Why McCain will be the next U.S. president (This from a leftie in Marin County)

The Marin Independent Journal ^ | April 27, 2008 | Dick Spotswood

[2ndDivisionVet]

IN THE PAST YEAR, I have spoken to almost 30 groups in Marin and Sonoma as resident political pundit.

I am inevitably asked to predict the presidential nominees and the winner in November.

Starting in early 2007, I made the same predictions that I make today. Sen. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and Sen. John McCain will be the next president. In the overwhelming Democratic North Bay, this generally is met with gasps of disagreement.

I always emphasize that I don't personally advocate this scenario. The questioners are asking for my prediction - not my preference.

I concluded early on that Clinton would prevail when she still had an aura of inevitability and was backed by the Democrats' Washington-based establishment. Despite an abysmal record of winning national elections, the party's powers-that-be are adept at delivering nominations. Their support of three presidential losers, Walter Mondale in 1984, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, proves the point.

My bet on Clinton is based more on gut than brain.

Sen. Barack Obama does have an impressive delegate count. I just can't believe that the unsinkable Clinton will fail to achieve the goal of being the first woman presidential nominee of a major party. Note that I didn't say she would achieve the presidency. Clinton and her husband are a force unto themselves. Their endurance exhausts the Energizer Bunny. The downside is that their win-at-any-cost tactics make the Democratic nomination almost worthless.

That leads to my second conclusion. Arizona Sen. McCain will be victorious on Nov. 4. The heroic McCain is the only Republican with any hope of attracting independents and moderate Democrats. That's something that Republicans, facing annihilation after the unpopular Bush-Cheney era, desperately need. While I acknowledge questioning my sagacity in late 2007 during McCain's dark days, he ultimately vindicated my hunch.

McCain now faces a Democratic Party tearing itself apart. If the 1980 Jimmy Carter-Ted Kennedy primary contest taught us anything, it's that a party divided upon entering a national convention will lose. I acknowledge the economy has tanked, there's no way out of the Iraq fiasco and that public confidence is as low as the price of gas is high. Yet when it comes to losing presidential elections, the Democratic mantra is "Yes, I can."

In fighting for the top spot, Clinton not only has taken the luster out of the once-sparkling Obama, she has managed to amplify her already negative image. That will be fatal in the fall election.

McCain will win IF he gets back on his Straight Talk Express and distances himself from the befuddled Bush. While this will displease the political right, hatred of all things Clinton will keep them in the Arizonan's camp. McCain's problem is that he's off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base. Perhaps wiser hands will steer him back to the middle after the Minneapolis convention.

What I had not predicted was Obama's rise. Nor did I ever expect that Hillary and Bill "the first black president" Clinton, would use every trick in Karl Rove's playbook, including the race card, to stop Obama's juggernaught. Team Clinton understands that Rove's tactics work, at least in the short run. Until March, my guess that Clinton would be the Democratic standard bearer and McCain president was qualified. If Obama managed to be the Democratic nominee, I concluded he would prevail over McCain.

My logic was that given a choice, the ever-optimistic American people would pick the best of the future, Obama, over the best of the past, McCain. Thanks to Clinton's blunt attacks and Obama's gaffes, the luster is off the Illinois senator who now apparently is running out of steam.

That the Democrats are self-destructing goes full circle in validating my prediction that McCain will be the next president of the United States.

[2ndDivisionVet]

He may just be right. When did McCain start "pandering" to us? Did I miss something?

[nwrep]

three presidential losers, Walter Mondale in 1984, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004,

Wait a minute, I thought Gore won, no?

[appleharvey]

As I believe Erasmus said, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

[Zhang Fei]

This guy thinks Obama would win if he were nominated. How good can his predictive abilities be?

[johna61]

It won’t happen.Sorry Juan McPain.

[ought-six]

Is the author on drugs? He says McCain has been pandering to the Republican base? I guess in Lib-speak pandering means insulting.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

“Here’s hoping McManic’s one of those 2 month presidents like we had back in the 1800’s, and that he’s picked a good VP.”

-

Lobbying for Mitt Romney as McCain’s VP should replace McCain bashing on FR.

It would be more productive. And it might just work.

[2ndDivisionVet]

"Here’s hoping McManic’s one of those 2 month presidents like we had back in the 1800’s, and that he’s picked a good VP."

I don't wish anyones demise, but I'm still pulling for Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, JC Watts or Jim DeMint.

[originalbuckeye]

I agree that John McCain will be our next President. Now he needs to stop with the squeaky clean tactics and let Obama’s/Clinton's negatives rise. He doesn't need to push dirt himself but he does need to stop stepping on valid negative stories. Obama can't win and neither can Clinton.

[Guyin4Os]

....Clinton, would use every trick in Karl Rove's playbook, including the race card, to stop Obama's juggernaught.

Obama hasn't even lost yet, but this author blames his loss on Karl Rove... tsk

[TADSLOS]

McCain will win IF he gets back on his Straight Talk Express and distances himself from the befuddled Bush. While this will displease the political right, hatred of all things Clinton will keep them in the Arizonan's camp. McCain's problem is that he's off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base. Perhaps wiser hands will steer him back to the middle after the Minneapolis convention.

This must be where old Dick took a giant suck off his crack pipe.

[bill1952]

> Clinton not only has taken the luster out of the once-sparkling Obama, she has managed to amplify her already negative image.

Half right. Clinton didn't take any luster from Obama.
He did that all by himself.
And Clinton managed to screw up without any help at all.

>McCain's problem is that he's off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base.

LOL! Okay, that is downright funny. And stupid.

>Thanks to Clinton's blunt attacks and Obama’s gaffes, the luster is off the Illinois senator who now apparently is running out of steam.

Obama is what he is and there is no hiding it.

[rbg81]

If Obama gets the Dem nomination, Bill and Hillary will work behind the scenes to defeat him (while nominally supporting him publicly). Why? So she can say “I told you so” when she runs again in 2012.

[Mr. Mojo]

If the 1980 Jimmy Carter-Ted Kennedy primary contest taught us anything, it's that a party divided upon entering a national convention will lose.

Faulty analysis. Reagan would've annihilated Carter no matter how united the Dems were.

[Bishop_Malachi]

This guy’s analysis is as warped as his political ideology. McCain panders to the economically ignorant, enviro-nuts, and...well...whoever he thinks will believe him at the moment.

[BatGuano]

Notice that this “leftie from Marin County” includes all the cheap shots that can be taken at President Bush, Karl Rove, etc., that are scripted in the D’crap’s talking points. In a nutshell, the Democrats are giving their party a choice between two losers, Obama and Clinton, before the nominating convention gives the nation one. Either way, they put up another loser. I love tradition.

[Mr. Mojo]

What I had not predicted was Obama's rise. Nor did I ever expect that Hillary and Bill "the first black president" Clinton, would use every trick in Karl Rove's playbook, including the race card, to stop Obama's juggernaught.

Takes naiveté to a whole new level.

I'll be writing the author and asking him exactly where the race card is in Rove's playbook.

spotswood@comcast.net

[taxcontrol]

My bet on Clinton is based more on gut than brain.

In one sentence this author has managed to summarize their entire liberal mindset, democratic party, their supporters and their candidates.

[fight_truth_decay]

Might want to consider this site ..analysis:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall/

[Mobile Vulgus]

I’m not as confident that we will have to be worrying about seeing McLame become president. He has his own way of destroying his chances! All he has to do is open his mouth!

[festus]

Heck I still haven’t updated my tagline. Fred ‘08 !!!

I think this time around I’ll just vote for Al Sharpton on the theory “He’s still better than any of the others”. .......

[skinkinthegrass]

I don't wish anyones demise, but I'm still pulling for Fred Thompson...same here.

[ErnBatavia]

she has managed to amplify her already negative image.

Even the few 'Rats that we know mirror this thought. Nobody wants 4 or 8 years of this irritating tw*t.

[DrGunsforHands]

I’m guessing it’s the rumour during the 2000 campaign, supposedly started by Rove, that McCain had an affair and baby with a black lady.

[Ingtar]

Three losers: Obama, Clinton, and McDole.

[llandres]

“The heroic McCain is the only Republican with any hope of attracting independents and moderate Democrats. That’s something that Republicans, facing annihilation after the unpopular Bush-Cheney era, desperately need.”

To Dick, author of this post - this, unfortunately, is true. I’m a conservative and believe in traditional Republic values (not what we’ve seen for the last several years), BUT - we’ve got to face facts and look at the bigger picture. MY top priority is our national security/foreign policy and, guys, we just cannot afford to hold a grudge when it comes to this. We can’t chance the guaranteed nightmare that either BHO or HRC would bring about in that area. If you don’t get the gravity of that, you don’t understand radical Islam, jihad and their imminent threat that we face every day, knowingly or unknowingly.

Finally, again to the author of the main post - with all due respect, sir, Obama is NOT the best hope of the future, at least not ours. (It IS true that Louis Farrakhan publicly called him that, however, with Hamas recently concurring.) He is a true danger to this country, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Think what you will, I pray nightly that you’ll never have to be proven wrong (too late) on this.

[TADSLOS]

McCain panders to the economically ignorant, enviro-nuts, and...well...whoever he thinks will believe him at the moment.

I'm boiling this down for a tagline.

[JavaJumpy]

I dunno...if Hillary gets the nomination, I think she will get Ohio by a comfortable lead. Not sweeping, but comfortable.

Then again, November is still a long way away.

[eyedigress]

I am voting for John McCain as I cannot allow a Hussein Presidency in good faith. I may lose on some agendas yet I’ll be damned if I let a Muzzie in the White House. Flame Away!

[Ingtar]

I’m not going to flame you for doing what you think is right. I’ll never vote for the man as I think he would actually be worse than the other two, but your opinion likely differs.

[eyedigress]

Fair Enough.

[DoughtyOne]

That leads to my second conclusion. Arizona Sen. McCain will be victorious on Nov. 4. The heroic McCain is the only Republican with any hope of attracting independents and moderate Democrats. That's something that Republicans, facing annihilation after the unpopular Bush-Cheney era, desperately need. While I acknowledge questioning my sagacity in late 2007 during McCain's dark days, he ultimately vindicated my hunch.

I  love it when Democrats prove my point.

I have been saying that McCain is going to be called a Conservative by the media, and whatever he does will get blamed on Conservatism.  Yes, John is and will be acting in your name whether you like it or not.  Every policy that he supports or implements will be as if implemented by Conservatives.  When John advocates for Amnesty, many Democrats will say, "Oh you folks are no better than the Democrats.  You all support the same things."  Multiply that by the number of polices John will go left on during the next four or eight years.  Does the prospect of Democrats being able to say you are no different than their leaders on contless topics thrill you?

Look at this article and realize that anytime after McCain is sworn in, you can basically insert his and his Vice-President's name where Bush/Cheney appears above.  And if that policy is leftist in nature, Conservatism stands to be damaged in the perceptions of folks who simply don't know what a Conservative actually is.  How important is that?

Folks, Ronald Reagan last ran for office in 1984.  That's the last time a true Conservative ran for a highly visible national public office spot.  I don't know about you, but I didn't really begin to watch and understand politics until I was around 16 years of age.  Some of you may have started earlier, somewhere around 14 years of age.  The point I am making, is that it has been 24 years since 1984.  If you take 24 years and add 14 to it, folks who are 38 years old this year, will not have seen a true conservative and understood  what it was in their entire lifetimes.  If you became politically active at 18 in 1984, you could be 42 years old today, and not have seen a Conservative run for national office in your lifetime.

This is why lofting a Conservative to promote our core ideals is so important.  By the time McCain is out of office those 38 and 42 year olds will be 42 or 46.

Has George Bush been a real die-hard Conservative?  I don't like saying it, but no.  He hasn't even come close in a number of areas.  That doesn't matter though, because the lefty that wrote this article is pleased as punch to describe Bush/Cheney as far right wing extremists.  And that being the case, where does our leadership lead us.  Why to the left of course.  They need to get back on track.

Welcome to our destiny folks.  Leftward ho!  Wait until we see the person who will replace McCain.  After McCain being trashed for being to ultra-Conservative for four or eight years, I can't even beging to imagine how bad the next guy will be.

Come January 20th, 2009, we stand to have Arch Conservative John McCain standing at the helm.  I sure wish it was the dingy he deserved to be captain of.

[eyedigress]

I agree with your post and I am 44 this year. What is the option?

[an amused spectator]

He used the past tense when referring to his Obama prediction.

However, his reasoning on Obama is very sound. Most Americans pay little deep attention to the political scene, unlike us Freepers.

Our interest clouds our judgment on these matters. I usually avoid the presidential race threads on Free Republic, because I know from long experience that they are usually a total waste of time.

[hsalaw]

McCain's problem is that he's off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base

I must have missed this part. Or maybe the author is referring to McCain's present support of the Bush tax cuts - but that's not "pandering" to the GOP; anyone with two grey cells to rub together realizes that raising taxes will sink the economy.

[eyedigress]

It does differ as I am wanting the military to finish their job before lefty civilians pull them out.

[Shady]

I’ve never seen so many platitudes in one article. OK, maybe the CFR and the TC are behind McCan’t’s “nomination” but I still say (and NOT BOB BARR) Someone has to come forward before November and say ENOUGH!!!!

[Shady]

Amen. You said it all.

[popdonnelly]

“McCain’s problem is that he’s off to a slow start by pandering to the shrinking GOP base.”

Yep, that’s his problem all right. Pandering to Republicans. Where will it end?

[imahawk]

Perfectly put.

[DoughtyOne]

You and I, many others have been hoping to see a monument to Conservatism errected on our soil. We have courted the same contractor for our adult lifetime. That contractor has taken our money and here is what has transpired.

We wanted to see a Colonial motiff adhered to. The contracting firm promised to deliver, said they were on our side. Wow, it was going to come to pass.

So when it came time to hire architects, they hired only those who had great knowledge of Russian architecture.

We have been fighting over every floor in this building. We wanted one thing, the contractors wanted another. The architects often said they were with us, but when the next floor was done, it remained true to the Russian theme.

Colonial never was the goal of these people. It never will be the theme of these people.

We can either find another team and go for it, or we can spend the rest of our lives building their dream monument and tell ourselves that is what we really wanted all along.

It isn’t what I wanted. Is it what you wanted?

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[eyedigress]

I do not have an answer or direction. Throwing Communism at me is one thing, but empty ballot boxes doesn’t answer anything either.

[upsdriver]

McCain now faces a Democratic Party tearing itself apart

If McCain wins, he will be indebted to Rush Limbaughh.

[DoughtyOne]

You have every right to differ with me. I still believe my example is quite accurate as to what we have experienced.

I do not think continuing to support the party who disagrees with us across the board, is the way to go.

I have come to the irrevocable conclusion, that we must seek to join elsewhere under new leadership.

That will be a tough pill to swallow for many people, so I don’t take offense that you disagree.

I appreciate the response.

[denydenydeny]

I have to disagree here. I'll quote Hugh Hewitt:

....the superdelegates must know the score, but they also see this MSM-constructed, enormous sense of entitlement among the Obama supporters. These supporters will be outraged if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama, even though Hillary is beating him again and again and his underlying numbers show a very weak candidate in the fall.

Each superdelegate has his or her own self-interest to look to, and for many --most?-- of them, betraying Barack is not an option. Their decision on the choice of Clinton or Obama will follow them the rest of their political lives. 20 years from now it will still be a tag, and the idea of having that tag be marked Judas just isn't going to fly for them.

No matter what kind of arm-twisting Hillary does, I don't think that she's going to find enough superdelegates with the courage to do what needs to be done.

[eyedigress]

We are on the same side yet trapped in a game brought about by the media. I would guess 75% of the masses get their news at 6. Why McCain is the candidate is over my head, but there is no way I will sit idly by and let a Muslim take the White House.

[The Great RJ]

If Hillary wins the nomination, I see a lot of Obama supporters staying home on election day feeling that their candidate was “robbed” of the nomination.

[fr_freak]

It won’t happen.Sorry Juan McPain.

I still think that, short of McCain having some sort of nuclear meltdown, he will win the presidency in a walk, even if a sizeable portion of the conservative base does not vote for him. Why? Because a whole lot of Democrats are going to chicken out when it comes to pulling the lever for Hillary or Obama. Their candidates suck worse than ours does. I honestly can't see too many of the blue-collar Democrat types pulling the lever for Hillary under any circumstances, and after the various proofs of anti-white racism on Hussein's part, I don't think they could do it for him either.

I'm almost tempted to sit outside the polling place on election day and dare the Democrats to vote for Hillary. I think they'll chicken out and vote Nader, or not at all.