Was John McCain Really the Most Electable Candidate?

I was never sold on this, not even remotely. Patterico gloats a bit, citing his older posts about McCain's presumed electability.

Back to the hobbyhorse: I cannot imagine any candidate except McCain being unwilling to pin blame for Fannie/Freddie/CRA on the Democrats.

That was all him. A weird and ultimately fatal mix of a strange sense of "honor" that prevented him from attacking Democrats, a determination to remain "bipartisan" and thus never take Republicans' side against Democrats, residual guilt over voting against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday which caused him again and again to play the race card on himself, and a general lack of fluency in economic issues making him reluctant to play on this turf at all.

No one else had that kind of perfect storm of suicidal stupidity working against him.

Oh: And add to that a bit of misplaced arrogance, or at least a firm belief that his instincts are well-nigh infallible. At least some of his advisers tried to convince him he was dead wrong on his notion that he should let the crisis "just pass" so he could get back to talking about the stuff he wanted to, character and integrity.

The really terrible thing is that the plan, apparently, was to "let the crisis pass" and then begin hammering Obama on Ayers (but not Wright -- he's black).

But when the time for this Mighty Hammering came, McCain largely demurred and spoke about it as if he were embarrassed to even be bringing it up.

Jim DeMint: McCain Betrayed Conservative Principles. He also alludes to Bush's responsibility for the loss.

Which is real. And I keep wanting to write on it, but I can't seem to gin up the enthusiasm for it yet.

He also notes that McCain hurt himself politically by supporting the bailout. This is undeniably true. Personally, I can't fault him for this, as I thought the bailout was the right policy to avert disaster. (I am slowly reconsidering that.)

But there is no doubt as regards pure political advantage that running against the bailout would have been helpful.

Except-- there's a chance McCain and Obama called each other privately about this, and both agreed they had to support it. If McCain ran against it, Obama might have too.

I was attempting to think of "Six at Sixty," six issues that command sixty percent public support. (This is a variation of Geraghty's "Nine at Ninety," an attempt to define nine issues that command 90% support in the GOP only.)

Without a doubt, running against any and all future bailouts -- giveaways; corporate welfare -- must be considered a strong entrant as one of the six at sixty.

Posted by: Ace at 04:38 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Um, don't the results give us the answer? Jus'sayin.

Though, who did we have? Fred? I voted for him, but I think it's clear at this point he was in it to screw with Huck, which I appreciate, but we got the "Honorable Loser" for it. Really, who? Mitt? Rudy (I already know your answer)? Yeah - Rudy would have put up a fight, but he couldn't win the nomination, so how was he going to win the general?

Posted by: Editor at November 15, 2008 04:43 PM (p4YSL)

2 Finally, someone hit the nail on the head! John McCain was the wrong candidate!

Ron Paul - 2012

Posted by: hoosierbrad at November 15, 2008 04:44 PM (y/JJL)

3 Fred or Romney, I think.

Fred waited too, too long, and was too rusty at campaigning to do a good job at it when he entered.

But still -- given time, he'd have gotten better.

Posted by: ace at November 15, 2008 04:45 PM (8T2pi)

4 He's a Senator! They're all about bipartianship. That's why we should never fucking ever select as our candidate a Senator!!!

Posted by: mastour at November 15, 2008 04:46 PM (edBky)

5 What ever will be do when we run out of dead horses to beat?

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at November 15, 2008 04:48 PM (OmeRL)

6 Time for McCain to dry up and blow away. Never to be heard from again. Thanks for nothing, asshole. Palin had more balls than him.

Posted by: Heyoka at November 15, 2008 04:49 PM (C3AbA)

7 Nail only did Ace hit the nail on head, it slammed through the board, it exited the other side.

Posted by: Jimmy at November 15, 2008 04:49 PM (/Ft4q)

8 I'm thinking about donating to whoever McCain's opponent is next time around -- and I don't even live in his state.

I voted for him this time,, of course, but his failure to defend Palin means that he's dead to me. No guts. No honor. What happened, John?

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at November 15, 2008 04:52 PM (JTN0y)

9 It goes back to me to Super Tuesday, watching primary returns with my Venezuelan roommate at the time... he was asking me what the significance of McCain's rather convincing series of primary victories that night was.

I responded "the significance is that it means I'm voting Libertarian this year."

McCain's sense of honor was misplaced. Then, when he finally woke up and tried going after Obama, it was derided as desperation (which, to be honest, it was). It was a good slow-pitch softball player on the men's Tuesday night beer league going in to pitch an inning of relief against the Red Sox. The results were predictable even before the call to the bullpen went out.

Posted by: Michael Fisk at November 15, 2008 04:52 PM (VZ6Ni)

10 I'm starting to buy the old" let em have the mess that's coming down the road", left with huge deficits and a economy that's grinding to a halt we are about to witness the metaphysical certainty that the Dems don't have any what to do or how to govern unless they have vast quantities of $$$ to spend or a war to lose. Let the JV have some minutes and the table will be set for a conservative renaissance.

Posted by: JohnTBissell at November 15, 2008 04:53 PM (AjfGV)

11 Don't worry, the GOP will nominate a ever so slightly more conservative and spectacularly lose the 2012 election as well.

The GOP is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Posted by: Travis at November 15, 2008 04:53 PM (uOj//)

12 Well, yes, Fred did wait too long, but, again, I think he was only in it for his friend McCain. I don't think he was serious about the general, looking back at it.

I'd never vote for Mitt. He's a slickster. I don't trust him and my instincts on trust are quite good. I voted for W. in the primaries, but I've never trusted him. I agree with some of his positions, but the trust never came. I'll never vote (in primaries) for someone I don't trust, again. Ever. Even if that means sitting out.

Posted by: Editor at November 15, 2008 04:54 PM (p4YSL)

13 Rudy would've lost Georgia, maybe Montana, but maybe taken MI, FL, OH, and NH. So not him.

Mitt, might have been able to tackle NV, CO, NC, FL, OH, and IN, I doubt he would've lost any states that McCain won.

Huckabee would have taken the South, maybe with the exception of FL and VA, but I think taken IN and OH.

The most electable ---> Mitt Romney. The best for our cause? No. But neither was McCain.

We screwed up in our nomination, but think about it, the Democrats probably picked their worst candidate too, so its a wash. Face it, Hillary could have probably cruised well in this climate, despite the fact that she is a "thundercunt"

Posted by: BrackaBama at November 15, 2008 04:55 PM (GEVSM)

14 Agonizing over McCain is like agonizing over Dole. Hardly worth the expenditure of time and effort.

Given the disarray within the GOP in recent years it's difficult to see how Romney or Guiliani could have pulled it out; that is, seeking explanations for the defeat by examining tactical errors begs the question of the larger strategic disadvantage incurred by membership in the Republican party for Republican candidates.

More constructive, perhaps, to consider the future.

Posted by: arbuthnot at November 15, 2008 04:57 PM (Tw7Fm)

15
Graham said that McCain and Obama are philosophically alike on
budget reform, Social Security changes, earmark reform and immigration.
"If the administration wants to move forward with immigration again, I stand ready to do that," Graham said.
Why the Republicans lost in a nutshell.

Posted by: Travis at November 15, 2008 05:00 PM (uOj//)

16 Finally, someone hit the nail on the head! John McCain was the wrong candidate!Ummm, some people, such as myself, have been saying that since 1999. I hated Bush in 2000 (I was a Forbes guy, ahh the irrationality of youth) but I voted for Bush in the Ohio primary just to help stop McCain.
Anyhow, I agree the Dems also picked their worst candidate as they will soon discover. They had a choice between a female Clinton and a half-white Carter. Clintonwould have won in a Reaganesque landslide I believe, especially had they been avoided the race fight in the primaries, and I think governed halfway rationally. Obama, well we already know how Carter turned out.

Posted by: jarod at November 15, 2008 05:02 PM (jKvSW)

17 McCain's main problem was he couldn't contrast himself with Obama because... in many, many ways... they believed in the same things: tax cuts were bad because the wealthy benefited disproportionately, offshore drilling was wrong, Wall Street was greedy, Washington was always right...

When two candidates are on the same page, the voice is usually going to win over the echo.

Posted by: Socky at November 15, 2008 05:04 PM (d2fuu)

18 McCain was a terrible candidate. Okhanitsa 2012!

Posted by: Jim62sch at November 15, 2008 05:06 PM (6rQXk)

19 I cannot imagine any candidate except McCain being unwilling to pin blame for Fannie/Freddie/CRA on the Democrats.

This appears to imply that it was at all possible to 'pin blame' on the Party that was not headed by the PRESIDENT at the time the bottom fell out. A President who had been in office for almost 8 long years, while the financial disease festered away.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but it was not at all possible. The buck stops at the Presidency. Always has. Always will.

Bush deserves credit for not abandoning Iraq even at the worst of times. He deserves all the blame for the credit/financial debacle. It happened on his watch and he did NOTHING. That was negligence.

People understand that simple fact. Even if McCain had been awake during the campaign, I very much doubt that he could have altered the public mood. Sure he could have tried harder and done better, but in the end, it would not really have altered events.

Posted by: dougf at November 15, 2008 05:13 PM (16GPT)

20 Perhaps in the future, Republicans should consider this thing called the closed primary- it might make it a tad more difficult for Democrats to cross over and choose their rival in the general election.

Posted by: shibumi at November 15, 2008 05:15 PM (tZB/c)

21 Really, who knows if McCain would have won had he came on strong over the economy?
He was a terrible candidate to begin with, so trying to say he would have won if only he'd changedone thing just doesn't pass muster.
Besides, all those fraudulent votes would have stayed the same. I think that played far more of a role in the swing statesthan any of us realize right now.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 05:16 PM (qF8q3)

22 dougf, you have your facts wrong. W's administration had warned congress to do something for 7-years.

What Bush gets blame for is not only pushing the bailout, but also bailing out the fucking people in congress who are responsible. Bush is dead to me.

Posted by: Editor at November 15, 2008 05:17 PM (p4YSL)

23 "Besides, all those fraudulent votes would have stayed the same. I
think that played far more of a role in the swing statesthan any of us
realize right now."

What is the relationship of "number of probably fraudulent votes" to "votes of registered Republicans that stayed home"?

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at November 15, 2008 05:19 PM (OmeRL)

24 McCain did a major disservice not only to his own campaign, but to the GOP as a whole by allowing the Dems to pin the financial mess on us. He was the one in the position to place the blame (rightly) on Dodd and Frank, and his failure to do so gives a left a huge stick with which to beat us for years. McCain put his own "honor" before the party, which is unforgivable.

Posted by: Xander Crews at November 15, 2008 05:19 PM (JDZIE)

25 Six for sixty

Fiscal Conservatism
Smaller Government
Strong National Defense (Security)
Federalism
Justices that are strict Constructionists
Individual liberty and Responsibility

These should be the core principles of Conservatism and would be embraced by the vast majority of voters. The problem is that you need to have a candidate that has demonstrated by actions that these are their core principles.

I don't know of anyone in the wings that can do that.

Posted by: rls at November 15, 2008 05:21 PM (k4h7p)

26 Ace, are you reconsidering the bailout as presented and passed or as implemented? I'm not being snarky at all, I'm interested in the basis of your reconsideration. It most certainly appears to me that what you were supporting isn't even in the same universe as what is being done.

Posted by: alexthechick at November 15, 2008 05:21 PM (NkoQh)

27 Face it, America let the MSM decide who would be our next president. McCain was not so much the wrong candidate he was as strong as Romney orThompson. To my knowlege McCain took98% of the registered republicans vote........no candidate would have done better. It was the issues that were NOT talked about by the press, Obama was never taken to task, not on the economy,details to taxes, immigration, or abortion issues, Not about Ayers or Wright, nor was he taken to task for being the REAL racist candidate. When John McCain picked Palin as running mate thepress was OVERJOYED ! No more scrutiny on their candidate was nessessary. This entire election cycle was strictly an exercise in media abandoning all pretence of being objective. Unfortunately I see no change on the horrizon, American elections are to be media driven side shows until someone says NO.

Posted by: tonynoboloney at November 15, 2008 05:22 PM (RTt0O)

28 Ace-

"He also notes that McCain hurt himself politically by supporting the
bailout. This is undeniably true. Personally, I can't fault him for
this, as I thought the bailout was the right policy to avert disaster.
(I am slowly reconsidering that.)"

It was/is monumentally wrong to think the bailout was the right thing to do...unless your a fatalist like me...I actually want to see the system destroyed...

So fundamentally I am against it, but I am actually happy they did it...perhaps the magnified failure that is to come will open the door for some true change....

A consumption based tax structure and term limits on the legislative body of this nation...

<---- Popcorn bucket full, short the market...and loving every minute of this....

Posted by: Carson Wales at November 15, 2008 05:24 PM (eQnxF)

29 That's what pissed me off about McCain during the debates. He had plenty of opportunities slam Obama and the Democrat's in regard to the CRA's and their role in the financial meltdown that I think would've resonated with the public. At the very least, it would've forced the MSM to cover it more. Now as you look at Obama assemble his cabinet, you are seeing the very people at the heart of the CRA/FM/FM financial meltdown being put in charge of the government.

Why haven't the leaders of Countrywide, FM, FM, etc been brought up on charges? Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, etc were all held accountable in the courts, where the fuck are these investigations at? It is accepted fact that Freddie Mac cooked the books in the early 2000's, where is that investigation/trial at??? I know they settled in CIVIL court but where the fuck is the criminal trial???

Posted by: CDR M at November 15, 2008 05:24 PM (TJoU6)

30 I don't think any Republicans would have won given how the media stacked the deck. I can't help but wonder how Newt would have fared though. Think he would have matched up well against Obama both stylistically and intellectually.

Posted by: kurt at November 15, 2008 05:26 PM (83kzE)

31 VINDUHCASHUNS! I HAS DEM!

Posted by: V the K at November 15, 2008 05:28 PM (d2fuu)

32 Most electable?? Hell no! Anyone with even a tenth of a brain has known that since at least 2000.
As for George W. being less that what some might have hoped -- just remember who the hell he was forced to appease and placate for the last seven-plus years, just who was always there to obstruct and oppose whatever Bush wanted to do. That's right, the very same John Maverick McCain. Take McCain and his various gangs of moderates out of the last seven years, and we would have had a very different, i.e. more conservative, George Bush.
McCain has been the gangrene of the party for a long, long time.
If Bush had run for a third term, he would have defended himself more against the irrational Bush-hate that came even from his "friends," and he would most likely have crushed the done-nothing Marxist community agitator that did win.

Posted by: Bender at November 15, 2008 05:28 PM (62LLx)

33 Fred was my guy, I worked my ass off for him until he folded and basically slunk away from the table. Federalism is a concept that, if properly explained and adhered to, would win a lot of elections. And save our country and our way of life.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained for us to be seen "eating our own." Yeah, McCain was an epic fail. Not sure a postmortem is even helpful in any way.

Jim DeMint is someone I'd never heard of until the crap sandwich came up back in October. I became an instant fan. He's the real deal. I fuckin' love the guy and am very happy to see him appear here at AoS.

And, Ace, I'm real happy to hear you are reconsidering your position on the "bailout." I remain convinced that it will go down in history as one of the most horrendous fuckups of all time.

Posted by: CB at November 15, 2008 05:28 PM (9Wv2j)

34 These should be the core principles of Conservatism and would be embraced by the vast majority of voters. The problem is that you need to have a candidate that has demonstrated by actions that these are their core principles.
Nonsense. Again, you had two candidates who not only did that, they did it in some of the most liberal places in America with a hostile legislature and hostile press. Rudy and Romney. Look past the headlines and see what they actually did and issues they fought on. Neither were perfect but given the environment they had to work in both were light years ahead of John Sidney McCain. Both Rudy and Romney have demonstrated federalist chops, both are accomplished executives with records in both the public and private worlds. Both were deemed to liberal so we ended up with Mr. Reach Around and lost spectaculary.
We have a boned primary process that is dominated by both religious fundamentalists and in some cases, by Democrats. That's how we get a McCain and we will continue until we decide to fix our twisted primaries.

Posted by: JackStraw at November 15, 2008 05:30 PM (VW9/y)

35 In spite of what some were saying at the time, we had a weak slate of candidates to choose from. National Review was probably right for a change in thinking Romney was the best of the bunch. The degree of anti-Mormon sentiment in the GOP surprised me though.

Posted by: flenser at November 15, 2008 05:30 PM (VPbWS)

36 Kurt, I wanted Newt to run sooooooo bad. It was one of the saddest days of the last 2-years for me when he decided not to, but looking at how the campaigns worked I think he would have been the ONLY possible winner against Barry. He would have made Axelrod look like the amateur he is.

Posted by: Editor at November 15, 2008 05:31 PM (p4YSL)

37 When I saw the beginning part of the first debate I said to myself we've lost the election. McCain was inarticulate on the financial mess. Also, his age emphasized Obama's youth and freshness. Unfortunately, a lot of winning elections is about form rather than substance. But if you're inarticulate like McCain all too often was, the substance isn't even there. (example: not bothering to explain his health care policy) McCain was a poor messenger.

Romney was a more effective communicator and was much more knowledgable on the economy, so I think we might have had a better shot with him. But that's 20/20 hindsight.

Ordinarily I would think it petty of Jim Demint to take a shot at McCain so soon after the election. But I interpreted Demint's remarks as warning McCain not to get cozy with Obama.

Posted by: Chris at November 15, 2008 05:32 PM (B/WwP)

38 Rudy and Romney.

Rudy was a lot less electable than McCain. I voted for Romney though.

Posted by: flenser at November 15, 2008 05:32 PM (VPbWS)

39 Bush deserves all the blame for the credit/financial debacle. It happened on his watch and he did NOTHING.
Nothing? In fact, Bush warned the Congress years ago that the system was about to crash and burn and that reforms were necessary. But instead of doing something, it was the Maverick and his gang of moderates whodid nothing to push those reforms through,who did nothing to stopthe obstruction by the Dems.

Posted by: Bender at November 15, 2008 05:33 PM (62LLx)

40 I really hope we can get a good Republican governor (Jindal, Pawlenty, Palin, Sanford, Perry, etc in no particular order yet) nominated in 2012. McCain was probably the worst choice we had going in (other than Ron Paul) in that he defined Washington, DC spinelessness, because he was afraid of offending his "good friends across the aisle".
Rudy and Mitt could have run as DC outsiders, but I'm not sure they could have gotten enough enthusiasm behind them. McCain's pick of Palin served to show us how much energy we could have had with a true conservative as the nominee, because none of those people at the rallies were there to see McCain.

Posted by: John F Not Kerry at November 15, 2008 05:33 PM (HF2US)

41 Patterico thinks obama is a good man so he's clearly delusional.

Posted by: YourAssIsTooBigForTheTent at November 15, 2008 05:34 PM (P1Evy)

42 I'm not sure there's much to be gained for us to be seen "eating our own."

Eating our own? That's not what we're doing. We're proposing expelling from midst those who are NOT our own, but pretend to be so.

Posted by: Editor at November 15, 2008 05:34 PM (p4YSL)

43 I am not sure there was a really strong candidate this year. I think Obama did change things in that we will need some younger candidates that can articulate conservative principles. Palin and Jindal, the youngsters, still leading the wolverine GOP 2012poll.

Posted by: Wolverine at November 15, 2008 05:35 PM (/Zcox)

44 Was I the only one who watched the debates? Duncan Hunter 20012

He was on top of this bubble economy from the start. We can't keep shipping money to China and expect that our mortgages will magically make us all rich. He was right on social issues, right on the economy, right in immigration. Right there that's 3 for 51.

Posted by: jcp at November 15, 2008 05:40 PM (DHNp4)

45 McCain never figured out he wasn't in the Senate fighting to maintain his good namein the mediaanymore, he was supposed to be out herein America fighting to save us from socialism.
Then you throw in W's complete lack of any apparentinstinct for self-preservation, and it is maddening to compare their fortitude abroad with their passivity at home.
As for running against the bailout, nobody could do that after the Dems and the media had been allowed to create the perfect storm over the last5 years. Telling the country to remain calm after basically letting the"party-first" peoplerun the agenda for so long would have been perceived as simply delusional, and perhaps rightfully so.
I wonder how many Dems and media types are privately thinking "You know, that big fucking genie weuncorkedisn't going to go back in the little bottle very easy, is it?" Of course for a lot of them of the Ayersian school of thought, that's just fine, right? Fucking pieces of shit, all of them.

Posted by: sherlock at November 15, 2008 05:41 PM (ojW85)

46 What is the relationship of "number of probably fraudulent votes" to "votes of registered Republicans that stayed home"?
I don't know, but I do think they were both contributing factors to the loss, don't you? I nearly stayed home myself, but they were having an important election for my state rep and severals props were on the ballot -- and you know, the ONLY reason I voted for McCain was because I was in the voting booth and figured I should vote for someone.
But if those other elections hadn't happened at the same time, I couldn't swear I would have bothered to vote.

Posted by: Barbelle at November 15, 2008 05:42 PM (qF8q3)

47 I'm getting tired of the finger pointing about McCain's loss. The post mortems indicate that "independents" swung the election to Obama. "Independent" is code for those who don't care enough to be informed voters or those who vote for trite or emotional reasons.

The challenge for conservatives comes down to four things:
1. Defeat the more outrageous plans of the Obamanistas.
2. Keep eroding public confidence in the Obamedia. When they shill for the bastard, call 'em on it and in no way support them financially.
3. Win back the House and decrease the Dems' majority in the Senate in 2010.
4. Find a conservative candidate who can defeat the Messiah in 2012.

Posted by: Reiver at November 15, 2008 05:46 PM (oliA4)

48

It isn't just that McCain was for the bailout. It was it was the imprudent and unseemly haste with which he raced back to DC to try to shove that fucker down everybody's throat. If it had been a case of "having weighed the evidence and examined the proposal, I've come to the decision that this move is necessary" there would have been no fall out. Instead he got stampeded like a half-blind old bull. How many more times would that happen before the four years were over.

He acted like that over immigration, too. It isn't that he was ever all that liberal, just that he acts and talks like one, as if anybody who wants to slow down and hammer out the details or question a proposal is wrong, stupid or hates America.

Posted by: Ronsonic at November 15, 2008 05:47 PM (ywSvi)

49 So exactly what did any of you armchair quarterbacks DO to keep John McCain from being our nominee?
Thought so.
This guy's candidacy was on life support a year ago. We COULD have gotten behinda single real conservativeand buried him. Instead, we splintered into Fredheads, Huckabots, Rudyites, and Romnians. We could have even gotten behind Romney as the lesser of two evils after he won Michigan, and not allowed him to drop out so fast. We could have forced Mike Huckabee to give up his quixotic, ego-driven campaign. But we didn't. So we got Good Old John McCain. And guess what? He ran as Good Old John McCain.
There was not a single thing John McCain did or did not do in this campaign that was not entirely predictable given his past behavior. We knew he would not attack the Congress he had been a part of for 26 years. We knew he would not change his position on drilling in ANWR, even when gas hit $2.25 a gallon. We knew he would never come up with a coherent economic plan because he never gave a shit about the economy as an issue. We knew he would be "honorable" and not go after Barack Obama on anything remotely racial. We knew he would do a couple of Mavericky things, like the Paris Hilton ads and picking Sarah Palin. But he never had a coherent message other than Vote For Me Because This Time I Deserve It.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2008 05:48 PM (iZqUY)

50 dougf,
Bush deserves all the blame for the credit/financial debacle. It happened on his watch and he did NOTHING.

query.nytimes.com/gst fullpage.html?res= 9E06E3D6123BF93 2A2575AC0A9659C8B63 sec=spon=pagewanted=2

Read all the way to the bottom before making ludicrous comments...

Posted by: Sgt York at November 15, 2008 05:49 PM (u3pgy)

51 Hmmmm.

"Well, yes, Fred did wait too long, but, again, I think he was only in
it for his friend McCain. I don't think he was serious about the
general, looking back at it"

Bingo!

IMO Fred was a stalking horse of McCain's in order to suck up all the media attention, oxygen and funding from conservative candidates.

Posted by: memomachine at November 15, 2008 05:52 PM (f4Zt4)

52 Editor

Yeah, I hear you. Newt has been nothing short of amazing on these political talk shows and whatnot. Dennis Miller was exclaiming as much the other day on his radio show. The guy would have matched up perfectly against the Obama mirage machine.

Posted by: kurt at November 15, 2008 05:53 PM (83kzE)

53 I don't think Rudy and Romney lost because they were deemed to be to the left of McCain. (with the exception of one issue - abortion.)

Rudy lost because of poor campaign strategy. He was too late to the party. He put all his money and efforts into Florida, and Crist endorsed McCain.

McCain had the biography and primary voters thought the war and national security would be a bigger issue than they turned out to be in the general. Therefore, he was preferred over Romney.

Posted by: Chris at November 15, 2008 05:53 PM (B/WwP)

54 So exactly what did any of you armchair quarterbacks DO to keep John McCain from being our nominee?

Supported Giuliani and Thompson.

You?

Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at November 15, 2008 05:56 PM (JTN0y)

55 And add to that a bit of misplaced arrogance, or at least a firm belief that his instincts are well-nigh infallible.
Maybe the problem isn't that he's a Senator but that he was a fighter pilot.

Posted by: Eric at November 15, 2008 05:56 PM (quZLX)

56 Rudy lost because of poor campaign strategy. He was too late to the party. He put all his money and efforts into Florida, and Crist endorsed McCain.

Crist endorsedMccain to help stop Romney from winning Florida. That's one thing I like about Mitt - he has the right enemies.

Posted by: flenser at November 15, 2008 06:01 PM (VPbWS)

57 "Take McCain and his various gangs of moderates out of the last seven years, and we would have had a very different, i.e. more conservative, George Bush."

That's an excellent point, Bender, especially if they would have been replaced by conservatives. Replace them with Democrats and you'd have, well, pretty much what we got, except we wouldn't have gotten Scalia or Roberts on the SC.

Posted by: notropis at November 15, 2008 06:01 PM (HMToI)

58 Instead, we splintered into Fredheads, Huckabots, Rudyites, and Romnians. We could have even gotten behind Romney as the lesser of two evils after he won Michigan, and not allowed him to drop out so fast.
Whada ya mean, "we"?
I was behind Romney from day 1 and I have the scars to prove it.
And if any of you had done half the "research" into Romney that you have Palin, which is basically none at all for most, you would have realized that he wasn't so lesser.
McCain had the biography and primary voters thought the war and national security would be a bigger issue than they turned out to be in the general. Therefore, he was preferred over Romney.
No. Go back and look at the facts. Romney, Huck and until he dropped out, Fred, split the conservative vote. Huck took a huge portion of the evangelicals in the early states because 1) he is a baptist minister and 2) Romney is a Mormon and 3) Huck beat the crap out of this issue demonizing Romney. Do you think Romney gave that speech on religion because he wanted to? Do you not remember the demonizing on religion Huck did in Iowa and SC? Do you not remember McCain going back to Liberty University to make nicey nice after calling them "agents of intolerance" in 2000 just so he would at least be not slammed by them? This allowed McCain to focus on the moderates and cross over Dems which are allowed in many early Republican primaries.
The facts are the facts. In the early primaries, there is a disproportionate emphasis put on religious conservative issues. People can bitch all they want about RINOs but the fact is we end up with whatever candidate is either acceptable to the religious right or whichever one is the default after that vote is split in the primary.

Posted by: JackStraw at November 15, 2008 06:03 PM (VW9/y)

59 The only way that McCain could have won the election was to prove that Big O is the massive libtard that we all knowhe is; but no, Big Mac had to 'rise above it all' and 'play nice with the other party.' He was unwilling to pin the financial melt down on the obviously guilty party: the same party that received all of the donations from Freddy and Fanny. The same party that covered up for FF in congress, when Bush and the Republicans tried to sound the warning. McCain is probably still looking forward to 'reaching across the aisle' in the Senate, justas he has for decades.
Anotherway McCain screwed the pooch was ignoring Rev Wright, who even Barry said was a legitimate issue. In fact, not just ignoring Wright, but lashing outat anyRepublican groupwilling to take on the issue. Probably the only reason McCain failed to defend Sarah Palin from his rogue campaign staff is that she had the balls to bring up the unrepentent domestic terrorist that Barry loves so much.
Other ways: The man-made global warming hoax; amnesty for illegal immigrants; campaign finance reform; fought against the Bush tax cuts; wants to shut down Gitmo; McCain-Feingold; McCain Kennedy; etc., etc., etc.
In short, he's always willing to work with the Dems while stabbing the Republicans in the back. I really don't think he would have made a good president. I'm sure he's probably a nice guy, but he's once again proven where 'nice guys' finish.

Posted by: RoadRunner at November 15, 2008 06:05 PM (R5wK8)

60 Rudy lost because he thought John McCain would not be a factor in the race and he did not anticipate Huckabee's entry either. He thought Romney was his chief competition. Romney thought Rudy was his chief competition. Crazy that it ended up being McCain vs. Huckabee. And everyone thought the Democrats would nominate Hillary. I'm not sure any of them would have had a better game plan against Barack Obama or could have raised enough money to compete with his $700 million plus the gargantuan free media he got.
I know for a fact that the Obama camp thought Romney would be the GOP nominee, and they had done millions of dollars of polling and message testing against him. They were even prepared to drop the "change" theme if he were the nominee because they would have had a much harder time tying him to Bush. It would have been a more traditional class warfare campaign positioning Romney as the rich guy and Obama as the champion of the middle class. And the results would have been just as bad.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2008 06:06 PM (iZqUY)

61 Rockmon #50 nails it, we really did splintered into many fractions with everyone choosing their own champion without thinking it through.They all felt that they havecompromised themselves under Bush Big Tent. They wanted their own man and no one is going to talk them out of it. The recentelection disaster istestament tosuch foolish short-sightedness.
However, to be fair, it was all those crossover Dem voters who took advantage of our open primaries and stuck us with McCain knowing who he is and what he'll do.
It never really seem that McCain really wants to win. Maybehe pulled his punches having conceded early that he really had no chance. He wasn't going to burn all his bridges for a lost cause.Watch him on Jay Leno and SNL, that's what McCain really live for, the adulation of the MSM and liberal establishment.
Having accomplished his mission, the Marvick is now free to go back to his old ways of poking us in the eye. But things have changed. McCain's defeat totally diminished his influence within the party as well as deflated all those National Review types who supported him. This time when he misbehaves, and he will,we'll just tell him where to get off.

Posted by: canuk at November 15, 2008 06:09 PM (vPj5M)

62 JackStraw - I liked Romney and eventually supported him, but only as the least bad option. I never bought him as a real conservative because, well, he isn't. I have a lot of family in Massachusetts and was well acquainted with his record as Governor as well as the stands he took when he ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy. I know he had to act more liberal to get elected in Massachusetts, and he had a liberal legislature to deal with, but he really just tread water for four years as Governor. There was nothing special about his governorship that recommended him as President.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2008 06:24 PM (iZqUY)

63 He couldn't even call Obama on driver's licenses for foreign scofflaws.

I'm reconsidering the bail-out, too. I don't know if it avoided the Great Depression, but I do know it let them off the hook and has set the stage for nationalizing every industry in America.

Posted by: Noel at November 15, 2008 06:31 PM (4gHqM)

64 It never really seem that McCain really wants to win. Maybehe pulled his punches having conceded early that he really had no chance. He wasn't going to burn all his bridges for a lost cause.Watch him on Jay Leno and SNL, that's what McCain really live for, the adulation of the MSM and liberal establishment.
There was a brief moment when I thought McCain really was in this to win it. But for the most part I always thought he wanted the nomination just to vindicate himself after what he thought Bush and Rove had done to take it away from him in 1980.
McCainis always at his best when he can either be funny or be gracious. That's why his two best moments of the campaign were the Al Smith dinner and his concession speech. He was ill suited for a hard underdog campaign where he had to get nasty and try to tear someone down.
I hope we learn from this NEVER to nominate a longtime Senator again. Serving in the Senate beats the nasty out of you, it causes you to enjoy compromising too much. I give Barack Obama a ton of credit for going for the presidency before he became ossified by the Senate. He may lack experience but he also lacks the barnacles that you inevitably grow if you are in the Senate too long.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2008 06:31 PM (iZqUY)

65 Oops -that's 2000, not 1980. Brain fart!

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2008 06:32 PM (iZqUY)

66 The best we can hope for in 2012 a smaller and less divisive set of candidates in 2011-2012. A quick resolution of the primary race to one between Palin and Jindal is ideal.

The Pubs must start with closing the primaries. Operation Chaos was fun, but useless. The Dems cause more damage to us than we do to them in cross-over primaries.

Also, a clearly understood and powerful set of unifying principles, coupled with something like the Contract with America from 1994 will magnify the strength and appeal of our candidates.

Posted by: eman at November 15, 2008 06:35 PM (2sxhq)

67 McCain is the Republican John Kerry. I hear they were both in Vietnam and I had to check their website to figure out what the fuck they both stand for.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at November 15, 2008 06:36 PM (iTDJo)

68 we really did splintered into many fractions with everyone choosing their own champion without thinking it through

That's a flaw in the way we do elections. One word. Runoffs.
Two words - instant runoffs.
While we're at it we could try to standardise the rules under which the state primaries are held. Either all "winner takes all" or none.

Posted by: flenser at November 15, 2008 06:37 PM (VPbWS)

69 I know he had to act more liberal to get elected in Massachusetts, and he had a liberal legislature to deal with, but he really just tread water for four years as Governor. There was nothing special about his governorship that recommended him as President.
Really? Well I live here and did through Romney's tenure. Tell me what exactly about his record, his actual record, in the most liberal state in the union was "nothing special".
His fight to have the income tax lowered?
His fight against gay marriage which earned him the eternal wrath of excitable Andi?
His balancing the budget which was badly out of whack without any tax increases, just a few fees on things like boat mooring at state parks and marriage licenses which haven't been raised in over 50 years?
Successfully attracting new companies to the state after years of them leaving?
His taking over and finally completing the Big Dig and fining of contractors who did shoddy work?
His actually accomplishing a universal health plan that is not run by the government and was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation?
In the private sector he absolutely saved a bankrupt Salt Lake City Olympics. He made more than a quarter billion helping found and advise on companies like Staples, Dominoes, Brookstones, etc., etc.. He was named by Forbes as one of the top US executives.
Name me anybody else in the race, and that includes Palin, who has accomplished what he did both in the private and public sectors.
Had he been born a Baptist he would have been the nominee, no question.

Posted by: JackStraw at November 15, 2008 06:40 PM (VW9/y)

70 So exactly what did any of you armchair quarterbacks DO to keep John McCain from being our nominee?

I picked a different nominee, donated to him, and voted for him. I don't know what you would have had me do, rockmom.

It wasn't our year.

Posted by: toby928 at November 15, 2008 06:43 PM (PD1tk)

71 He deserves all the blame for the credit/financial debacle. It happened on his watch and he did NOTHING.

You mean other than warning about what was coming? Suggest you reread your constitution, particularly Article 1. Presidents don't write legislation, nor do they have the power of the purse.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 15, 2008 06:47 PM (OqXyp)

72 72 Purple Avenger - good thought

Posted by: Wolverine at November 15, 2008 07:08 PM (/Zcox)

73 Going against the bailout would have been both right for the country and a brilliant political move. When it came down to it, though McCain and the Cantors of the world were still all about carrying water for George Bush. And McCain showed an inability to even think well about the breaking situation. The whole flailing around with the debate...the Cox firing comment etc...showed that he had no real anchor of principles to explain to him what his position should be.

Posted by: TCO at November 15, 2008 07:10 PM (nfuZQ)

74 We have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing open elections in the first place. If you haven't got the balls to register as a rebublican, you have no right voting in our primaries. We have to insist on closed primaries from the get-go. The last thing we need in the primaries is "a big tent"

Posted by: hephaestus at November 15, 2008 07:19 PM (Cw3bd)

75 I wonder how much of the inadequacy of Republican candidates is due to the aversion conservatives have to wholeheartedly getting behind politicians. While this is a more sensible and correct stance to take, it doesn't help much when election time rolls around and a candidate in the opposition has a huge following of people who clearly are not only devoted to him. And this is the rule when it comes to Democrat candidates -- remember how wild Kerry's supporters were for him? While the rest of us were going, "Eh, I guess we'll have to vote for Bush, anything to keep Kerry out, but gee I wish Reagan would rise from the dead."

Reagan was actually one of the few Republican candidates in my memory to have actual fans, not just voters who put up with him because he was the one on the ticket. And he was by no means perfect. Usually our attitude to anyone wanting to be the president is "he must be insane." Even the people on our side. No wonder we can't get a decent candidate -- what sane person would want to run the gauntlet of rabid Democrats ("A Republican! He's a witch, he's a witch -- burn him! Burn him!") versus "Ew, is that the best we can do?" from his own side. The only thing that came close to the Reagan-love was the response to Sarah Palin, and I could already see the cynical, suspicious tendencies rising -- such as the hysterical oh-no-we-iz-doomed reaction to the Katie Couric interview. (I mean, so Couric made Palin look like an idiot -- Couric is an airhead who has been promoted way above her abilities and she makes everyone she interviews look like an idiot.)

I'm not sure what the solution is. Personally I found the Reagan adoration to be over the top; I can't stand slavish, over-enthusiastic adoration, it's just undignified. We certainly can't start flinging ourselves around like ignorant peasants the way the Obamites do. But maybe we could come down off our high horses a little and start treating the politicians on our side as if they were human beings instead of noxious insects.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 15, 2008 07:21 PM (Aik/c)

76 Whups. This -- "a huge following of people who clearly are not only devoted to him" should have been continued to say "but who back him 100%."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 15, 2008 07:23 PM (Aik/c)

77 I never understood how McCain got the nomination. Some suggest a crossover vote from Democrats, but that doesn't make sense to me since the race between Obama and Hillary was so close (I just don't think Democrats would have sacrificed there say in the Democratic primaries to vote for McCain). On the other hand, I haven't heard many Republicans who supported McCain in the primaries, so how did he get the nomination?

Posted by: mark at November 15, 2008 07:26 PM (Kl3z0)

78 Interesting article by Jonah Goldberg on the soul of the GOP - do we need social conservatives:
http://tinyurl.com/6d38jq

Posted by: Wolverine at November 15, 2008 07:27 PM (/Zcox)

79 I'm not sure what the solution is.
Losing. Reagan only became an icon after we got treated to 4 years of Carter after years of Nixon/Ford. People are awfully quick now to toss Bush under the bus forgetting that he gave us 2 outstanding SC judges and was the first president, well ever, to fight back against the Islamic nuts without apology. He stood awfully tall against unrelenting pressure from the msm, the left and the "world". Yea, he wasn't perfect but I am pretty ashamed at how shabbily our side treated someone who gave 8 years to fighting his ass off for us, often with no support at all. In about 6 months we will all be wistful for the salad days of George Bush.
Nothing focuses the mind like 4 years in the wilderness.

Posted by: JackStraw at November 15, 2008 07:33 PM (VW9/y)

80 Newt is the only guy with the talk an the ideas to back it up. Of course the RNC will pick on of their own, without a clue.

Posted by: lions at November 15, 2008 07:36 PM (KJ7XN)

81 McCain was too interested in getting back to being a senator where he would be loved and respected by the LLMSM again for slamming republicans to run a campaign for the presidency.
I hope he enjoys the next four years. He should only drop dead the first time he stands up in the senate.

Posted by: emdfl at November 15, 2008 07:41 PM (N1uaO)

82 I'm not sure there's much to be gained for us to be seen "eating our own."

Eating
our own? That's not what we're doing. We're proposing expelling from
midst those who are NOT our own, but pretend to be so.

Editor, I have huge respect for you. I wasn't referring to purging the GOP of poseurs. I was referring to the McCain-bashing. I agree with every last sad word of it, but just not sure it's productive. He's kinda like a bad boyfriend, best to just put it behind us.Sorry for the late response, I've been watching California burn. By 3:30, even here in Venice, many miles from any fires, the sky darkened and yellowed and it looked like the end of the world. Very eerie stuff.

Posted by: CB at November 15, 2008 07:44 PM (9Wv2j)

83 I wanted Duncan Hunter! No one's heard of him (still?), but he was the best person for the job.Qualifications and ideasnever seemed to matter in this age of Oprah.

Posted by: Barry Popik at November 15, 2008 08:09 PM (j+hp6)

84 Is RWS in the witness protection program these days.
I haven't heard much from her recently.
It's odd.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at November 15, 2008 08:11 PM (nOQ1R)

85 I hope he enjoys the next four years. He should only drop dead the first time he stands up in the senate.
I don't want him dead, but why doesn't he just retire with his pretty wife and take it easy, and quit trying to tell others what to do, when he clearly doesn't have the knack for it?
Just gohome John, and let the younger chargers have at it, okay? Please, it has gotten to the point where if you fuck over one more Republican candidate or idea, I might lose it. Please. Stop.Now.

Posted by: sherlock at November 15, 2008 08:12 PM (ojW85)

86 "...McCain and the Cantors of the world were still all about carrying water for George Bush"
Posted by: TCO
If McCain had really been carrying water for Bush, we would not have had filibusters on federal judges on every stinking level. Now Obama will get every fucking liberal/communist/terrorist sympathizerjudge (for life)he nominates.McCain stabbed Bush and us in the back many times, while supporting him on enough things for the Demopcrats to not want him in their party. Fuck him.

Posted by: John F Not Kerry at November 15, 2008 08:17 PM (HF2US)

87 However, to be fair, it was all those crossover Dem voters who took advantage of our open primaries and stuck us with McCain knowing who he is and what he'll do.
I have to agree w/ you that this was of major importance in what went down. For starters, I knew lots of people who had strong opinions in support of their favorite primary candidate. Some like Huckabee, some Guiliani, many Thompson. Not once did I hear of anyone supporting McCain...not once. No yard signs, bumper stickers, NOTHING. I live in SC and saw many cars sporting various bumper stickers saw many signs out on highways, etc. Again, NOTHING on McCain. Pre primary polls always had him barely a blip on the screen...very low in %. Then BOOM, he's our nominee. I was dumbfounded. How did it happen? Just doesn't make much sense because he had no visible support. My only conclusion is crossover primary "mischief." So much so to the degree that we were stuck with McCain.
So exactly what did any of you armchair quarterbacks DO to keep John McCain from being our nominee?
I know many people that did quite a bit to support their favored candidate, myself included. This "armchair quarterback" gave quite a bit of $$ to Thompson, and made hundreds of calls for his campaign, as well as pass out literature, etc., when he came to town. First time ever I was politically active, btw. And you?

Posted by: Twinks at November 15, 2008 08:28 PM (7QUxD)

88 Query:

How do you get the real conservative out of the primary and into the general election? I think we all (or most) agree that conservative principles are election winners, but all that comes out of the primaries are Democrat lite.

Posted by: rls at November 15, 2008 08:38 PM (k4h7p)

89 I find it interesting that the oh-so-sucessful McCain aides' cracking on Palin is consensus as failure on Palin's part. Give McCain's, his aides', and the media's success ratio, their condemnation o Palin should be resounding FUCKING SUCCESS.Fuck you, Johnny Mac, and your passive campaign. Fuck your incompetent aides in the ass for their failures and ass-covering, may you never be employed in a Republican contest, cowards and pussies. Fuck you media...well, you know why. Nice thing is, we have the media tools now on the intertubes to play your lies and prevaricaion sover to discredit anything you say in the future. Chris Matthews, if I knew you were that easy?

Posted by: Frank G at November 15, 2008 08:39 PM (P0rQD)

90 Not my words, but Jeff's over at Protein WisdoM

Ideas. Principles. Clearly articulated: Freedom, self-determination,
smaller government, less government intrusion, an end to subjective
ethics, a fidelity to the rule of law, a conservative judicial
philosophy, a strong national defense, a colorblind society, equality
of opportunity over equality of outcome.

Sounds like a winner to me.

Posted by: rls at November 15, 2008 08:45 PM (k4h7p)

91 Hmmmm.

@ JackStraw

Romney? What about that healthcare plan in Mass. that's bankrupting the state?

How's that working out?

Posted by: memomachine at November 15, 2008 08:52 PM (f4Zt4)

92 Last year I was pretty excited to be able to be around and informed for the primaries and living in a swing state (FL) for a change. Every other primary I'd been in the military and registered in a state where my primary vote wouldn't have mattered.

I was excited about Teh Fred. I loved what he had to say about first principles and Federalism and his slams on Michael Moore. He was somebody I could really get behind.

When he dropped out just before I could vote for him, my heart just wasn't in the primaries. I wasn't solidly convinced about any of the rest of them and just couldn't bring myself to vote for the lesser of evils.

I eventually got behind JM when I realized what a horrible choice for our country BHO would be. If Hillary had won the nom, I could have sat back and accepted her as President without heartache.

When JM picked Sarah, I thought it said great things about him--that he wanted to govern, that he wanted to actually change things, and that he really was a fighter. I expected the war horse jet jockey to be a fighter and he wasn't.

He asked me to stand up and fight and I did--making calls, donating money for the first time ever--then the fucker rolled over. He bought into the bailout, then pointed the finger at Wall Street greed instead of the Dems, which crawled right up my ass.

I really fucking hate that about him. Now I'll always have doubts about a candidate that I think deserves my efforts and support.

I honor his service but wish he would quietly and immediately retire. I have a really bad feeling that he's about to give me a whole bnch of fresh reasons to hate him.

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at November 15, 2008 08:56 PM (hmDr/)

93 Hmmmmm.

"I honor his service but wish he would quietly and immediately retire. I
have a really bad feeling that he's about to give me a whole bnch of
fresh reasons to hate him."

Yeah. That's John McCain all over.

sigh.

Posted by: memomachine at November 15, 2008 08:58 PM (f4Zt4)

94 How about a special election to replace the old duffer with JD Hayworth?
I could get behind that.

Posted by: enter sandman at November 15, 2008 09:16 PM (rsQtd)

95 He was a mediocre pilot too. My uncleflew with him.

Posted by: TCO at November 15, 2008 09:27 PM (nfuZQ)

96 Perhaps it might be a good idea in the future to have certain portions of the GOP base cool it a mite with the "If _______ is our nominee, I won't vote for him/will vote for the Democrat".
That just guarantees that the mushiest compromise candidate will get the nomination for the inevitable throat-slitting in November.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at November 15, 2008 09:35 PM (RWmCt)

97 Andrea;

I guess I'm a Reagan "fan". I've got a post up right now at Cold Fury with Reagan's take on "Hope" and "Change". I hope it's not some Cult of Personality or some Daddy issue. I don't really think so.

I study Reagan because it was his ideas that made me a conservative in the first place. He had a coherent, cogent and moral conservative philosophy he was able to convey to others without a mean bone in his body. He stood up alone to Communist thugs in Hollywood. He stood up alone to Communist thugs in the world until others were either shamed or inspired into standing up with him. He was a winner. He was a patriot. He was a leader. Bush has done many good things, but you will struggle to identify a consistent core philosophy. Not so with Reagan. We need to learn and re-learn What Ronnie Knew. Now more than ever.

Posted by: Noel at November 15, 2008 09:35 PM (4gHqM)

98 DO NOT NOMINATE A LONG TERM SENATOR.

Please, have we learned nothing?????????

McCain's monkey love to "his friends" in the senate not only torched part of the constitution but his determination to reach across the F'ing aisle hamstrung Bush and republicans many times.

I sucked it up for the team, however now I can return to my firm conviction the John McCain is an ASSHOLE and we got screwed in the primary with that fake tanned, douche Crist.

Get lost, McCain and don't try to screw us over during your remaining time in the senate. We will run you out of town on the blogs. Your reputation will be toast and the only one crying at your funeral will be Ted Kennedy, Liberman and the democratic party.

Posted by: mare at November 15, 2008 09:35 PM (X1fsj)

99 Currently running in my 2012 simulator: Romney-Palin or Plain-Romney. The experience card is, apparently, a non-issue (look who won this time); so what say you of this duo (in either order), forgetting whether the two would run together. Would Palin sufficiently negate the LDS issue (assuming it's a real issue)? Would such a ticket work? Running the simulator on R-P or P-R helps clarify what it will take to de-Obama-ize our beloved republic.

Posted by: FloofyParisParamus at November 15, 2008 09:49 PM (x/5U+)

100 I'm not sure what the solution is.
You amputate the gangrenous limbs. You cut out the cancer and undergo chemotherapy.
We know what needs to be done. We've known for a long time.
Now it's time to do it.

Posted by: Bender at November 15, 2008 09:54 PM (62LLx)

101 And in retrospect, now that the initial gut-wrenching has passed, I'm actually glad McCain lost.

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at November 15, 2008 09:57 PM (hmDr/)

102 OK, so the first priorites in unfucking this goat rodeo are:

New RNC chair.

New RNC chair forces states to close primaries or they lose their delegates. No more fence-jumpers looking to pick a weak opponent or sucking up in bipartisanship.

RNC reorganization. Organization to be patterned after a military staff model. Personnel, Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, public affairs, communications. That professional staff will run all national campaigns and advise all GOP presidential primary campaigns. None of this amateur-night intern garbage that doomed Fred and Ron Paul.

RNC media department starts groundwork to go all online and AM/FM/satellite talk radio. The MSM is one of our biggest enemies. Fuck them. They get no access to our candidates. Fox News either shows loyalty like an old-time Mafia family, or they get left out in the cold too. Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric get no chance to ambush our people in canned, agressively edited interviews.

Reschedule primaries by percentage of state that went Republican. No more New Hampshire weirdoes or Iowa ethanol-huffing farm-subsidy monkeys picking the early front runner. Let's let Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Texas get us out the gate for once and see how that works.

RNC issues six to eight point Statement of Doctrine NLT the run-up for the 2010 congressional elections. There will be nothing in that statement about bipartisanship. The Left is the enemy. You negotiate with an enemy with a boot on his throat and a gun to their head. We saw how they tried to "play nice" with us, so I vote we fuck them back first.

We steal the DNC's funding model, and we'll turn off the card verification too if we have to. If Brits, Canadians, and other people of the free world want to reinforce the party that will fight to save civilization, let them.

State GOP committees, with oversight from a competent RNC, ensure no Democrat runs unopposed from city council on up in 2010. Hopefully at this point buyer's remorse over Obamalamadingdong will be setting in and the Dow will be about 2500. A clear statement of why our side is better and will turn the tide will go a long way toward unseating some of these state legislative and Congressional Dems. Make Obambi fight a hostile Congress for his last two years. Get state governments that will help assure clean elections in '12.

After 2010, the primaries probably start. First rule, no fucking Senators. None of this "my esteemed colleage" shit. We get ourselves a couple vicious dogs with clear principles and clean track records. Palin, Jindal, maybe some rising star we don't know yet. At this point the dumbshit college Obama zombies are in the work force and are seeing how much of their income goes to taxes.

And the last rule, nothing is off the table in the 2012 campaign. Wright, Ayers, illegal funding, every mistake he makes between '08 and '12, ACORN, vote fraud, the Black Panthers at voting places. Sure, we get called racists. Black America is 18 percent of the electorate, we can win without them.

We are at war for the future of American civilization, and if America goes, the world goes with it and the Islamics inherit the wreckage. Fuck that. I refuse to see that happen.

Posted by: SGT Dan at November 15, 2008 09:59 PM (nranl)

103 [McCain] was ill suited for a hard underdog campaign where he had to get nasty and try to tear someone down.

Why the fuck not? He has no trouble stabbing other Republicans, there's no reason why couldn't he do the same to Democrats.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 15, 2008 10:02 PM (bMJ2V)

104 And if some RNC official sees this and is impressed with my genius, I am available as of 4 January 09 for paid employment.

Posted by: SGT Dan at November 15, 2008 10:02 PM (nranl)

105 Also, Christian voters are stupid. After McCain blew a gasket and called us "agents of intolerance" because he lost South Carolina in 2000, and then came back kissing our sweet, sweet butt cheeks in 2008 because he suddenly realized he needed our votes to win, we should have told him to go pound sand. But no, we were all like, forgive and forget, so now we're all singing the praises of the jug-eared commie.

Sorry, America.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 15, 2008 10:10 PM (bMJ2V)

106 Yes, why in the hell would we conduct primaries in states that are full of liberals and mushy republicans?

I think Texas needs to be a primary site.

New Hampshire, bite me.

AND CLOSED PRIMARIES. You independents can bite me, too.
(with regard to primaries)

Posted by: mare at November 15, 2008 10:11 PM (X1fsj)

107 We steal the DNC's funding model, and we'll turn off the card
verification too if we have to.

And then the MSM will suddenly discover the potential for illegal contributions in this set-up, and unlike the way they didn't report it when Obama was doing it, they will plaster the airwaves and newspapers with 24/7 coverage of illegal contributions being accepted by Republicans. Suddenly, loose credit card security will be made into a national scandal, and Republicans will be blamed.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 15, 2008 10:15 PM (bMJ2V)

108 The entire republican party needs to do what Rudy did. Boycott all the primaries/caucuses before Super Tuesday. It's stupid to let two electorally insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire pick who gets the pole position at the start of the race. And it can't just be to not count the delegates like the democrats did. The problem is not the lead in delegates. It's the hyperventilating press coverage attached to the leader that gives them momentum. The rule has to be that anyone who puts their name in a primary before Super Tuesday is prohibited from being the nominee for the republicans.

Posted by: WTO at November 15, 2008 10:22 PM (AvBFl)

109
The elections in 2010 will tell us who the serious candidates will be in 2012. Anybody with a hope of running in 2012 will be out there stumping and fund raising from congressional and gubernatorial candidates, oh, and secretaries of state. That SoS campaign that Soros has been funding really paid off for the corrupt fucking bastards - we've got to take those offices back.

After 2010 we will see who raised the most money, who got the most candidates elected, who drew the biggest crowds and who is now owed the most by the most elected officials. Then we'll pick one of our brilliant young governors like Jindal or Palin and kick some serious ass.

Posted by: Ronsonic at November 15, 2008 11:29 PM (ywSvi)

110 Chris Cilizza has a good column up at the Washington Post - Five Myths About Campaign 2008. Pretty comforting for our side.
1. The election was a death blow to the GOP.
2. Obama won with massive turnout of new black and young voters.
3. Some other Republican could have beaten Obama.
4. Obama/Reid/Pelosi will usher in a new Progressive Era.
5. Sarah Palin hurt McCain.

Posted by: rockmom at November 15, 2008 11:34 PM (iZqUY)

111 Gimme a break. Even if we had run Jesus against Obama, Obama would have won. Can you say "historical inevitability?"

Posted by: Patrick Joubert Conlon at November 16, 2008 12:49 AM (5ycMj)

112 I firmly believe NO Republican could have won this year. I think McCain had the best showing we could hope for and probably saved some Senate and Congressional seats (they had expected to get 30+, they got around 20)

Romney? Please. Huckabee? The rightnutroots hated him more than McCain. Guiliani? He couldn't win a single state in the primaries, obviously not a fav of the base either. So exactly WHO do you propose is better?

Patterico has been full of shit on a number of issues over the campaign, so his gloating is just more bullshit. He's the closest thing to a blogging troll on the internet, constantly in bait mode.

Posted by: ms. docweasel at November 16, 2008 01:27 AM (SOSlE)

113 102
And in retrospect, now that the initial gut-wrenching has passed, I'm actually glad McCain lost.

Posted by: ConcernedCitizen at November 15, 2008 09:57 PM (hmDr/)\Well, excuse me saying so, but you're a fucking moron. I have read conservative after conservative bash McCain. If you think Obama will name better judges than ANY Republican would have, you are ignorant or stupid, or both. Fuck you hard right neanderthals. Maybe if there had been more full-throated support for McCain from Malkin/Limbaugh/Various rightwingnuts we wouldn't have a socialist as president who will undermine the WOT and destroy conservative issues one by one. So bitter against McCain you'd cut off your nose to spite your own face. Dumbasses, every McCain hater, all dumbasses.

Posted by: ms. docweasel at November 16, 2008 01:32 AM (SOSlE)

114 McCain wasn't unwilling to do it, he was simply too stupid to do it.

"I cannot imagine any candidate except McCain being unwilling to pin blame for Fannie/Freddie/CRA on the Democrats."

McCain didn't graduate at the bottom of this Naval Academy class for no reason.

Posted by: PrestoPundit at November 16, 2008 01:57 AM (yKV7p)

115 Hey Weasel, it was the conservatives who actually voted for that pr*ck. Go bitch to all your moderate and independent friends who claimed to love McCain and then all of them voted for Obama.

Posted by: Bender at November 16, 2008 02:15 AM (62LLx)

116 ...I thought the bailout was the right policy to avert disaster. (I am slowly reconsidering that.)

If the Government could be trusted to handle the situation responsibly, and they limited themselves to what they said they'd use the money for, and they spent it wisely; it wouldn't have completely sucked, and might have helped if the definition of the problem were accurate.

But none of those premises are true, are they? Were these believable premises before they f***ed it up?

Yes, it might have been the right solution if we knew the problem was as stated and we had trustworthy, sober, responsible people to handle the mechanics of the bailout itself.

But we also wouldn't need cars if we all had unicorns to ride... and we've got the same number of trustworthy, sober, responsible people in D.C. as we've got unicorns.

Well, that may be untrue. Someone might have a unicorn somewhere; I'm not willing to dismiss that out of hand.

Posted by: Gekkobear at November 16, 2008 03:38 AM (Dxjrb)

117 re: 116

well if conservatives had been spending more time tearing down Obama and less bitching about McCain maybe independents and others wouldn't have. Half the bad stuff repeated about McCain was done by our side. I saw Malkin bashing him on Fox the week of the election. No one who didn't wholeheartedly support McCain has any room to whinge about the loss, none whatsoever.

Also, the chickenhawks who didn't volunteer and give as much as they could afford should stfu as well. I volunteered before Super Tues when it became plain Rudy (my first choice) was out of the running and worked all summer for McCain, as did my bf and a couple other writers on our blog. I still feel pride that we fought as hard as we could and this just wasn't the GOP's year.

The people saying McCain wasn't nasty or tough enough are full of crap. It would have worked against him with a character like Obama. America loves it's celebutards, and Obama is the king of them right now.

Posted by: ms. docweasel at November 16, 2008 04:20 AM (SOSlE)

118 I'll be addressing this subject, and the related subject of the continuing campaign to destroy Sarah Palin, on Eternity Road on the Air atBlog Talk Radio this evening at 7:00 PM New York Time.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at November 16, 2008 07:07 AM (GY/ii)

119 I was never big for McCain - was in fact against until he picked Palin. Sure, it was post convention bounce, but they were leading until the economy croaked, if Obama had been less of a cipher, he wouldn't ever have been in that position.
McCain could have won it if he had reacted the right way to events. I posted somewhere here how I thought it would go down - that McCain would return to his instinct of being like Democrats.
And so he lost. Maybe he could have pulled it out had he gone on the offense and not adopted the language of his enemies - we can't know. But his path was the surest way to defeat.

Posted by: blaster at November 16, 2008 11:30 AM (KpEAZ)

120 We can't win because the primary process is so corrupted.
Lots of non-republicans are voting in the primary..
I haven't heard much noise about fixing this yet

Posted by: Village Idiot at November 16, 2008 11:53 AM (NJvYJ)

121 Here's my six at sixty
A Bright FutureA Revitalized Commitment to the Principles of the American RevolutionFairness and the Rule of LawAn End to Racial, Sexual, Gender preferencesAn end to special-interest government and a zero tolerance commitment to integrityWe are going to fix the broken, corrupt tax and spending machine

Posted by: motionview at November 16, 2008 02:37 PM (O2JNY)

122 re 120 blaster
sorry, but baloney. In my opinion, backed up by solid FACTS, McCain never had a chance in this election, and the financial crisis sealed his doom no matter what he did. Consider:

... much of the blame for McCain's loss seems to have fallen at the feet of the candidate and his advisers, who (so the narrative goes) made a series of lousy strategic decisions that wound up costing the Arizona senator the White House. There's little question that some of the choices McCain and his team made -- the most obvious being the impulsive decision to suspend his campaign and try to broker a deal on the financial rescue bill, only to see his efforts blow up in his face -- did not help. But a look at this year's political atmospherics suggests that the environment was so badly poisoned that no Republican -- not Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, not even the potential future GOP savior, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal -- could have beaten Obama on Nov. 4.
Why not? Three words (and a middle initial): President George W. Bush.
In the national exit poll, more than seven in 10 voters said that they disapproved of the job Bush was doing; not surprisingly, Obama resoundingly won that group, 67 percent to 31 percent. But here's an even more stunning fact: While 7 percent of the exit-poll sample strongly approved of the job Bush was doing, a whopping 51 percent strongly disapproved. Obama won those strong disapprovers 82 percent to 16 percent. And Bush's approval numbers looked grim for the GOP even before the September financial meltdown.
Just one in five voters in the national exit polls said that the country was "generally going in the right direction." McCain won that group 71 percent to Obama's 27 percent. But among the 75 percent of voters who said that the country was "seriously off on the wrong track," Obama had a thumping 26-point edge.
Those numbers speak to the damage that eight years of the Bush administration have done to the Republican brand. It's a burden that any candidate running for president with an "R" after his -- or her -- name would have had to drag around the country....
There's a reason politicians from the same party of a sitting 2 term president do or do not win their party's "3rd term"
A. Bush I followed a very popular Reagan
2. Gore followed a scandal plagued president of which the electorate had long since wearied, even if his popularity had not cratered like:
III. GWBush, whose popularly is just south of Osama bin Laden's in a majority of American's minds. People are unhappy with Bush -unfairly, I believe, he gets zero credit for keeping us safe since 9/11 and winning 2 wars and delivering 2 countries who suffered untold hardships under terrible tyrannies into their first democratic governments ever, and in fact, the first in their regions to be _truly_ democratic (I do not find Pakistan such).
Since Bush is getting such a raw deal, 7 years of bashing takes hold. This is why I feel we should bash Obama early and often, and NEVER LET UP. It's the duty of every good Republican and conservative to return the reins of government to the righteous, which is us.
Also, the GOP and it's members should totally reject the MSM and ignore them in the next cycle. We should take our fight directly to the people and neutral news services like Fox and Breitbart and the rightblogs. Obama paid zero price for boycotting Fox, the alphabet networks should be persona non grata to every GOP politician and we should also refuse to talk to pollsters. They do us no good anyway. It's going to take total war to get back on track, and we need to fight them on their own terms.

Grassroot local help in local elections is also vital. That's what we are focusing on right now, local Tampa and Florida statewide races.
(To the asshole moderator who keeps deleting my comments and the link to my screen-name, calling me a spammer, we'll happily hand over the password and account for our Fuck Obama t-shirts to Ace himself if you don't trust we are working to elect Republicans and plan on giving 100% of the very low profits to local races.)

Posted by: ms. docweasel at November 16, 2008 02:59 PM (SOSlE)

123 Had McCain gone against the bailout, he would have led the Republicans in Congress to stop it AND would have gotten elected.

"Being tough" on Obama in terms of blathering about Rev Wright and other gotcha crap was never gonna cut it. First, it was already used up from the Clinton campaign, secondly it was chicken shit.
I am always amazed by the RINOs who consider themselves conservatives on this site and others who are more worried about Obama hanging out with Jane Fonda types than trillions of dollars of give aways.

Posted by: TCO at November 16, 2008 04:46 PM (nfuZQ)

124 I'm a bit late to this thread, and haven't read all the comments, but it seems to me that any Republican candidate, no matter how good the campaign, faced a steep uphill battle.

Whitehouse controlled by same party for eight years, and president's approval rating in the toilet. Control of congress by same party for 6 of last 8 years. Economy going downhill, and then tanking weeks before the election.

The Democrat had a strong organization and simply hung the failures of Bush and the Republican congress around McCain's neck.

Throw in a press openly working for Obama and it's actually amazing that McCain did as well as he did. McCain could have done some things better, but I doubt he could have won.

Bush and the congressional Republicans have damaged the brand, that needs to be fixed. Obama was able to link McCain to that brand, even though the link was not strong.

Does anyone really think another candidate would have done better ? I don't.

Posted by: jbarntt at November 16, 2008 07:02 PM (qSalV)

125 re125 jbarntt
exactly so

This is one reason the 'eeyorism' of Ace and others, who snidely derided those who disagreed with them of wanting only "happy talk" is and was bullshit

resolved: we all wanted to see Obama defeated, and that by and large, having McCain, while not perfect, was preferable to Obama with an unfettered Congress rubberstamping each other's excesses:

So how does "realism" and constantly wailing "WEER GONNA LOOZE!" help achieve that? It doesn't. It helps depress turnout. Realistically assessing our chances and offering suggestions on how we can maximize our chances helps. Whinging about how we're already beaten does not.

And now, in the post-mortems, while it's fine to opine this way or that about how the campaign was run, even though all signs point to the fact that no GOP candidate could have won, it's a stupid fucking statement to say "I'm actually glad McCain lost" like that's going to "purify" the GOP. The old GOP is dead. Demographics is destiny, and the number of Hispanics in the vital western and southern states is not going to do anything but rise as a percentage of voters. Unless we find a way to appeal to them, every single conservative voter and a large percentage of independent white voters can vote GOP and we'll still lose, and badly. And we'll continue to trail in seats in the house and senate.

Up until now there has been a see-saw battle in house and senate majorities. Demographics, especially in the South and West, GOP strongholds, is skewing that Democratic. We've lost the Northeast. With Sununu's defeat, there ain't a single damn GOP Senator left in the N.E. and damn few governors. We start losing Florida, the Carolinas (we almost lost Georgia) and the SouthWest, we're out of business, people. We'll never elect a president again.

This is one of the reasons, besides simple social justice, I don't see hard core immigration bashing and retribution as a recipe for getting back to the majority or the presidency.

Posted by: ms. docweasel at November 17, 2008 05:14 PM (SOSlE)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0386 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0242 seconds, 133 records returned.
Page size 118 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.