got to be the least mavericky looking ad I've seen. Could you imagine Tom Cruise in front of an american flag touting Top Gun II "The Maverick is back!" There's nothing mavericky about standing in front of national pride images. You need to put people on a motorcycle or something. :)



It's just a lame online campaign is all I'm saying.
 
It has been a lame campaign. The Republicans running for president always have a difficult balancing act between turning on the Religious Right to get them to go vote and not looking like you are pandering to the Religious Right because it turns off swing voters. Bush, with direction from Karl Rove, learned how to speak in code to the Religious Right in terms they understood but that the middle was not turned off by. It was brilliant.



Rove also managed to get the Religious Right to turn out for a number of ballot initiatives in key swing states. Since he knew they were going to the polls anyway, he and Bush did not need to pander to them in these states in a way that would turn off swing voters.



McCain has not figured out how to excite the Religious Right without turning off those in the middle. He was hoping Palin would do this for him. She doesn't look like a prudish wingnut, so she doesn't turn off the middle. She does spout the nonsense the Religious Right likes to here, so they like her. Unfortunately, she hasn't done either thing very well. Most people see her as an unqualified joke. This in turn calls McCains judgment into question which further undermines his campaign.



The biggest issues McCain has had to overcome has been his ties to George Bush. (<a href="http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-bush-endorsement/783981/">Did anyone else see the hilarious S&L skit on the need for McCain to distance himself from Bush?</a>) Bush and the Republicans are very unpopular, and this is a big problem for McCain to overcome. Add to this a complete collapse of our financial system just before the election -- a collapse the general public is blaming on the Republicans -- and McCain simply has too many negatives to overcome. I don't think any amount of good campaigning could overcome these problems.



That being said, I think McCain has done a poor job of playing the cards he was dealt. He has not had a consistent message. About the only thing I can think of is the "Maverick" label. He has tried to convey a message of fiscal responsibility, but right now nobody believes the Republicans on this issue because they ran such a huge deficit while they were in power and doubled the national debt in 6 years. Add to that the fact that McCain was forced to vote for the bailout while simultaneously decrying the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress. The cognitive dissonance was remarkable.



He might have been able to edge out Obama on foreign policy issues, but since the economy is collapsing during the election, nobody really cares about foreign policy. This election is going to be about domestic policy in general and economic policy in particular. McCain has failed to close the deal with Americans on the economy.



On top of all these problems and the poor campaigning, McCain is being outspent by his opponent. This is very rare in Republican presidential politics. The Republicans usually outspend Democrats, often by 2:1. They are usually able to drown out the Democrats message through brute force of advertising dollars. This time, it is Obama who is burying McCain with campaign spending.



I know it isn't over until its over, but I don't think this election is going to be very close. I think Obama gets around 350-400 electoral votes and wins the popular vote by 5 million or more. There will be a few surprise states formerly thought to be Republican strongholds that go for Obama this year.



The real issue for the Republicans seems to be keeping 40 votes in the Senate. If they can't manage to to that, there is no filibuster. The Democrats will have unstoppable majorities in the House and Senate and control of the White House. This is an amazing reversal of fortunes if you think about were we were just two years ago. Prior to the 2006 elections, the Republicans has a solid majority in the House, 56 senators and the Presidency. I have never seen such a dramatic change in the electorate happen so quickly. There have been big elections where things changed (1980 and 1994 come to mind), but I don't know if there has every been such a complete reversal of fortune so quickly in modern American political history.
 
-good post IR. how is the book doing? I do recall there was a support mccain ad on this ihb page a few months ago did you guys get P O ed and remove it?
 
I dunno what is "cooler"? The fact that I completely agree with IR, no... I am not an IR groupie but even I am shocked by how many different things we do agree on, or the fact that SNL got Irvine's own Will Farrell to come and do his awesome W impression. Another great post by IR, and another great job by Will Farrell on SNL.
 
[quote author="ventouxbob" date=1224941972]-good post IR. how is the book doing? I do recall there was a support mccain ad on this ihb page a few months ago did you guys get P O ed and remove it?</blockquote>


Now that the book is out, I am gearing up for marketing. Over the next 3-6 months, I am really going to try to spread the word. If it can get some momentum, hopefully the word-of-mouth will help it really move.



The McCain ads we used to get were from Adsense. They must have cut their budget because we did nothing to make them disappear.
 
Lately I've been feeling very sorry for McCain. I imagine how much better our country would have been if he had been the winner back in 2000.



I think the irony I feel is he didn't pander back in 2000. And he lost. Then, in order to be President, he systematically remade himself over the last 8 years so he could be the Republican nominee in the mold of W. Hillary did much the same thing on the Democrats side. Remade herself over the years so she could be perceived as a moderate. But McCain made over himself so he would be more appealing to the base. It has really backfired on him.
 
[quote author="jefa" date=1224978874]Lately I've been feeling very sorry for McCain. I imagine how much better our country would have been if he had been the winner back in 2000. </blockquote>


I think about that quite often. Looking back in history, IMO one of the greatest presidents we had was Theodore Roosevelt. He was a maverick within the Republican Party, and he was largely responsible for America's rise as a global power through development of its military, and on the domestic front, he took on his own party and broke up the monopolistic trusts of the time. He was great on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. McCain was similarly positioned leading up to the 2000 election, and he could have carved out a similar place in history, particularly with 9/11 happening during that administration. We will never know what a great president he could have been.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1224979887][quote author="jefa" date=1224978874]Lately I've been feeling very sorry for McCain. I imagine how much better our country would have been if he had been the winner back in 2000. </blockquote>


I think about that quite often. Looking back in history, IMO one of the greatest presidents we had was Theodore Roosevelt. He was a maverick within the Republican Party, and he was largely responsible for America's rise as a global power through development of its military, and on the domestic front, he took on his own party and broke up the monopolistic trusts of the time. He was great on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. McCain was similarly positioned leading up to the 2000 election, and he could have carved out a similar place in history, particularly with 9/11 happening during that administration. We will never know what a great president he could have been.</blockquote>


From the WSJ

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122489333798168777.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122489333798168777.html</a>



[quote author="WSJ" date=1224979887]It will be up to the two great powers -- the U.S. and China -- to fashion the deal that brings China into the heart of the multilateral system. Here, too, is an echo of the first Bretton Woods, for underneath the camouflage of a multilateral process there was a bargain between two nations. Britain, the proud but indebted imperial power, needed American savings to underpin monetary stability in the postwar era; the quid pro quo was that the U.S. had the final say on the IMF's design and structure. Today the U.S. must play Britain's role, and China must play the American one.



There's a final twist, however. In the 1940s the declining power practiced imperial trade preferences; the rising power championed an open world economy. When Franklin Roosevelt told Winston Churchill that free trade would be the price of postwar assistance, he was demanding an end to the colonial order and the creation of a level playing field for commerce. "Mr. President, I think you want to abolish the British empire," Churchill protested. "But in spite of that, we know you are our only hope.</blockquote>
 
I think that this is the real John McCain. . .if you read that Rolling Stones article about him .. . John McCain is about John McCain. He basically turned his back on everything he was allegedly for just so that he could have a chance to be the prez. That is what really makes me sick about McCain and Palin calling themselves "mavericks". McCain basically sold his soul to be here.



I do not feel bad for him one bit. He made the choice to pander to the Republican base and now he has to live with that choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top