‘Duh’ News of the Day: GOP Insiders Worry

June 9th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

It seems that GOP insiders worry that Barack Obama will easily beat John McCain in November.

duh-701568.jpg

Thomas Edsell writes, for Real Clear Politics, that prominent GOP insiders worry about McCain’s chances this November. Instead of using the last couple of months – when he was already the nominee, and the Democrats were still trying to kill each other – to ‘define the debate in favorable terms,’ McCain spent ‘much of the valuable primary months defending himself on charges that his campaign staff was top heavy with lobbyists.’

Additionally, Edsell writes, ‘McCain has so far eluded the anti-Republican tidal wave that threatens to sweep away the party’s candidates at every level, from county councils to the U.S. Senate.’

But still, quite amazingly, he’s doing reasonably well in the polls. The very latest ones have him and Obama virtually tied… or so McCain’s team says.

Edsell contradicts that; sure, they may be tied with regards to the popular vote, but Americans do not elect their president based on such a system. No, they vote per state, and the winner of the state takes all delegates. This means that individual states are of great importance. On top of that it means that even a minor victory in a state (with many delegates) is incredibly helpful.

And when it comes to independent states, the situation is less positive for McCain.

Republican insiders know this, the author contends, and worry about November:

I think we’ve got a world of problems,” said one Republican strategist with extensive experience in presidential campaigns. He said this came home to him with a thud when he watched Obama and McCain give speeches last Tuesday, with the Democrat speaking before “20,000 screaming fans, while John McCain looked every bit of his 72 years” in a speech televised from New Orleans. This Republican cited the liberal blogger Atrios’ description of McCain’s speech with a green backdrop that made McCain “look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad.”

For McCain to stand a chance of winning, the operative contended, the campaign, the Republican National Committee, or an independent group will have to finance sustained negative ads developing a broad assault on Obama’s credibility as a national leader at a time of terrorist threat. McCain, however, has gone out of his way to aggressively discourage such activity, the operative pointed out, which, he argued, may kill McCain’s chances.

Another strategist with similar presidential experience said “McCain has not claimed the maverick ground that should be his. He has not seized the mantle of ‘change’ and reform that he could own by going to Washington and saying, ‘you know me. You know I’ve been a reformer all my life. Now, here’s how I am going to change Washington if you elect me president.’ And he has not taken economic turf. He has not explained how he is going to grow, not Washington, as the Democrats plan, but this economy to meet the challenges of global competition.”

Frankly, I think that these Republicans see things quite well. Some argue that McCain will be able to compete in November because he is moderate, because people know him, and because he is experienced and reliable.

That may sound logical, but McCain’s main problem does not have anything to do with name-recognition, nor with policies.

No, McCain’s problem is… John McCain.

McCain comes across as someone who secretly thinks about retiring. It is not considered to be politically correct to talk about his age, but his age is a problem nonetheless. On television he bares close resemblance to a robot… from the 1930s. Or, perhaps a better example, like an energizer bunny who’s battery has gone dead.

You can see that the man may have inspired people 10, 15, and 20 years ago, but today he’s merely inspiring people to switch off the television and to go out and picknick.

This is McCain’s main problem, and this is why I believe that the Democrats will win fairly easily in November. Simply put, McCain is too boring to win in this day in age. 80 years ago he could have won, 70 years ago as well. But in the age of television and in the Internet? No.

No, Republicans should start thinking about 2012. If Obama wins, and he will, they will probably have a lot of material to work with four years from now. But they will need to come up with a candidate who is young, fresh, and inspiring. Not someone who hopes to bore America’s enemies to death.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Chris
    June 10th, 2008 at 00:27
    Reply | Quote | #1

    “Simply put, McCain is too boring to win in this day in age”

    Six months is a long time. He was counted out last summer. Granted I like the guy and support him, but if a hit TV series can’t sustain the american public’s attention span over several weeks why would either candidate either McCain or Obama. Let’s play the game, shall we?

  2. Interested
    June 10th, 2008 at 01:28
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Quite a bit of difference from your mantra of – only Clinton – Michael.  Do you think all of this is perhaps why Rove and Company had been pushing for Clinton for the better part of a year?

    Around the office where earlier there too they were hoping for Clinton – which would have meant an easy GOP Win.  Now the same people are thinking about voting for Obama instead of McCain.

    as one guy put it, you listen to Obama and you don’t get the desire to rip your ears out of your head, or go postal with a set of scissors. like you do with most politicians.

  3. Michael Merritt
    June 10th, 2008 at 01:29
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Barack Obama is sounding like a broken record when he keeps repeating "100 years in Iraq," and some further research on his record is making me anxious.  He also sounds like he keeps pandering to the far left, when he should be moving toward the middle.

    McCain, meanwhile, keeps sounding like he’s just as old as he is, made me laugh (but not in a good way) with how he said, "That’s not change we can believe in" last Tuesday, and keeps unnecessarily trying to pander to the far right, and they don’t even want his support.  He should be keeping firm in the middle (as you point out in your entry).

    I might just be voting Barr in November.

  4. Chris
    June 10th, 2008 at 05:42
    Reply | Quote | #4

    pander to the far right  AND I might just be voting Barr in November.  

    Huh?  If voting record means anything then Barr is far to the right of McCain.

  5. real clear politics
    June 10th, 2008 at 16:22
    #5
  6. utsu
    June 10th, 2008 at 17:28
    Reply | Quote | #6

    I don’t care so much about his age as his lack of sincerity and impregnation with all the bad things I associate with military tradition and pragmatic thinking. Plus, his tendency to anger is something I associate to Bush’s emotional yet uncaring and crass legacy. His substance and explicit political program (most of it) worries me, his abstract values and qualities makes me want to move to Mars. 

  7. utsu
    June 10th, 2008 at 17:32
    Reply | Quote | #7

    "He also sounds like he keeps pandering to the far left, when he should be moving toward the middle."

    I’m not the one to ask people for this, but couold you give me an example apart from his stance on macro/international economics? I find that the definition of far left has moved to the right ever since I started watching it.

    "Now the same people are thinking about voting for Obama instead of McCain. "

    Lose the Hilary shrills and gain some disenchanted indies and republicans – could a far-left panderer do that?

  8. Interested
    June 10th, 2008 at 21:51
    Reply | Quote | #8

    Plus, his tendency to anger is something I associate to Bush’s emotional yet uncaring and crass legacy

    Feel the same way with both Clintons?

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.