McCain's decline in popularity has been somewhat startling, from a position on the supposed inside track coming out of the 2000 election, to desperately trying to keep his campaign alive as the competition became more serious. His inability to effectively challenge Rudy Giuliani and constant polls showing him less likely to beat major Democrat contenders than Giuliani or Thompson put him in a very difficult situation from which to rally his campaign.
In addition, his chimerical position on the Iraq War, opposing the Bush strategy but wholeheartedly supporting the war, has left a lot of potential moderate supporters puzzled, and his constant vacillation between extremely conservative and more moderate positions has confused many voters.
McCain reportedly plans to take more direct and personal control over the campaign so that he can get out his fiscally conservative, morally moderate, and anti-terror message more effectively. Whether or not it is already too late to change course and revitalize his campaign should become clear in the next couple of months.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bliffle
McCain did exactly the wrong thing in 2000 when he let Bush get away with the scurrilous campaign Rove set against him in SC. When he took offense at that attack he should have fought Bush To The Death. By delivering only a wrist slap and then backing down he doomed himself as weak. Everything since then has been anticlimax. Everyone knows McCain can be intimidated, both domestic political opponents and US enemies abroad. That's why the Russians challenged JFK with missiles in Cuba: they detected the possibility of intimidation in various domestic political weaknesses of his and unwillingness to fight.
Do you want a president that OBL thinks is unwilling to fight?
2 - Baronius
Dave, you left out a key point in an otherwise comprehensive article, the immigration bill. McCain alienated conservatives by supporting the bill. He also reinforced his bad image among them: the moderate Washington insider.
This election cycle is about three times longer than usual. I've got a feeling that it'll eat up the major candidates. The negatives tend to build, while the positives just aren't there for a full-time campaigner.
3 - Dave Nalle
McCain's unwillingness to confront Bush or anyone else directly is a bizarre character flaw, and it's exactly the kind of weakness which raises questions about his ability to function as president.
Dave
4 - Alec
"McCain's decline in popularity has been somewhat startling, from a position on the supposed inside track coming out of the 2000 election ..."
Dave - Good article, but McCain's decline has not been startling at all. As others have noted, McCain has been anathema to hard core Republicans precisely because he appears to be a moderate. This is one of the reasons that he was so savagely undermined by conservatives who ultimately backed Bush in the 2000 campaign. In addition, his championing of campaign finance reform (whatever one thinks of his proposals) frightens stridently pro-business Republicans
Lastly, McCain's stand on immigration reform was the kiss of death. A wide swath of Republicans, not just Bush loyalists, just thought that he was on the wrong side of the issue on this, and he did not pull any offsetting support from moderates, independents or Democrats.
In many ways, McCain is an honorable man, and possibly much more reliable than some of the other presidential candidates. But I don't think that any Republican who remotely comes across as moderate, or explicitly willing to do deals with the Democrats, has the slightest chance of winning the GOP nomination, at least not without a great deal of backroom brawling. Giuliani might have a chance (even though some of the attempt to remove his 9/11 glow is coming from the right, not liberals), but McCain is finished.
5 - Heloise
I am still scratching my head as to why he got into the race in the first place. He is becoming the right-centrist Ralph Nader. He may not be out, but he sure as hell is down. Go McCain, have dinner with your buddy Ted!
Heloise
6 - Baronius
Alec, I agree with a lot of what you said. I think that Dave and Bliffle miss the point when they talk about McCain's failure to fight. McCain's reaction to a political attack was to burn bridges and grouse. He overreacted. If he'd responded with a defense, or agreeing to disagree, he could have recovered his support on the right.
Maybe the four of us can simply agree that McCain's response was ineffective.
7 - Les Slater
I do not have any stake in who runs for the Repubs or Dems but I think they all have big problems in front of them. I think Baronius in #2 makes a good point about how long these clowns have to stay in the spotlight. The more the people observe, the more they smell the stench.
Bush is not loosing popularity because he is a moderate, which he is. Everyone is loosing popularity.
A major reason the Repubs lost ground in '06 is the Dems painted the whole Repub party with the brush of its whacko right wing.
All these folk are going to have to soak the paper bag before any of them can punch their way out of it.
Hey, we need a new party.
Les
8 - Lumpy
We do need a new party Les, but the answer isn't going to be a new communist party or anything like it.
9 - Les Slater
I'm not proposing a new communist party or anything like it.
10 - RJ
Here's a prediction (a tad far-fetched, but not completely improbable):
By October 2007, McCain is polling in the single digits, and his campaign is completely bankrupt. Rudy and Mitt and Fred (and possibly Newt) are all polling better than McCain. So, McCain drops out.
In late March 2008, after the GOP and Dem nominations are pretty much sewn up, Bloomberg announces his candidacy - for Vice-President! (With McCain at the top of the ticket.)
And with hundreds of millions of dollars in Bloomberg bucks to be spent in support of this independent bid, they could easily get 15% of the vote. But who would they steal support from? The Republican, or the Democrat? Or both?
Could be interesting...
11 - gonzo marx
it's an interesting scenario, RJ
i just can't see Bloomberg playing second fiddle when he is writing the checks...
and we know McCain won't take the #2 spot
but in your scenario, pretty certain McCain won't be pulling from the Ds with his stance on Iraq
Excelsior?
12 - handyguy
McCain is still one of the most honorable people in politics. He's one of the few politicians whom I disagree with on 9 out of 10 issues, yet still respect immensely. It's hard to imagine a McCain administration built on misinformation and propaganda - politics instead of policy - in the way the Rove/Cheney/Bush White House has been.
But because primary voters are the most red-meat partisans anywhere, he's at a disadvantage. If there were a national non-partisan presidential primary, he might have led the field [though unfortunately the odious Rudy Giuliani would have done well in that sort of contest too].
13 - Baronius
Handy, that's interesting. I probably agree with McCain 9/10 of the time, but totally don't trust him. He takes every disagreement as a personal attack. Very Nixonian.
14 - Joe
McCain-Feingold ruined him for me. Hardly the 1st amendment judgment I want to see in a president.
15 - RJ
"McCain-Feingold ruined him for me."
McCain-Feingold tarnished him for me. But his unwavering support of amnesty for illegal immigrants (and personal attacks on anyone who opposed it) completely ruined him for me.
- - -
McCain-Lieberman would be an interesting independent ticket, too. But it would mostly steal support from the GOP nominee, and ensure a Hillary-Obama landslide in November 2008...
Or how about a Paul-Gravel ticket under the Libertarian banner? Or Nader-Gravel under the Green banner? :-/
16 - handyguy
Ideologues will of course react to someone ideologically.
McCain-Feingold wasn't deliberately aimed at first-amendment rights. It was an attempt, however flawed, to reduce the poisonous effect of money on politics. Right wing opponents rarely bother to mention whether they think this is a serious issue or not.
McCain's stand on immigration wasn't deliberately intended to ignore lawbreaking - it was an attempt, however flawed, to deal with the reality of the situation: illegal immigrants who are already here and who may have something positive to offer the US, given the chance. Right-wing opponents put their hands over their ears and yell, "No amnesty! No amnesty! No amnesty!" and have no interest in actually addressing the real issues.
Knee-jerk negativist responses like those are where the word 'reactionary' comes from.
17 - RJ
"Right-wing opponents put their hands over their ears and yell, "No amnesty! No amnesty! No amnesty!" and have no interest in actually addressing the real issues."
Not true. We "right-wing" types do offer a solution: Build a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and then man it with the National Guard and an expanded border patrol, working alongside volunteer citizens.
Once the influx of NEW illegals has gone from a flood to a trickle, you can then deal with the illegals already here. Deport those who are criminals and/or who carry dangerous infectious diseases, and allow the rest a pathway to citizenship, assuming they are willing to abide by our country's laws, learn the language of our country, etc.
Now THAT is a real COMPREHENSIVE solution.
18 - Baronius
Handy, I think campaign finance is a Constitutional issue. If there's a flaw, you fix it constitutionally.
Do I think there's too much money in campaigns? No. Campaign money doesn't influence me. I'd hope that ads don't influence other voters, too, but I can't do anything about it if they do. To state that better, every voter is entitled to be as dumb as they want.
There's no mandatory conservative answer to the question of whether campaign money is poisonous. There is a conservative default to originalism in constitutional matters, which is sorely lacking on the liberal side. The issue plays into that elitist sense of knowing better than the masses, which McCain possesses as well.
19 - handyguy
It's disingenuous [at best] to take the attitude that it's ok for elections to be swayed by geysers of distorted, false, slanderous ads - that they only affect morons anyway. But campaign finance reform is about much more than just the ads, ghastly as they have made our democratic process. Candidates are forced to live and breathe by their fundraising efforts...it becomes as important as or more important than actual policymaking. [Witness Sen. McCain's unfortunate Senate cloakroom calls to fundraisers this week.]
The pernicious influence of corporate lobbying money is well documented, yet both Democrats and Republicans are so addicted to the cash that they can't bring themselves to genuinely reform it. It is outrageous to claim that this doesn't matter. Does 'free speech' mean that the wealthy and powerful get a louder voice in a democracy than individuals? Ridiculous, amoral claptrap.
20 - handyguy
RJ, your 'comprehensive solution':
A. Will ever happen anyway;
B. Is based on gratuitous, militarist, racist fearmongering;
and
C. Would make this country and the world far worse places than they are already.
Other than that, great policy analysis.
21 - handyguy
sorry, meant "never happen anyway."
22 - REMF
"We "right-wing" types do offer a solution: Build a fence along the entire border with Mexico, and then man it with the National Guard and an expanded border patrol, working alongside volunteer citizens."
Now there's another typical right wing solution - get SOMEONE ELSE to do the dirty work. And just exactly where will the National Guard members come from...since they're already deployed to the invasion/occupation of Iraq?
23 - Clavos
I say man it with Mexicans.
That way, the rest of 'em won't have any trouble coming in, and the market for gardeners and maids will be so saturated with labor supply we won't have to pay them more than $2 an hour.
Manning it with NGs would be mean-spirited. Shooting Mexicans wouldn't be near as much fun as shooting Iraqis; the Mexicans don't shoot back.
24 - bliffle
Baronius is erroneous, again. It doesn't take a Constitutional amendment to change the modern system of bribery masquerading as 'free speech'. All such arguments are premised on an out-of-court ruling by the chief justice of SCOTUS that corporations have the same rights as persons. You can look it up: Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific. this is what is used to justify legalized bribery.
But the Chief Justice's bald assertion, autocratically declared, has misled people. Corps are NOT the same as people. In fact, they are what is commonly (in legal circles) called 'juristic persons' that is, an artificial person which for narrowly prescribed purposes has some of the rights and obligations of a person. But not all, and for a prescribed period of time. And revocable.
Nevertheless, fans of blatant bribery of elected officials cite the Santa Clara decision to support their thievery.
Anybody can exercise their free speech anytime by buying time on TV and proclaiming "vote for Bill Jones" as often and as loud as they want. They don't have the right to buy bill jones influence with campaign contributions. If they want to support bill jones financially they can put their bucks into a blind trust (as long as it isn't administered by Bill Frist!) from whence jones can draw without in the least having to pay obedience to the donor. Even if the donor says "I put in a million bucks, you better do what I say!", the candidate can say "that million came from a million kindergarteners, one buck at a time".
25 - RJ
RJ, your 'comprehensive solution':
A. Will ever happen anyway;
B. Is based on gratuitous, militarist, racist fearmongering;
and
C. Would make this country and the world far worse places than they are already.
A - why not?
B - how is it "racist" (or any of those other things you called it) for a nation to secure its own borders, and to enforce its own laws?
C - how so?