Posted on 03/06/2007 9:52:27 AM PST by meg88
John McCain and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Campaign by Sean P. Trende (More by this author)
Posted: 03/05/2007 About a month ago, Howard Fineman opined that the leading 2008 Presidential candidates could be paired into three groups. In Fineman’s view, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Barack Obama represent their respective parties’ “Charismatic” candidates, while former Sen. John Edwards and former Gov. Mitt Romney are “Base-Wooers.” Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain are described as “Practicals.”
Inasmuch as such a Manichean view of the candidates is useful, McCain is better paired with Edwards, not Clinton. Both Edwards and McCain are former presidential candidates who had done surprisingly well in previous long-shot campaigns. Both, however, have run truly abysmal campaigns so far this cycle.
The problems with McCain’s candidacy date back to the collapse of his 2000 campaign. While it is common knowledge that McCain has a “base problem,” many have forgotten just how a cenator with a reasonably conservative record earned the enmity of so many conservatives. In early February of 2000, McCain shocked the political world by upending George W. Bush by 18 points in the New Hampshire primary. Bush righted his ship a few weeks later with a victory in South Carolina. But the following week McCain rallied in his native Arizona and in Michigan, winning a double victory. This set the stage for a battle royale in the Virginia primary.
The race was tight, but McCain -- who was increasingly on thin ice with the conservative base due to his comfortable relationship with the media and open courting of independents and Democrats during the primary season -- committed a horrendous pair of errors that haunt him to this day. On February 28, he compared leaders of the Religious Right to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and activist leader Rev. Al Sharpton. The following day he accused the Rev. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell of wielding “an evil influence” over the Republican Party.
McCain apologized quickly, but the damage was done. The conservative base and its evangelical subset are more heterodox than the national media caricature, but the deliberate assault on a substantial segment of the party was too much for loyalists of all stripes to bear. He lost Virginia by 10 points. His campaign never recovered any momentum, and though he won a handful of New England primaries on the following week’s “Super Tuesday,” the race was essentially over.
Thus, McCain’s task for this campaign has been to rebuild his bridges with the base of his party. He has emphasized his pro-life credentials, which are definitely the strongest among the “Big Three” of McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. He found religion on tax cuts, and now supports extending the Bush tax cuts. He spoke at a graduation at Rev. Falwell’s Liberty University. And perhaps most importantly, he has been a staunch supporter of the Bush Administration’s troop surge in Iraq.
Yet his campaign has stumbled badly. He began by announcing his campaign on the David Letterman show, where ’96 nominee Bob Dole had announced his ill-fated candidacy. Comparisons to the Republicans’ last septuagenarian candidate were not what the 70-year-old McCain needed. He worsened matters by referring to lives lost in the Iraq war as “wasted,” instantly dissipating much of the goodwill he had built up among conservatives with his support of the war.
He then made the curious choice to skip one of the major conservative events of the year: The 34th Conservative Political Action Conference. This was a major mistake, as about the only good thing to come out of it is that it is difficult for the mainstream media to tie McCain to Ann Coulter’s controversial comments at CPAC -- comments which have also breathed some life into the campaign of McCain’s pair, John Edwards.
Any minor advantage gained from this, though, was more than offset in two ways. First, McCain missed a critical opportunity to address conservative activists. Candidates who have had problems with the base such as Romney and Giuliani generally performed well, and may have allayed some of the base’s fears regarding their candidacies. Even Sen. Arlen Specter was politely received. It was more than a mere missed opportunity, though, as McCain also further alienated his base. “Once Again, McCain Snubs Conservatives” fumed Redstate, while Captain’s Quarters noted that McCain’s absence was not a “Profile in Political Courage.” McCain also did damage to his image as a straight-talking reformer, as Race42008.com reported that McCain’s operatives anonymously pushed personal attacks on Giuliani.
The polls and political markets have picked up on this. In almost all national polls, Giuliani has now opened up a significant lead on the senator. McCain finished a weak fifth in the CPAC straw poll, and had to rally at the last minute for a weak 2-vote win over Giuliani in the Spartanburg, South Carolina poll. The frighteningly-accurate futures markets at Tradesports/Intrade have measured a 50% decrease in McCain’s odds of winning the nomination since January, and he now lags a surging Giuliani and is in real danger of falling behind a steadily-increasing Romney.
McCain’s problem is that conservatives will always be suspicious of him, making any overtures toward the center nearly impossible. At the same, further movement toward the Right will cost him support among Democrats and Independents he needs to win the general election. There are no easy answers to the senator’s dilemma, but there is a cautionary tale for future candidates: It is one thing to disagree with your base on some issues, but it is another altogether to attack your base. McCain now finds himself in the same weakened position as Edwards, though for a very different set of reasons. Both candidates need to figure out ways to right their ships, quickly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Trende is a Richmond attorney whose Human Events column on election matters appears on Mondays. The views expressed are the author's alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
The article doesn't address the central issues of McCain-Feingold or his Goup of 14 antics. It is these, as much as anything that have angered what's called 'his' base.
As bad as Kerry's.
McCain is the lone Republican candidate that I cannot vote for under any circumstances. If it's him and Hillary, I stay home on election day.
"The article doesn't address the central issues of McCain-Feingold or his Goup of 14 antics. It is these, as much as anything that have angered what's called 'his' base."
By his own admission, "his base" has been the LameStreamMedia for some time, not the grass roots of the GOP. He has not angered "his base"; he's angered the grass roots of the GOP, and not just recently, but for quite a long time.
His "independence" is nothing more than the fact that he has no principles that might hold him to the advocacy of positions and policies that stem from a common core set of beliefs and values other the the belief in the value of doing what he thinks is popular or that which will get him attention as a "maverick".
In one of his most unconservative beliefs, he admits to thinking that freedom of speech should not be paramount over and above him and his liberal friends obtaining a legal definition of "corrupt money influence", to be kept out of election campaigns. On that lack of constitutional principles, the edifice of defining that "corruption", once (now) accepted, becomes limited only to the reach of the incumbent politicians desire to close-off more venues of political expression; which is exactly what the current Dim majority in Congress is seeking to do.
McPain is no conservative, he's an authoritarian.
Tou are 110% correct. He is a back stabber and I would even say a boarderline traitor. Oh, and by the way, didn't he bust a bunch of airplanes while in the service? Him, and JFK both committed major destruction on US Covt. Property and were never brought up on charges.
Geeeeeze, I roll one little M-141 and scrape te paint while under fire and they make me fix the damn thing or face Article 15.
Agreed, that's why I wrote "...what's called 'his' base".
McPain is no conservative, he's an authoritarian.
Absolutely!
What's so bad about McCain-Feingold? I'm not saying I necessarily like it. I just don't understand the anger over it. It aimed to limit the influence of money in politics. Isn't that a good thing?
Not necessarily. What's wrong with the influence of money in politics? After all, if a candidate is good he should, and will, get the most of the campaign contributions. I see nothing wrong with that. Why restrict it?
Yet much of the problem stems from the fact that the bill also put limits on advertising within the last (I believe) 30 days of an election cycle. Now this IS bad. It's also unconstitutional (although yet to be proven such in court).
Lastly, the bill has proven virtually ineffectual in curbing campaign spending. Look at the money being raised today. It's considerably beyond what has been raised in previous presidential elections. So, why even have McCain-Feingold?
Note: I'm not someone who's discussed the issue for awhile so my recollection of fine points is hazy. Just to let you know. I'm sure there are others here who can put a much better objectionable viewpoint together for you.
Senator McCain - drop out of the race, and have your good friend Fred Thompson run in your place.
Thanks.
Money in politics is dangerous, in my book, because it causes certain positions to be strengthened based on the financial power of those who back them rather than the number of backers. This isn't always the case, and sometimes the two go hand in hand. But I'm convinced that the majority of this country is anti-immigration, anti-free trade, and socially conservative. Congress doesn't reflect that; and I think money is responsible.
BTW, I was wrong in my initial response. Instead of 30 days before an election it's 60 days as the above thread points out.
I hope this helps...
It ends freedom of speech. Need any more ideas why it is so bad a law?
Case in point, John McCain himself. There can be no doubt the man has had substantial financial support in the past and, I'm sure going into 2008. Yet his 2008 campaign is foundering, and I suspect that cash support is beginning to dry up. Why? Because, regardless of how much money he's garnered, the man is not what he claims to be and the GOP base understands that. There are some things, as the old saying goes, that money can't buy.
Recall McCain's statement on the Imus Show in the wake of McCain-Feingold's passage: "Give a choice between Freedom of Speech and Good Government, I'll take Good Government every time."
And who would get to decide exactly what Good Government is? The incumbents, of course.
As you described him, McCain is a modern-day liberal. That is, an authoritarian...
No. In political terms, "money" IS "speech".
Why should I be constrained from supporting my preferred candidate with money or advertising? Or from attacking a candidate whose principles (if any) are contrary to mine?
In Constitutional terms, "Freedom of Speech" isn't casually described as "the freedom to say anything you want, whenever you want". Instead, it is very specifically defined as "freedom of political speech".
Anything that infringes upon that freedom attacks the very foundations of our republic. And McCain-Feingold does exactly that.
The best campaign reform is not to limit the amount of money nor to whom it might go. Instead, it would be to require full disclosure -- how much and from who.
And the torture bill, and his desire for sweeping legislation on carbon credits, and any number of other things. Completely aside from any issue of ideology McCain has consistently demonstrated astoundingly poor policy judgment in the first instance, and an even more astounding inability to recognize his own policy errors in retrospect and in the light of overwhelming evidence.
Yeah, he was a war hero and a P.O.W. Great. But he is COMPLETELY unqualified to set policy or to manage anything, least of all the executive departments of an entire nation.
If that is true, then how do you propose to remove the Congressmen who are disposed otherwise? Limiting the amount of money a challenger can raise to mount a challenge isn't the way to do it.
Bear in mind that McCain-Feingold was originally styled as "The Incumbency Protection and Media Empowerment Act of 2002" -- because that is exactly its effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.