Someone needs to check John McCain for a hunting license. He’s been prowling the Republican establishment for the past few years, hunting for those he can convince to join his budding bid for President. Lately, McCain has been poaching Bushies over on W’s territory – and he’s bagged a few.
This past February he picked off Mark McKinnon, the chief media advisor to Bush’s presidential campaigns. And just this week he got Terry Nelson, the former Political Director for Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign.
Given the animosity between the Bush and McCain camps since the 2000 presidential primaries, one has to wonder what’s going on, other than the chance to work for a candidate who's likely to have a fat bankroll.
While McCain’s not an official candidate yet, the same is true for all of the other potential candidates waiting in the wings. Good manners dictate waiting to officially become a presidential candidate until after the mid-term election passes. In other words, on November 8th we’ll have at least four or five announced candidates in the GOP field.
But such niceties do not stop candidates from laying the groundwork early, if unofficially. With that in mind, and in hopes of achieving a better outcome this time, McCain has made the strategic decision to ditch the outsider status that he had when he ran against the establishment’s chosen candidate George Bush in 2000. This is evidenced not only by his recent hires, but also by his steady wooing of local Bush loyalists, not to mention his frequent visits and his fundraising on behalf of local party organizations and other political groups.
In other words, we have a case of the outsider who wants to campaign as an insider. Usually it’s the other way around. Why is it different in his case? Because, for the most part, the “in crowd” can’t stand him and he has made a habit of doing things that reinforce such feelings.
So who’s the “in crowd”? The Old Boys Club in the Senate for starters. These are guys that have to go along to get along with one another based on personality and usually frown on showboating at the expense of others. McCain hogs a little too much limelight for their tastes.
Then there are the economic conservatives who aren’t that thrilled with McCain’s lack of cooperation on the tax cutting front. And don’t forget the social conservatives, many of whom favor strict limitations on illegal immigration. At present, McCain is poorly positioned to make anyone in this group happy with his immigration reform plan, which will essentially end with the amnesty of virtually every illegal alien living in this country. Not to mention the fact that he’s cosponsoring it with Ted Kennedy. How’s that for a campaign brochure?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bliffle
McCain can't win. He's a senator with a voting record. Senators don't win. Governors win. Governors are state leaders, senators are members of a chorus. That's the sportsmans take on McCain, which is important since politics is primarily a rooting interest in this country, like football. Too bad The Issues don't count more.
Besides, any dolt can figure out how to beat McCain: back him into a corner with bluster and watch him fold. He's not a fighter, he's a stoic, and that's what accounts for his 'heroic' record as a POW. He survived, he didn't organize a revolt or a breakout. GWB (or his handlers) correctly divined this in 2000 and crushed McCain in SC. Truculent US citzens responded to GWBs brazenness because there is a popular delusion that the rest of the world pushes Poor Us around all the time.
You see, McCain is beaten without even addressing the issues. I doubt that the republicans will let him run, except as a sacrificial candidate against a Really Powerful democrat candidate, like they let Dole run in 96.
2 - Arch Conservative
Bliffle is right for once.
Mccain can't win. There is no way he can win in the Republican primaries. Most likely we will see someone like George Allen, Mitt Romney or some unidentified candidate yet gain antional attentionand momentum as 2008 nears and win the GOP nomination and beat Hillary.
3 - Dave Nalle
A couple of points for accuracy:
on November 8th we'll have at least four or five announced candidates in the GOP field.
Actually, there's no reason for candidates to officially announce until well into 2007, and I think we can expect most of them not to actually announce until the summer. They may be forming committees and raising money already, but that's not the same as officially declaring as a candidate.
And then there are the religious conservatives, especially those who favor a harder line on abortion related issues than McCain is comfortable taking.
With his near total opposition to abortion McCain is about as hard line as any electable candidate they're going to get.
While several polls of Republican voters have placed him at the head of a muddled field of potential candidates
I'd be interested to see those polls. No poll I've seen places McCain at higher than third with around 10%.
And Bliffle does have a point about Senators, though I think McCain could be an exception to that rule. The other thing about Senators is that their lack of executive experience often makes them poor managers once they get elected.
Dave
4 - Bliffle
Hillary can't win either: she's just a senator. Senators often deceive themselves about their popularity because of the comically excessive respect they show each other on the senate floor. Even if she were better qualified the reps would have no trouble slandering her. The dems seem to have no good choices.
The reps seem to have a couple good governors getting primed up, so it looks like they'll win in 08 unless they select a Secret Dud, or the dems come up with some better names.
5 - Andy Marsh
You should watch Warner. I heard people say he's a one time gov...but that's not his fault. that's VA law. He's a dem that got himself and his replacement elected in a red state.
6 - Arch Conservative
I'm pulling for Mitt Romney to win the GOP NOD. He is like the anti John Kerry, meaning the more people get to know him the more they like him. He is more of a true fiscal conservative than Bush and just about socially conservative enough to woo the GOP base.
Romney 2008
7 - lumpy
Romney does nothing for me and McCain is an ancient loser. no one wants a proven loser. giuliani leads most of the polls and it's time to tell the zealots to bite the bullet and put up with a candidate who's electable.
8 - Bliffle
I suspect that Romneys LDS connection will hurt him much more than Kennedys Catholicism did. Kennedy was adroit about being RC and you can't say the same for Romney. I suspect that most Americans are more afraid of the home-grown LDSers than the foreign RCs - after all, the pope has to cross an entire ocean to affect affairs here, but LDS is right here in Utah! And every other western state.
9 - Bliffle
I don't think Hillary has a chance: the reps HATE her and will do anything to defeat her: anything! And many dems have a similar detestation, if for no other reason than the way she let Kerry be sacrificed. The progressives hate her for her support of the Iraq invasion. Most of the others dislike her for being a Pushy Broad (but not clever enough to be Margaret Thatcher).
It may be that the dems best candidate is Al Gore! Depends on what he does the next couple years.
10 - Steve
If Bush can win two elections in a row, I don't see how or why the Reps. would be willing to go with a moderate like Rudy in 2008. If the Reps. lose in 2008, then anything is possible in 2012 however.
11 - Dave Nalle
Given that Bush barely won those two elections and is now extremely unpopular a moderate might be appealing - especially if 2006 goes badly for the GOP.
Dave
12 - Steve
Well, Dave,
I guess it's all relative in some ways, but really, I think the most opposition to Bush is re. the Iraq war outside of his party, and re. the huge govt. spending, from inside his party.
Other than being a more dovish candidate perhaps, I don't see any reason why the next one would be more moderate in any other way.
I mean, he couldn't be more moderate (i.e. not right wing) on spending surely, and if he were more moderate on social issues, the base simply would not go to the polls in the same numbers.
I think that leaves
1) a fiscally conservative candidate
2) who doesn't believe in spreading democracy thru war in the world
are the two qualifications necessary in the next candidate. Change anything else, and/or forget 1) above and you can say bye bye to the base.
Forget 2) and you wont get any new votes.
13 - Scott
As I recently read in an article by some political analyst (perhaps Dick Morris?), the GOP has two types of candidates lining up for the nom in '08.
1.) Those who could win the presidency but would never get the Republican nomination, ie - Rudy Guiliani, John McCain...
2.) Those who could get the nomination but wouldn't win the presidency, ie - George Allen, Bill Frist.
Then I think he went on to say that Condi Rice is a good choice. We shall see, I suppose.
14 - Dave Nalle
Steve, I think that the mistake is in thinking that the religious right is 'the base'. They're not. The base is the fiscal conservative, pro-business, socially indifferent crowd. That's the real base. The moralistic right are fellow travellers who have nowhere else to go and should be used and kept in their place by being thrown the occasional bone.
Dave
15 - Steve
Well, Dave, that doesn't explain why this admin. is spending money like a drunken sailor!! If the fiscal conservatives are a bigger part of the party, pray tell, why can't they reduce the spending??
Likewise, if the social conservatives are such a minority, how come they managed to get Bush to change his Supreme Court nominee???
Sorry Dave, but reality does not seem to square with your assumptions. Either way, losing social conservatives, and given the way this admin. has been spending, will make both parties look pretty much the same. Are you sure you would prefer, for all intents and purposes, a one party state, Dave?
16 - Andy Marsh
I resent that drunken sailor stereotype...even if it is correct!
17 - Steve
Well, Andy, just an attempt at some levity, but certainly, I would never make it as a comedian lol.
18 - Andy Marsh
You're alright Steve...I was just busting on you is all...I can handle it...I'll just have another drink!
19 - Steve
LOL, Andy.
20 - Dave Nalle
Well, Dave, that doesn't explain why this admin. is spending money like a drunken sailor!! If the fiscal conservatives are a bigger part of the party, pray tell, why can't they reduce the spending??
Because the people in office are corrupt, venal and self-serving. Bush has managed to implement minor cuts, but without a line-item veto it's impossible to get rid of all the pork stuck onto major bills. When each congressman and senator adds on one little amendment to help out his supporters it ends up adding up to a hell of a lot. Nonetheless, without the war expense and the growing entitlement debt, the budget would be a lot leaner than it's been in a long time.
Likewise, if the social conservatives are such a minority, how come they managed to get Bush to change his Supreme Court nominee???
Huh? Are you talking about Harriet Miers? She was changed because people thought she was under-qualified, not because of her position on moral issues.
Sorry Dave, but reality does not seem to square with your assumptions. Either way, losing social conservatives, and given the way this admin. has been spending, will make both parties look pretty much the same. Are you sure you would prefer, for all intents and purposes, a one party state, Dave?
No, we already are close enough to that already. I'd prefer a 3 or more party state. The religious nuts need to be in their own party at the very least.
Dave
21 - Scott
"Huh? Are you talking about Harriet Miers? She was changed because people thought she was under-qualified, not because of her position on moral issues"
Let me be the first to call "bullshit" on this one. Perhaps your elitist pig label is correct Dave. You're clearly out of touch.
22 - Dave Nalle
Ok, Scott. Show me some proof that it was religious issues which got Miers withdrawn. I certainly saw no evidence of that.
Dave
23 - Scott
Not surprising. You don't seem to see much of anything.
24 - Dave Nalle
I can only see what's there, Scott. You haven't made an effective case that I'm wrong, or for that matter any case at all. Your assertions alone aren't enough.
Dave
25 - Steve
It was CNN that gave me the impression that the base was suspicious of Myer's nomination because she didn't have a clear conservative track record. If I'm wrong about that, then so is CNN I guess. Anything's possible I suppose.
I had heard that the Iraq War was only 40-50% of the deficit, that's still leaves a heck of alot of deficit for a supposedly conservative party.
However, I agree with you about line item vetos. Pork does appear to be bankrupting America. Would be a shame if the nation of the donkey and the elephant are sunk by the pig!!