January 30, 2008

McCain's Greatest Asset

Hatched by Dafydd

I'm going to pick up on a comment that frequent commenter MTF made to a previous post here at Big Lizards; he ended by saying this, which is quite perceptive:

If McCain can convince conservatives that he will nominate judges like Roberts and Alito and press to make the Bush tax deal permanent, then those windy promises, in combination with his strong and very real support of the war effort against al Qaeda will be very tough for anyone to best.

Let's amplify that: McCain will be tough for anyone to best even in the general election. Hence his continued status as Republicans' choice for the most "electable" Republican, according to virtually every survey ever conducted. But what exactly is it about McCain that makes him so electable?

It's certainly not the posiions he takes. To the extent that they differ at all from the other GOP candidates, they fly in the face of traditional conservative doctrine. Nor do they line up with some unmet demand of independents or moderate Democrats: McCain's position on immigration, for example, appears to satisfy no one except some Cuban immigrants in Florida. Most Republicans clearly prefer a much harder line, while Democrats would rather we had full-blown amnesty -- while McCain-Kennedy, despite he rap from those trying to kill it from the right, is at most a plea-bargain.

On the war in Iraq, while McCain certainly supported the counterinsurgency strategy at least a year before President George W. Bush did, and McCain has been its biggest booster, his position today is no different from that of Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney... and Mitt is still in the race.

Some may point to "leadership;" but that is a portmanteau quality that is actually a concatenation of a number of different subqualities: the candidate's positions, his oratory skills, his background and experience, his general stature... and one other quality that I think is really at the core of McCainomania, and which has underpinned McCain's support all through his long career: John McCain is incredibly charismatic for a modern politician.

Not as charismatic as was Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy, but certainly far more so than any other president or presidential candidate of my lifetime... and so much more so than the other GOP candidates today that even diehard conservatives would be hard-pressed to deny it. In fact, I suspect even Democrats would rank McCain as at least as charismatic as Obama -- and the latter has the advantage of being a traditional, Ted Kennedy-syle liberal, which starts Obama off with a bunch of freebie points in that crowd.

McCain galvanizes the electorate in a way that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee can only fantasize. The feisty former combat pilot and POW excites voters as I haven't seen in a very long time. John at Power Line frequently notes that voters in presidential elections "generally choose the person, not his policies." Thus, it didn't matter that Romney's economic positions were much closer to the traditional conservative fiscal policies favored by Florida Republicans... McCain still won those voters for whom economics was the most important issue.

Even the over-the-top vituperation against McCain by hard-core conservatives reflects McCain's charisma: A well-known GOP senator who is, in fact, just as apostate on immigration, political speech, and the Gang of 14, and just as heartily despised by many conservatives -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC, 83%) -- nevertheless doesn't generate anywhere near the level of invective hurled at John McCain. Why not? Because when Graham enters a room, it feels like someone just left.

I believe Mitt Romney would make better decisions as president; but John McCain would be much better at explaining those decisions to the American people. Communicating with ordinary Americans has, of course, been the bête noire of the current president, and we see how vital that skill is.

Most Democrats believe (falsely, in my opinion) that Hillary Clinton has more actual experience than does John McCain, who has spent his entire political career in Congress. But even they would admit that she has virtually no charisma whatsoever. Her grating voice, which gets shriller the louder she tries to talk; her Wicked Witch of the West cackle; her snideness and condescending tone... each of these combines to make Hillary one of the least charismatic personalities of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In a two person race, McCain would eat her alive, just by being himself.

Most Democrats believe (falsely, in my opinion) that Barack Obama is just as charismatic as John McCain. But in this case, the mismatch in experience is so stark, that I suspect in a general election, many moderate Democrats will vote for McCain... even if they won't say as much to a pollster. This wouldn't be the Bradley Effect -- the putative "latent racism" of voters, who tell pollsters they'll vote for the black guy, then actually pull the lever of the white guy. This is more like the "Reagan Effect," where Democrats swore to pollsters that they were going to remain loyal to their party -- but then secretly voted for the charismatic Republican over the lame and awkward Jimmy Carter.

In their final polls before the 1980 election, the five major pollsters -- ABC, Harris, Gallup, CBS/NYT, and NBC -- consistently underestimated Reagan's final vote; in addition, two overestimated Carter's vote, and only one (NBC) underestimated the incumbent (but only by half as much as they underestimated Reagan). All showed Reagan in the lead, but none by as much as he actually beat Carter. Assuming all pollsters were following standard polling procedure, the most likely explanation is that a lot of people said they were going to vote for Carter but actually voted for Reagan instead... the Reagan Effect.

Note: The link above is to a blogpost on the discrepencies of the final polls to the actual result from 1936 through 2000; I couldn't get to the blogger's source, alas. But here is a scholarly paper (from Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 5, Special Issue 2005, pp. 642-654) ranking the accuracy of the polling in the 1980 election 13th out of the last 13 elections; see p. 8 of the pdf.

I foresee the same effect happening in November: Nearly all head to head polls currently show McCain beating either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama; no other GOP candidate -- including the two who recently dropped out -- even comes close to the Democrat, ranging from an RCP average 9 points behind to 16 or 17 points behind. While I still believe Romney could improve his standing during the general election and likely beat either Hillary or Obama, the fact remains it would be a tense battle... but McCain would start out ahead and probably increase his lead.

John McCain's greatest asset is his charisma; it's the most important element of "leadership" and the hardest to develop if one doesn't have it from the beginning. A candidate can change his positions to bring them in line with the country's priorities -- as both Romney and McCain did in significant ways. But if he has a charisma deficit, as Mitt Romney does, there is little he can do to correct that.

(For a laugh-riot example of a charisma-challenged nominee trying to ape personal magnetism, watch a tape of Al Gore's first debate against George W. Bush... you remember, the one where Gore prepared for the contest by eating four or five "power bars" and drinking a six-pack of Jolt Cola -- "twice the sugar and a thousand times the caffeine." Gore sighs, moans, groans, rolls his eyes, "corrects" almost every answer Bush gives, stalks Bush around the stage, and then retires to his own lectern to make more bodily noises.)

As things stand now, I expect that charisma deficit will become larger and more apparent as we continue through the primary season; ergo, I predict that John McCain will emerge as the nominee. And, while Democrats seem to think he'll be easy to knock off, I believe they are -- and Hugh Hewitt is -- just looking at paper assets, in which McCain comes up short. For example, on paper, the age question looms large; but as Reagan showed, in the actual voting booth, it's extremely rare that uninspiring youth trumps charismatic seniority.

The more I think about Hewitt's comparison of McCain to Blob Dole, the more ludicrous it seems: Dole didn't lose because he was old; Dole lost because he was monumentally dull and uninspiring. The only time that his candidacy even rose to the level of vague interest was when he committed yet another wince-worthy gaffe. I'm utterly certain that the Democrats will raise the issue of septuagenarian McCain's age; at 72, he would be the oldest non-incumbent nominee for president ever... older than Reagan in 2000, though a year younger than Reagan during his 1984 reelection campaign.

Democrats will raise the issue at first covertly, a whispering campaign; but by the end, desperate and hysterical, Hillary or Obama will probably raise it overtly. And McCain will just laugh it off, as Reagan did -- and as the electorate did then and will today. Nobody cares much about calendar age anymore; in candidate years, Hillary sounds and acts much older. And in an age battle with Barack Obama, I think Obama's "youth and inexperience," as Reagan put it, will actually hurt him far more than McCain's age.

In reality, McCain will be the Democrats' worst nightmare: A mesmerizing Republican who can rouse the masses to vote for him, who can communicate with them, and who can persuade them to support his policies. (Thank goodness we're talking about John McCain instead of, say, Paul Wellstone, or even Mark Warner... though don't rule Warner out for 2016.) In the end, I believe McCain will work his magic even on most conservatives, few of whom will sit out the election: The chore of voting for McCain will be overborne by the once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote against either Hillary or Obama for president.

So I take heart in the fact that, even though I still think Mitt Romney would be the better policy maker in the White House, John McCain is considerably more likely to keep the property in Republican hands.

And who knows? I strongly suspect his ability to connect with, and therefore communicate with the American people will actually make McCain more effective at selling the 80% of his policies that actually match those of mainstream Republican conservatives -- than a candidate who is with them 100% of the time, but just can't move people the way McCain can. In other words, McCain will probably end up being a more effective conservative Republican president than any of the current flock of actual conservative Republicans.

It's a sobering thought, but one that is hard to deny. Such is the power of the greatest asset.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 30, 2008, at the time of 5:26 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2762

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference McCain's Greatest Asset:

» Why Should We Care Whether Hillary or McCain Wins? from Big Lizards
In this post, Patterico applauds Ann Coulter for saying that if John McCain is the nominee, she'll campaign for Hillary Clinton for president. Then Patterico concludes: I won’t go so far as to say I’d campaign for Hillary. But, judges... [Read More]

Tracked on February 1, 2008 2:58 PM

» How the Democrats Will Attack McCain... and Fail Miserably from Big Lizards
Patterico linked to a Politico post by Jeanne Cummings titled Gloves Off: the Dem Plan to Hit McCain. Ms. Cummings raises a number of policy issues on which the Democrats plan to attack John McCain during the general campaign; and... [Read More]

Tracked on February 9, 2008 11:56 PM

» John McCain: Change We Can See (Blind "Belief" Unnecessary) from Big Lizards
A McCainiac commenter to Big Lizards noted -- well, crowed is the better word -- that I had long opposed John S. McCain's nomination and had supported Mitt Romney; but now, Mr. Commenter notes, I won't even support Romney for... [Read More]

Tracked on September 3, 2008 4:49 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Quilly_Mammoth

McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman.

Six words which explain why I'll vote for Obama over McCain. Trampling on our Rights to gain favor can not be rewarded by any right thinking person.

The guy, regardless of his prior heroism, is a back stabbing weasel who said and did anything to keep his name in the media. Name recognition is a big reason he's doing so well.

Who knows, maybe with Obama or Billary in the White House Tom Kratman's A State of Disobedience might just happen.

The above hissed in response by: Quilly_Mammoth [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2008 7:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

That came pretty close to an endorsement, whether you agree with his ideology or not.

Are you going there or what? Because I kind of tend to agree with the above poster. I don't think I'd not vote, but it'd be tough to vote for John McCain.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2008 8:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

K2aggie07:

That came pretty close to an endorsement, whether you agree with his ideology or not.

I'm not endorsing John McCain, any more than I was endorsing Mitt Romney by saying he would make a better president. This was straightforward analysis: You'll notice that not even Quilly Mammoth -- despite being in that "over-the-top vituperation" camp I alluded to -- dared dispute the main point... that John McCain has great charisma and magnetism, while none of the other Republicans or any of the Democrats do.

Charisma wins elections. You just cannot deny that. The only possible GOP responses are...

  1. I like John McCain or at least I have no serious problems with him (no more than with any other candidate); sure, I'll vote for him, if he's the nominee.
  2. I have serious problems with McCain, but I'd sure rather have him than President Hillary or President Obama. I'll reluctantly vote for him.
  3. Never! Never! Fiat justicia ruat coelum!

Each has to pick his own comfort zone. Now me, I would even vote for Lincoln Chafee in preference to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama... so it's easy. I waver between (1) and (2), as does Hugh Hewitt. You seem to be firmly in camp (2); while our pachydermic friend is ensconced in (3) -- probably covering the door with a BAR.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2008 10:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Quilty Mammoth,
You have a good point. Except that I think Obama has shown he would see those bills as a nice start to move even farther off track.
And Obama has proven he only wants American defeat in this war, does not even recognize it is a war, or that we can have any success.
His approach on the economy is to attack the productive elements of our society.
His foreign policy is to blame our allies and negotiate with our enemies.
No thanks on Obama.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 12:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: phil g

Quilly,
I'm struggling with your logic...you don't like the afore mentioned McCain bills, so you vote for someone who would propose/support/sign bills that would make the McCain bills look the ideal model of conservatism in comparison. Are you really just a Dem throwing a rock at McCain? If you're a conservative or a Republican (they are not necessarily mutually inclusive) than your position sounds more like a petulant temper tantrum than a reasoned position.

The above hissed in response by: phil g [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 3:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steelhand

Interesting analysis. Especially when compared to the "in the tank for Romney" analysis from the boys at Powerline.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019682.php

I am sympathetic to those who oppose McCain. I find Romney a more acceptible candidate, more in line with my positions. And I trust him more.

But by the time of the election in November, we get to choose between two candidates who have a chance to win. To pick the one that you most disagree with is irrational. To be unable to decide between Hillary/Obama and McCain is at best uninformed and at worst petulant foot stomping.

Grow up, show up, and vote for the guy with the (R) in November.

The above hissed in response by: Steelhand [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 4:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: Quilly_Mammoth

Well, Phil, you can go to my site and see if I'm a stealth dem. As for logic. Honor and Integrity has a logic of it's own and supporting a man who has consistently stabbed conservatism in the back, who has...in my mind...violated his oath of office by seeking to limit our rights and end our national sovereignty is not honorable.

There _is_ a point at which holding one's nose and pulling the "R" lever becomes dishonorable. "Growing up" is knowing when one has to take an ethical stand. If it's just about winning, about putting in someone from "R" team regardless of their ethical standards, then we are, indeed, lost.

The above hissed in response by: Quilly_Mammoth [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 4:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: MarkJM

I have to disagree with a few of your points. Well maybe not 'disagree' as much as explain why they 'appear' to be true, but when 'brought to light' in a general election will no longer be an 'asset'. My personal fundamental problem with McCain is he is 'provably' dishonest. Proven throughout his Senate career and most recent campaigning tactics. He cannot be trusted. While most of the 'pundits' ignore this fact, a large majority of conservative voters will not. Given a choice between 'dishonest' and 'more dishonest' they will choose neither. I do not condone this action (or non-action) but it is what it is, and WILL occur. His ability to 'explain' his decisions is beholden to the fact that he will lie with no visibile discomfort, to the point of being 'Clintonian'. This is not what America needs right now or ever for that matter. I believe that McCain is the LEAST electable in a contest with either of the Dem candidates. The MSM is only propping him up now, because they know they can destroy him in the general election. The MSM want a Dem in the WH at all costs, and won't need to 'fabricate' issues with McCain like they would have to for Romney (although they probably will anyway). A large percentage of conservatives are against McCain now and for very valid reasons. After the MSM gets done with him, the Dems will win. If you are voting for McCain because you believe he is the most 'electable', then I believe you are wrong for two major reasons: 1) THAT is not a good reason to vote for ANYONE. 2) The 'Most electable' premise is flat-out wrong due to known behaviour of informed 'thinking' voters (Conservative base and independents).

The above hissed in response by: MarkJM [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 7:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

The "swing" voters don't make up their minds until just before an election.

If McCain is the R candidate, the MS will turn upon him and rend him like a famished tiger after a goat. It'll be interesting (in the Chinese sense) to see how well he handles that, based on what I've heard of his prior behavior, I'm expecting a very public meltdown. And that will finish him.

The three Rupublican candidates I can't vote for are Ron Paul (bigot and fruitcacke), Huckabbe (Jimmy Carter redux), and McCain.

I'm beginning to think that that Republican primaries should switch to Approval Voting.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 7:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 02/01/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 9:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: the count

Charismatic? Please! Last night I saw a pale little man, as unappealing in personality as in ideas. He will lose, lose, lose in November.

The above hissed in response by: the count [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 9:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: HTS

McCain has about as much charisma as a dead horse. He is a grumpy, cynical old man with a huge ego and a short fuse. He will utterly faily to unite the republican party if he is nominated.
I agree with the above comment... He will surely lose in November.

The above hissed in response by: HTS [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 10:13 AM

The following hissed in response by: soccerdad

I guess the question that you're suggesting is whether the failure to communicate has been the current president's greatest failing. A successor - assuming that McCain wins the nomination and election - who can adequately explain the war on terror, might be an important step in rehabilitating Bush 43's legacy.

The above hissed in response by: soccerdad [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 1:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

McCain leads in most of the super Tuesday states, according to Rasmussen. If he wins as strongly as those polls seem to suggest, this whole conversation might be academic since he'll become the presumptive nominee, or be very close to it. McCain beats Hillary by 8 points head to head, right now, and Obama by 6. Those numbers will obviously change over the rest of the campaign, but he looks pretty strong right now agains the forces of Dhimmitude.

Anyone who votes for Hillary or Obama, instead of McCain if he becomes the GOP nominee, is voting for pulling out of the current battle against al Qaeda. I say "current battle" because we all know to a certainty that al Qaeda will then regroup and come after us here at home. We know that, because they have told us that's what they will do.

Because McCain is a mindless fool on the economy, on immigration, on free speech, on global cooling and on taxes, it's easy to understand why someone wouldn't like him. Heck- I don't like the blathering old idiot.

But, really, we should vote for allowing al Qaeda to regroup and come after us here at home instead of winning the war? Seriously? Not me. I vote for Romney to win the nomination, but if McCain wins I vote for him in the general, happily, and for winning the war. Easy decision.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 2:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Soccerdad:

A successor - assuming that McCain wins the nomination and election - who can adequately explain the war on terror, might be an important step in rehabilitating Bush 43's legacy.

Well yes, that's true; but to me, the more important point is that he will be able to get the American people aboard for America's future policy.

The rest of youse:

Contrary to what some here seem to imply, there is a vast chasm between the policies and decisions that McCain would make -- and the ruinous policies and disastrous decisions that either Clinton or Obama would make. It's critical that we keep both of those two out of la Casablanca, which we can only do by voting for the Republican nominee.

(The only exception is when the R is so awful that he is literally worse than the available Democrats. The only candidate today that fits that description is Ron Paul, who is even more pro-surrender in the war against global hirabah than either of the two Democrats still standing.)

  • I want a president who can actually explain to the American people why it is so vital that we stand up and confront militant Islamism wherever it rears its hydra-head, rather than follow the European appeasement model.
  • I want a president who can tell them why it is vital that we wean ourselves off of foreign oil.

I heard McCain say in the debate yesterday that, while he opposes drilling off the California coast, he favors drilling in the Gulf off the coast of Louisiana. He says his lodestone is what the state in question wants: California (stupidly) opposes drilling off Santa Barbara; Lousiana (wisely) supports drilling.

This opens an avenue to try to persuade McCain in favor of drilling in ANWR, as the citizens of Alaska emphatically support it.

  • I want a president who can explain so that people understand why the most important immigration issue is the reform of legal immigration to make it rational, coherent, and predictable, and to favor those immigrants most suited to assimilate into America's melting pot.
  • I want a president who can explain why socialized medicine will mean people suffering longer and dying younger; and why, if we don't privatize Social Security and Medicare (as other nations have already done), we will be poorer and sicker in our seniority.
  • I want a president who can clarify to the American people why it is vital that we retain and support traditional marriage (I consider it an existential verity for society).
  • And I especially want a president who can explain to the people why it's so urgent that we rein in the madcap government spending of the last few decades.

John McCain is on board for most of these issues; Clinton and Obama are on board for exactly none of them.

Romney is on board for all of them; but Romney doesn't seem articulate enough to explain them to the American people... and that is just as important as the policy itself; because we cannot make changes without the full backing of the voters. McCain, I believe, can do that.

Has McCain hurled indefensible calumnies at Romney? Yes, he has. I've even documented some of them.

But Romney has not been able to handle them. And if he cannot handle the occasional lie from John McCain during the primary campain, how on earth will he handle the incessant, relentless lies that will spurt like spiderwebs from every quarter of the elite media during the general campaign, trying to entangle the Republican for Madam Shelob to devour at her pleasure?

Romney's a nice guy; I'd much rather have him over for dinner than McCain. But this election is going to be a knife fight (led by Ma Clinton or Bugsy Obama), and I don't think Mitt Romney knows how to play by "Chicago rules." John McCain strikes me as better prepared for that combat.

(I'm working on a post on this subject as it related to Ronald Reagan, by the way.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 3:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Great analysis, Dafydd!

Obama and Hillary are already in a 'Race and Gender War', so who ever wins the Dem race will certainly bring 'Age' into it.

This was one of my favorite points that you made:

I believe Mitt Romney would make better decisions as president; but John McCain would be much better at explaining those decisions to the American people. Communicating with ordinary Americans has, of course, been the bête noire of the current president, and we see how vital that skill is.

Another favorite point, was about Obama or Hillary bringing up McCain's 'Age':

And McCain will just laugh it off, as Reagan did -- and as the electorate did then and will today.

One thing for sure, Obama will cater to the Muslims, and Hillary will have her "Village" to work with. Neither have the experience that America needs at this time...

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 3:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: eliXelx

Daffydd, you make sense on Mccain's charisma.

Try to remember last October when it seemed that McCain was out. Republicans were looking like a sorry lot indeed, because they were definitely going to lose the WH to Hillary. Who could challenge her?

And just look at you now, a mere three weeks since NH and the beginning of the McCain comeback; you can feel the palpable excitement in the blogosphere; and you're right--it's charisma!

Last October, when McCain was down and almost out, I had an epiphany, and it happened like this. I was looking at polls on the Real Clear Politics site and McCain was polling at 5% here, 8% there against Republican opponents--yet one poll showed that in a head-to-head against the Democrats McCain was right up there, better than any other Republican. Remember, this was last October!

In other words, real people were saying that they would countenance him eagerly as President BUT ONLY IF HE COULD WIN OVER HIS OWN PARTY!

On that same day I came across this quote from the Talmud--"Everything is known, and yet free will is given", a paradox if ever there was one, suggesting that Fate, plays a big role in the selection of the most powerful person on earth even tho' it expresses itself through the single greatest act of Free Will--VOTING. Who is a greater paradox than John McCain?

I immediatly put my money where my conclusion led--I bet on McCain to win the Republican nomination for £5 @ 40/1 and to win the general for £2@ 250/1. If McCain wins the Repub I win £200; if he wins the General I will be £500 better off. You can see from those prices that at that time he was considered dead, if not yet buried, yet here he is in February exciting us both again!

Some epiphany; some charisma!

The above hissed in response by: eliXelx [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 4:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Davis

there is a vast chasm between the policies and decisions that McCain would make -- and the ruinous policies and disastrous decisions that either Clinton or Obama would make.

Congress makes the laws, not McCain. McCain wants to be loved inside the Beltway the donks would have no trouble rolling him. So he'd implement their laws and appoint their judges anyway but the Republicans would get the blame.

John McCain is incredibly charismatic for a modern politician.

Maybe you should watch last night's debate again. Or just wait till he throws a temper tantrum when the press gets on his back about, say, the Keating Five. He's going to have a Dean moment within two weeks of being nominated, after the MSM is done building him up.

"We followed you before and you took us down the road to defeat"

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Davis [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 5:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: Quilly_Mammoth

Anyone who votes for Hillary or Obama, instead of McCain if he becomes the GOP nominee, is voting for pulling out of the current battle against al Qaeda.

Utter nonsense. Despite what Obama wants or what her Thighness, The Canklebeast, wants...pulling out of Iraq quickly isn't going to happen. Not now. Not even when it was bad. Anyone who thinks so has little appreciation of military deployment and zero for the effect of the images of last Iraqi allie hanging off an American helicopter skid. If nothing else _they_ do!

And Dafydd


And if he cannot handle the occasional lie from John McCain during the primary campain,

I thought better of you having seen your posts on SFF. We should condone a liar because he's _our_ liar? What a bunch of crap.

Excuse the **** out of me for wanting an honest man to lead our nation. Granted, we might have to go out with a lantern to find one. But Dammit, that's our jobs as patriotic citizens. Not to make excuses about however flawed one fellow is he isn't _quite_ as screwed up as the next.

All that leads to is a continuance of flawed characters standing for office. And you are aiding and abetting that.

[Please avoid obscenities, QM; we don't allow those on Big Lizards. -- The Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: Quilly_Mammoth [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 5:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: the count

Daffydd--Your most recent post changed the subject. Most of us would vote in Nov. for M. The point you tried to make in your original post was that M is charismatic. Now your comparing him to the Democrats. The disagreement is about the charisma you seem to have found. I agree with HTS-M has all the charisma of a dead horse. He should be shipped to Canada or Mexico post-haste.

The above hissed in response by: the count [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 5:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Quilly Mammoth:

First, watch your language; we don't allow obscenities on Big Lizards.

Second, you have simply misunderstood my point:

We should condone a liar because he's _our_ liar? What a bunch of crap.

I didn't condone the lie; in fact, if you go back a few posts, I explicitly condemned it. However, any Republican nominee is going to be lied about by the Democrats and their media surrogates. He must be able to respond to such lies and turn them against the liars.

John McCain unquestionably lied about Mitt Romney's support for the counterinsurgency. But Romney did a very poor job of defending himself. While this incident certainly damages McCain's credibility, it also calls into question whether Romney has it in him to be able to handle the "Chicago rules" that will prevail as soon as nominees are known.

Now, you needn't respond to a low blow by launching your own low blow. But you have to respond somehow, and the response must work. Reagan was able to just laugh off the nasty, virulent attacks. Others respond in kind. But if you don't respond at all -- or if your response is lame -- you'll be crushed.

The U.S. Senate candidacy of Bruce Herschensohn, a fine and decent man and a movement conservative, was utterly destroyed by a vicious low blow from Barbara Boxer, who spread the word, a few days before the election, that he had attended a strip club in Hollywood... along with his girlfriend (he's not married) and another couple.

It was a silly charge. So he attended a legal strip club, so what? He admitted it, but he couldn't figure out how to respond -- and Boxer won a narrow victory. We've had to suffer through her insufferable, overbearing Senate tenure ever since. Thanks, Bruce.

The simple fact is that politics often turns into a knife fight. And I have less and less confidence that Mitt Romney, the candidate for whom I voted, has the strength to withstand the vicious thrusts and cuts that he would receive as the nominee.

If he's nominated, I hope he's a fast learner... because otherwise, it will be President Hillary or President Obama. But clearly, John McCain would have responded more forcefully to a lie told about him than Romney did to the lie that McCain told about him.

Do you get my point now?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2008 8:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: phil g

That is an excellent point Dafydd which goes back to the whole reason for the long protracted campaign. It is a stress test, an endurance test to see who cracks under the intense scrutiny and who can handle, over a long period of time, some unforseen challenges. I'll vote for Romney in the primary, but he seems too much the technocrat without any real magnetic personality who's honorable, honest, earnest and nice. These are great qualities, but not necessarily winning qualities against this addition of the Dem party. If there were solid majorities of R's in the Senate and Congress I'd be less concerned, but handing the keys to two branches which means the third branche will get stuffed with leftist judges who will sit and make terrible rulings for years is too much. I'll gladly vote for McCain in the general if he makes it given the alternative. Oh and I'm one of those who believes we are in a war with a dangerous political/cultural ideology and that the war, though often in the background, is vital to prosecute aggressively and win...and McCain is far better on that important issue than any Dem.

The above hissed in response by: phil g [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 3:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: soccerdad

Dafydd,
You write:

Well yes, that's true; but to me, the more important point is that he will be able to get the American people aboard for America's future policy.

But to me rehabilitating the current president is a prerequisite to getting people on board for the future.
The fact that the war on terror is no longer on people's minds is a function
a) of the fact that this country hasn't been hit in 6+ years and
b) that the current administration hasn't been good about reminding people of a).

So if a President McCain is going to extend the fight, he needs to fill in that gap.

I don't think that we're disagreeing as much as emphasizing different aspects of the same quality.

The above hissed in response by: soccerdad [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 9:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

What's the last joke you remember John McCain telling? I think it was the 20-second dud about Romney having two positions on everything...at least two positions. McCain told it like a grim duty.

McCain laugh off his age? He may cough through a smile. Reagan came up with a howler. Even Mondale was chuckling.

Who laughs with John McCain? Who speaks of the wit and humor of John McCain?

Charismatic? He's spastic with fury. It's kind of comical, if you like Donald Duck cartoons.

"This opens an avenue to try to persuade McCain in favor of drilling in ANWR, as the citizens of Alaska emphatically support it."

We have had John McCain's ruling that ANWR is "pristine" and that drilling there would be like "drilling in the Grand Canyon". That is the policy he helped impose. You want us to root for him because he said something different trying to win votes? And that creates "an avenue to persuade" him to do other than he's done for eight years? We have the same Open Road with Barack Obama.

Partisan Republicans will support incumbent Republicans. If we elect McCain, partisan Republicans will be deaf to the need for reform, the need to enact 100% of our agenda, not 65% or less. They will be deaf to criticism of an incumbent Republican. The "avenue to persuade" will be roadblocked.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 11:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

Partisan Republicans will support incumbent Republicans. If we elect McCain, partisan Republicans will be deaf to the need for reform, the need to enact 100% of our agenda, not 65% or less. They will be deaf to criticism of an incumbent Republican. The "avenue to persuade" will be roadblocked.

The Yell, you don't win by losing.

If John McCain is nominated and loses, the next Republican nominee in 2012 will likely be more liberal, not less. There is no "great conservative hope" waiting in the wings to sweep to victory four years later, as in 1980 (or to sweep to catastrophic defeat four years later, as in 1964).

In the meantime, you'll have eight years of President Obama or President Hillary... in which so much of what we consider America is destroyed (politically or literally) that what is left is simply not a country we can imagine. If you think that there is no difference between McCain and either of those two bozos, then you have let someone make a fool of you.

You're not going to get 100% of your agenda, because a large percent of Americans -- even a large percent of good Republican conservatives -- don't agree with you. The only way you could get 100% of your agenda is to seize power and impose the last 30% of it by force of arms.

We live in a small-d democracy (which includes constitutional republics), and other people do actually get to have a say in the national agenda. If you look back to the Reagan era, he got no more than 60%-65% of what he wanted... but it was the right 65%, a critical 65%.

You know I'm not a fan of John McCain and I didn't vote for him. But even so:

  • McCain supports the most important policy for our survival: War against global hirabah;
  • He supports efforts to drastically cut spending;
  • He is pro-life;
  • He supports lower taxes today, even if he voted against them in 2001 (probably out of vindictive anger against George Bush);
  • He opposes same-sex marriage;
  • He supports free-market health-insurance reform, not socialized medicine;
  • He supports tort reform;
  • He supports more drilling in America than we allow today;
  • He supports the RKBA as a "fundamental, individual Constitutional right;"
  • On space issues, he supports the return to the Moon and a manned Mars expedition.

On every single one of these vital issues, he is on the opposite side of both Obama and Clinton.

Even on the issues where he parts company with most conservatives -- campaign-finance "reform," border control, global warming, how to treat terrorist detainees -- he is nowhere near as far left as those other two.

Finally, if one's biggest concern is presidential temperment... well, Hillary Clinton has a worse rage problem and is more vindictive than he. And Barack Obama is less experienced, more feckless, and is much more sympathetic to our enemies.

Therefore, I consider it literally insane for conservatives like Ann Coulter to say that if McCain is nominated, they will support Hillary or Barack. Medved has taken to calling this "MDS," McCain Derangement Syndrom... and for once, I agree with him. If McCain is nominated, any conservative who either supports the Democrat or who loudly and petulantly sits out the election is barking mad.

Ronald Reagan wouldn't have done that. When he lost the nomination in 1976 to sitting president Gerald Ford -- he went out and campaigned for Ford. He didn't announce that he wasn't going to vote or that he would vote for Carter.

I want conservatives to grow up: If McCain is the Republican nominee, for God's sake, they should all vote for -- and campaign for -- John McCain. To the extent that they whine that he will "split (or destroy) the party," what they mean is that they themselves threaten to abandon the party if they don't get their way on every issue.

I warned that if conservatives turned against the immigration bill that gave them 80% of what they wanted, demanding all or nothing, then they would get nothing -- and the next bill would be written by a Democratic Congress. Well, it will be.

If conservatives today turn against the Republican nominee, whoever he is, then the next election will be against a strong, ensconced Democratic incumbent... and we'll lose that one, too.

And in the meantime, all the gains the country has made against liberalism in the last fourteen years will be reversed, and we'll be right back to the Bill Clinton years of 1993 and 1994... but without a Newt Gingrich to lead us out of the wilderness.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 1:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Reagan was right to lose 40% of the time???!

Your "take it as it comes" attitude is not going to solve the problems this country faces. Solutions are divisive. Solutions are infuriating. Until the GOP is willing to enact solutions on 51-49 votes it will not be worthy of power; and what's more, it will not inspire people to come out for its candidates.

It may well be that 2012 the GOP would put up somebody more liberal; there's too many people within it who imagine the best way to win is to react. That wasn't Reagan's way. Reagan shoved to change what Americans would tolerate.

Yes, Reagan worked for Ford. Reagan was a candidate. I'm a voter. I don't have to rally anybody to believe in my own capacity to hold office. I get to use my own best judgement tactlessly and selfishly, and I say I won't help build a 20-year machine for half a loaf. I want to keep pushing for the whole enchilada.

In my hotel job I sometimes have people ask me the best way over the mountains--15 or 330? They don't always listen to me. As yet, nobody's died taking the wrong road, but some of those people got lost and gave up. I won't wring my hands bemoaning that I wasn't more persuasive. I told them what was right, they chose not to listen, and they can take the consequences.

I don't share your pessimism regarding our chances against a "firmly ensconced Democrat". As you say, they'll likely have their own way for two to four years. When has that been wildly successful?

Where will the next Newt or Reagan come from? Where Newt and Reagan came from. Nowhere special.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 1:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: Laurel

What John McCain has is more than charisma. A used car salesman or con artist can have charisma. McCain has the tangible, positive energy of someone who is genuinely enlightened and inspired. He's the real thing, not some media creation as Obama is. McCain really cares about this country and all of its people. Most of the media portrayed him in the worst possible light during the past election campaign, but when you actually meet him or see him in person, you feel uplifted, like he wants everyone around him to be well and happy. I'm glad there are people like that in the world.

The above hissed in response by: Laurel [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 9, 2009 8:17 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved