I’m really, honestly surprised at how many people talk about McCain as if he’s ready to drop dead at any minute. 71 is not that old anymore. Half a century ago, it used to be that if you were 70, you were really old, but I think this is no longer the case.
But he sounds freakin’ ancient. If you caught the YouTube of his speech in Kenner, LA the night Obama clinched, he sounds like he’s about 95.
At any rate, I agree with those who say McCain was the best available, this cycle. Giuliani looked worse - to Republicans - the more he showed his face. (Thank the Lord.) Romney was a plastic fake. Huckabee…OK, here’s where I think ‘the party’ actually played a role. Even after winning Iowa, he couldn’t get much money. (Of course, Huck also killed his own momentum by wasting precious days on NH where he didn’t have a prayer, so even with money, he’d probably have fallen short.) But Huck is still just plain too conservative for the electorate at large. Thompson was a store-window mannequin - he looked real good to a lot of people, but he and the mannequin were evenly matched on the campaign trail.
So who could have jumped in? Cheney? Condi? And who’s on the short list for 2012? Tim Pawlenty? Bobby Jindal will still only be 40.
The GOP has a real problem: the Congress is packed with Pubbies who are global warming deniers, Social Security privatizers, people who want still more tax cuts and less regulation. That’s their bench, for the most part: doctors who don’t realize that the patient has already overdosed on their set of remedies.
I’m surprised that you know nothing more about Paul than what Fox News and other wing-nut sources fed you. Well, not surprised but still. I think Paul was exactly the choice Republicans should have made because he was in tune with the Republican problem — the whole damaged brand thing, the premise that they had lost their way since Goldwater, the endorsement of actual Republican policies like smaller government and all that. Had they not decided to frame him as a racist and UFO believer (neither of which was true), they could have had a person with a consistent voting record, very little Washington baggage, and a vision that stirred up a huge groundswell of young people. He could have competed with Obama on the very points that none of the others can. It would have been one ideology versus another. And especially since they had nothing to lose and everything to gain, given how out of touch they are as a party anyway, they should have chosen him. At the very worst, it would have given them an opportunity to rebuild the party, moving toward the center with a Paulian base of principles. Instead, they’ve got someone who’s all over the place and doesn’t know a Sunni from a Methodist. They had to work hard to paint Paul as a whackjob, and having essentially failed, have chosen to ignore him anyway; with McCain the task of pinning whackjobbery is rather effortless.
Well, perhaps we’re thinking of Reagan, who, we now know, was actually senile while in office, and probably was beginning to go there even while campaigining in 1980, when he was only 69.
Huckabee’s the only one I thought had a chance against the two leading Dem runners. The mood’s so bad in this country there’s no way a fiscal Republican could win, and Huckabee is economically populist enough that his social conservatism could still appeal to the majority of Americans. Also, I don’t know his position on Iraq but fairly or unfairly he’s not as entangled with Bush’s Iraq policy as McCain is.
For those of you suggesting that McCain is the nominee because other likely stronger Republicans decided to stay out of the race, who are the other stronger Republicans that might have run?
In the 1992 election, when George HW Bush was apparently ascendant after the success of the First Gulf War, prominent Democrats like Mario Cuomo and Bill Bradley declined to run. This led to a primary fight among relative unknowns that eventually produced Bill Clinton as the nominee, who won after the first Bush’s public support crashed.
Here, I just don’t see which other prominent Republicans might have gotten into the primary race.
I think the Republicans have fallen into an identity-politics trap.
The four big factions that made up the Reagan Coalition were devout Christians, businessmen, soldiers, and Southerners. The amazing thing about Reagan was that he was able to serve as the perfect figurehead for all four of these groups despite–or maybe because of–not really belonging to any of them!
Since then, though, the party has tried to reforge that coalition by finding candidates who belong to those factions. The problem is it’s just too hard to find a good politician who belongs to all four of them. George W. Bush was as close as they could get: he’s religious, he played soldier during Vietnam, he made unsuccessful stabs at business, and even though he comes from a Yankee family he talks like a Southerner. Not surprisingly, he turned out to be a bad compromise.
What the Republicans need is someone who’s willing to publicly represent all the factions of the party, not someone who happens to belong to one or two of them. Unfortunately, it’s getting hard to find Republican actors these days. Arnie doesn’t work because he’s a maverick in his own right. I think they really needed to nominate Bruce Willis back in 2000.
…point out one glaring Pubbie mistake: WHY doesn’t the Republican pary bring up the way the dems have HAMSTRUNG the USA on new energy supplies? from Ted kennedy killing windmills off cape Cod, to John Kerry vetoeing drilling in Alaska, to general Democratic opposition to offshore drilling, etc.
Why is this?
Huckabee = Carter. 'nuff said.
No, that’s not quite “'nuff”. What do you mean?
Because those are small things compared to all the huge fuckups on their own side’s ticket? McCain will talk exclusively about the future, and what Obama WILL do wrong, now what he HAS done wrong.
Talking about the past will open up cans of worms that McCain doesn’t want people thinking about.
-Joe
He’s a good man, he’s an honest man. But for POTUS you need someone who has the right stuff. Huckabee ain’t got it. Carter made the mistake of believing Khomenei; Huckabee would repeat that mistake.
Lib, I think you have to acknowledge that your political opinions are not usually held by the majority of voters. You might agree with Ron Paul’s platform but most people grew less enamored with Paul when they became familiar with his actual record. By mainstream standards, Paul is a whackjob - and right or wrong, mainstream standards are what elect presidents.
Religious-right socon ideology is a fading force (and much of its remaining strength is among people old enough to be more concerned with their Social Security checks – the privatization attempt a few years back pretty well ruined the GOP brand with that cohort).
As for “economic populism” – Democrat Lite can’t compete with Just Plain Democrat.
Yes, I’m sure the Republican Party had absolutely no influence over who got the nomination.
Sure, the party elders have an influence. But the party elders didn’t want McCain. They wanted Romney. Except Romney just couldn’t get the votes, despite being the perfect empty suit for the part bigwigs. And notice how Romney dropped out very quickly once McCain started beating him. He got a call from the bigwigs telling him it just wasn’t his night, and he obeyed orders.
McCain is the best possible candidate the Republican party could field for 2008. Sure, he’s a long shot, but better a long shot than no shot.
Chuck Hagel wouldn’t have gotten the nomination because of his position on the Iraq war, and he doesn’t have the name recognition that McCain does, but I always thought he could’ve made a go at it. His has strong conservative principles, is also a war vet, gives a great speech, and is very much in the “straight talk” mold of McCain (or of the McCain of 2000).
But the thing is, McCain is very well known around the country and gets the respect of a lot of people. He’s a good choice in a bad situation.
It seems to me that Huckabee’s main effect on the race was to spoil Romney’s chances. He gave the devout Christian voters an exciting alternative to voting for a Mormon. Do you think Romney might have won the nomination if Huckabee hadn’t been in the race?
“Vote for Millard Fillmore. In your heart, you know he’s dead, and he can’t do any harm.”
Wayne Klein
Maybe. And then he’d be even further behind in the polls than McCain is.
McCain was and is the Republicans’ best shot of winning this year. Any of the other candidates would be doing worse. (Except Huckabee, who might be doing just about as well.)