A failed campaign

The (flawed) basis of the McCain campaign was that he had a strong appeal to a lot of Democrats. Add this to the total support of registered Republicans and you had a guaranteed majority.

This was based on the seemingly strong showing in the 2000 primary in states that had open primaries. Such races seemed to show a broad base of support for McCain. But what motivated the Dems who crossed the line? Were they muddying the water for the GOP or were they supporting the Republican candidate who was most like a Democrat? In a real contest, most Democrats would prefer the real thing to a RINO.

McCain alienated a lot of Republicans with his support for amnesty and his concept of ‘campaign finance reform’. He brought a lot back on the reservation with the selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate. Had he gone with a mushy moderate (such a the oafish Tom Ridge) he would have done far worse in the electoral vote count.

McCain was not the anchor man (or close to it) at the USNA simply because he was a party animal (his first wife was an ‘entertainer’) and he may thank his legacy status for his graduation.

He appears to be a nice guy and his urge to maintain this image kept him from playing hardball.

His handlers ran a lousy campaign and will do anything to preserve their undeserved reputations as winners. They can throw Sarah under the bus with as little reluctance as they ‘dissed’ George W. Bush.

The McCain eagerness to get in on the Bailout turned off a lot of populists. What was needed was a fast track investigations of executives at Fanne Mae, Freddie Mac, and certain investment banks. Take back the platinum parachutes and send some hustlers to prison.

McCain seemed as enthusiastic for ‘cap and trade’ idiocy as Obama and this further dampened enthusiasm for him.

How many votes for McCain were actually votes against Obama?

20 Comments

  1. I really think you need to reconsider your premise. The people of this country and this state have rejected radical rightwing policies and candidates with a strong voice. (See Clatworhty & O’Donnell)

    You guys need to hurry up and move way to the left to get anybody elected in Delaware in the future.

  2. David: Probably some of each. And there were probably votes for Barack Obama that were actually votes against either John McCain or Sarah Palin.

  3. Mike Castle is a careerist who is overdue for retirement. Yet he did get my vote because he sometimes is on the right side of an issue.

    Now that one of the Three Stooges of Delaware has been promoted, Castle will have a new playmate.

    Perhaps the voters need a representative who will not be a reliable sellout to the money changers.

  4. Money Changers?

    Castle keeps winning because he is the most Dem-like. He said as much in the Delaware State News.

    You guys need to do some soul searching or end up as useless as the Green Party.

  5. The Republican Party of Delaware has been dominated by a clique that sees the grass roots types as the one to to all of the heavy lifting.

    There are no strong positions taken on issues and the ‘me too’ attitude does little to build excitement.

    So-called ‘progressives’ who put their faith in central planning and ‘Big Nanny’ (Big Brother in Drag) can build some enthusiasm by pushing issues that can get some of the faithful worked up. It is easy to build up an appetite for Moon Pie in the Sky with a clientele that has little idea about who will pick up the tab (as long as it is someone elese). Can a party survive on the hope of winning generic partisan victories?

    What about a party that trusts people to make decisions for themselves and be secure in their property? Dems were on the side of the fat-cats who wanted to make a fast buck by using a government bludgeon of emminent domain to grab private property.

    What Attorney General turned blind when those records at the DPC were being shredded and nurses were being threatened by goons with political connections? Where was the reaction from our political leaders?

    There are some problems in the state that cry out for reform that should be bipartisan. Should loan sharks fronting for ‘respectable’ banks be charging interest rates for ‘payday loans’ that would be offensive to a mobster? Who care about their victims?

  6. The Republicans used to follow the type of advice being given now, move left, be more like the Democrats. And in the 1960s and 1970s, we had those stalwart Republican leaders, like Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania and Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Gerald Ford of Michigan, always good for a quip, always nice to have on Meet the Press, and oh-so-inoffensive. They were the go-along-to-get-along Republicans — and they were in the permanent minority.

    Oh, the GOP managed to elect a president during that time, but he was a primarily moderate Republican, who gave us wage-and-price controls to fight inflation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the realpolitik of Henry Kissinger. But it was a Republican Party based on pragmatism rather than principle, and it kept us in the minority.

    The Republican Party returned to power when it began to actually stand for something different, when it stopped being Democrats Lite, less filling and less taste! Ronald Reagan actually stood for something different, enunciated conservative ideas, not only winning the presidency, but bringing in a Republican majority in the Senate for the first time since the early 1950s. The elder George Bush, though a great guy, was more pragmatic than conservative, and when he gave in to pragmatism and higher taxes, he wrote the end for his presidency after one term.

    It helped that the Democrats over-reached in 1993, when Bill Clinton, who won the presidency on a moderate platform and a pledge of a middle class tax cut, governed from the left and raised taxes, but it took the leadership of Newt Gingrich and what I’d call guerrilla conservatism to lead the GOP back to the majority.

    Y’all are telling us that the way to victory is to become Democrats Lite again, but that has never worked for us before. Republicans won when they stood for something, when the stood on principle, and that’s what they’ll need to do again.

  7. On the other hand, my vote for Obama, and that of many of my friends, was actually a vote against McCain.

  8. Y’all are telling us that the way to victory is to become Democrats Lite again, but that has never worked for us before. Republicans won when they stood for something, when the stood on principle, and that’s what they’ll need to do again.

    What is your beef with reality?

    You want your party to “stand for something” but voters hate all the stuff you want it to stand for. (e.g. forking over tax money no questions to corporations, crazy vanity wars, running up the national debt) Ever read the newspapers ? Liberalism kicked your asses.

    Listen, being “Democrats Lite” works well for your party’s leader, Mike Castle. But maybe you want to stay a bunch a lone wolves howling at the moon pointlessly. If so, be my guest.

  9. “Sending US jobs overseas.” “Invading People’s private lives.”

    I forgot to mention two other parts of the old school GOP platform the voters hate.

  10. So, Jason, how does conservatism send US jobs overseas? What leads corporations to outsource overseas is economic reality: if they can produce their goods more cheaply overseas, that is exactly what they will do, because that makes them more profitable.

    The cost of a thing to a company consists of total labor, materials, transportation, overhead and taxes. It used to be that transportation from overseas outweighed the higher labor prices in the United States.

    Now transportation has gotten much less expensive, relatively speaking, to the point where it no longer outweighs our much higher labor costs. It has simply become less expensive to produce overseas and ship to the United States than it is to produce in the US.

    The Democrats are, of course, still in thrall to the labor unions, whose goal is to further increase labor costs! And that’s why unions remain successful only in industries which are not portable, industries which produce a local service (government or education, primarily) and are seeing constant job losses in industries which can produce away from the sales area.

  11. Invading people’s private lives? That’s just the liberal euphemism for abortion. But, please, consider the other invasions of people’s private lives: continually increasing restrictions on smoking, continued increasing of government regulation of child rearing, continued government meddling for our own good. Yet, the only thing y’all oppose is the idea that government ought to save the life of an unborn child!

    If that’s an idea that will never receive more than minority support, well, so be it; it is not one on which I can compromise.

  12. I am more moderate than Dana on abortion but believe that the broad acceptance of the process is a a sign of social degeneration.

    I respecfully differ with Dana on the issue of capital punishment where there in no doubt re the corpus delecti.

    I find those who treat a late term abortion as a secular sacrament while weeping for a Ted Bundy to be hypocrites with a very twisted sense of moral values.

    Should the Government really care what consenting adults do in private? Should we learn to love Big Nanny? While I have never been a smoker, I resent the anti-smoking zealots. Maybe Obama will cause this crusade to loosen up a bit. What about the right of a District of Columbia resident to have a functional firearm in his or her home? Liberals are very selective when it comes to rights.

  13. You want your party to “stand for something” but voters hate all the stuff you want it to stand for. (e.g. forking over tax money no questions to corporations, crazy vanity wars, running up the national debt) Ever read the newspapers ? Liberalism kicked your asses.

    You mean the same corporations that employ thousands of Americans? I suppose from a liberal POV supporting businesses that provide the means for people to support themselves must seem like “forking over tax money.” Better to subsidize people not working directly.

    Vanity wars? Is this the same liberalism that decried Saddam Hussein in the 1990s and applauded Bill Clinton bombing Sudan and declaring regime change in Iraq a top priority? Or is it just a “vanity war” when the president isn’t from your party?

    Running up the national debt? Barack Obama has no plans to lower the national debt. He didn’t campaign at all on the notion of fiscal restraint. In fact, he’s calling for more and more spending with no way to pay for it. When Dems talk about freezing spending or cutting domestic programs, then I’ll believe you guys are serious about the debt. Otherwise, it’s just another example of the BS you guys spew every election cycle.

    “Sending US jobs overseas.” “Invading People’s private lives.”

    President Clinton was in favor of NAFTA. That’s your baby. And businesses are designed to make money. If you really are concerned about U.S. jobs going overseas, figure out how to export what we make. Trying to punish businesses for wanting to be profitable isn’t going to help American workers in any way.

    Invading people’s lives? You mean with greater regulations like Barack Obama is promising through the FDA, EPA, etc.? Telling people that their property can’t be developed because some endangered species spends a month on it every year is a gross invasion of people’s lives. As is the effects of cap and trade (skyrocketing electricity, anyone?). And let’s not forget Obama’s plans for health care. That’s about as invasive as it gets.

    No, I suppose you are talking about abortion, since it’s the only invasion of people’s lives your side seems to care about. Tell me what food I can eat, what car I can drive, where I can live, how much of anything I should be able to have…those are permissible intrusions into my daily life. But acknowledge that humans in the womb should be protected? That’s intolerable!

    Yes, I can see how actually standing for life is a losing issue to those of your mindset.

  14. “You want your party to “stand for something” but voters hate all the stuff you want it to stand for. (e.g. forking over tax money no questions to corporations, crazy vanity wars, running up the national debt) Ever read the newspapers ? Liberalism kicked your asses.”

    You mean the same corporations that employ thousands of Americans?

    Sharon, if you intend to justify spending tax-money on employing people, it’s probably more efficient to advocate out-and-out communism.

    Paying some well-connected Republican donar so they can employ people sounds like, what’;s the word – oh yes – corruption.

  15. Sharon, if you intend to justify spending tax-money on employing people, it’s probably more efficient to advocate out-and-out communism.

    Paying some well-connected Republican donar so they can employ people sounds like, what’;s the word – oh yes – corruption.

    Democrats like to demonize business as, somehow, just another welfare recipient. They don’t acknowledge the simple fact that if businesses don’t succeed, they don’t hire people, they don’t invest in communities and they don’t create more products consumers want.

    Government gives tax breaks to activities we want more of and taxes activities we want less of. If you want to tax the hell out of business, you’ll get less of it.

    And then Dems fuss and fume about business going overseas. How stupid can they be?

Comments are closed.