The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : McCain Was Terrible

Text Size

John McCain, personally, is responsible for the single worst Republican general election presidential campaign sinc 1964. Worse than the fair-to-middling Dole effort, and even worse than the execrable Bush 1992 campaign. I could, and probably will, write far more in coming days to flesh this out. I started writing this as a column two days ago, before the results were in, but various reasons precluded me from getting the column done in advance, for tomorrow, which would have been the only fair way to write it without being unduly affected by the results themselves. I do note, however, that I have written before that this was the worst campaign I have seen on the GOP side, so this isn't just 20-20 hindsight. I will go farther: I think McCain acted dishonorably for the entire past year, in case after case. I have noted some of these instances in past columns and blog posts. The worst of all was his scapegoating of Chris Cox at the SEC, while offering reasons that were just flat-out factually inaccurate. But there were lots of other examples of dishonrably behavior. Yes, I said disHONORable. I reject the notion that McCain's vaunted "honor" is unimpeachable -- although I do think his personal probity in terms of not being "buyable" is unimpeachable, as I wrote in a column the other day.

Again, there will be plenty of time to flesh all this out, and also to flesh out the conclusion that McCain has serious problems of temperament. For now, though, I can say this: If it weren't for the fact that the new president is an Alinskyite hard-left liar, I would say with great gusto to McCain this phrase: "Good riddance!"

View all comments (23) | Leave a comment

Bill Coulter| 11.4.08 @ 9:52PM

This is what happens when the NYTimes selects your candidate and the fool believes them.
At least Hillary for
President is toast....unless this guy really messes up

Captain America| 11.4.08 @ 10:01PM

Sen. McCain was not my first, second or third choice in the primaries. But he performed better than I initially anticipated (which wasn't much).

He struck me throughout as being much more comfortable running as a senior senator than as a presidential contender, as evidenced by his suspending the campaign during the bailout talks.

President Carter brought us President Reagan just as President (elect) Obama will bring us a much better prepared President Palin in 2012.

And yes, Hillary is toast.

Aedemmair| 11.4.08 @ 10:14PM

I never voted for somone [McCain/Palin] as unenthusiastically as I did tonight.

You're right to question McCain's vaunted honor, and that takes nothing away from his honor as a former prisoner of war.

He despised conservatives. He threw Palin at us, almost like a javelin. And it wouldn't surprise me if he has a few unpleasant things to say about her in the near future.

When a fine and reasonable Senator like Pete Domenici finds McCain's temperament a serious impediment to a McCain presidency, it's time to take note. And, who knows, it might even be a god send that he lost.

I don't know what lies ahead for the Republican party. Palin might make a good representative in the house for a few years, but she is not ready for the presidency and what I've noticed throughout these last few months is that money and cult rule.

Who we are can't just be about starting our own businesses and paying fewer taxes and all of the other exhausted come to phrases.

Something solid has to undergird conservatism, but from where I stand, what that is and has always been, is now fit for discussion only using hushed tones and words that are sure not to upset.

Conservatives have offered so very little outside of criticizing liberalism.

For whatever reason, two things come to mind tonight and they both involve Chelsea Clinton. Both McCain and Limbaugh picked on 14 year old young lady because of her looks.

It takes a special kind of cruelty to do that. And it shows what's inside the heart.

Fiscal conservatism without the 10 Commandments is worthless.

Happy Feder| 11.4.08 @ 10:18PM

I hate to bring this up, but Ronald Reagan was both the Beginning and the End. Or maybe the End of the Beginning. For some reason he picked Insider and Moderate George Bush as his VP, raising both eyebrows of the man who later would not raise even one eyebrows at the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's been downhill since then. Imagine if the Gipper had chosen a conservative as tried and true and valiant as himself for succession?

Briddemo| 11.4.08 @ 10:28PM

I am furious with Mccain and have been for a long time. He certainly wasn't my choice for nominee, but I swallowed that bitter pill and tried to support him (more of a vote against Obama). My disgust comes from Mccain's total lack of aggression in his campaign. He didn't FIGHT for America! This country has just elected an inexperienced, far left-wing radical as president! I'm terrified for our future. How is it possible that the campaign couldn't dig into Obama's past and prove how dangerous he is? Look at where Obama came from. It was predictable how Obama would campaign - he rose up from thug Chicago politics! His every move should have been anticipated and twarted. His associations should have been exposed and repeated again and again. But Mccain wouldn't touch Wright. How is it that Obama's coal comments just came out this weekend? What was Mccain's campaign doing for the last 10 months? This should have been a cake walk, but Mccain wanted to take the high road, and now we Americans and the world will all suffer for his arrogance. I pray for Israel and Iraq. God Bless America (better say that now before the Obama's speech police take me away)

Frustrated| 11.4.08 @ 10:39PM

Briddemo-----WELL SAID!!! All that is left now is to pray the Democrats don't get their filibuster-proof number in the senate and that conservative democrats (is that an oxymoron?) will have some backbone to stand up to the radical democrats!

Aedemmair | 11.4.08 @ 10:51PM

Senator McCain accused President-elect Obama of not knowing the difference between tactics and strategy.

That was so rich!

I wish Obama well. He has a chance to make history. I hope he realizes that and tells his loopy followers to get stuffed, and then moves on to make an American (a true original) name for himself.

African-Americans are Americans in a way the rest of us are not. They worked the soil of this great land with their own enslaved hands. It's their land in a very special way. And I'm happy for the fulfillment of what has no doubt seemed an elusive dream.

ruth| 11.5.08 @ 1:09AM

Aedemmair: speak for yourself. The American ancestors of both of my parents worked the Ohio soil of this great land for generations. I believe this is my land in a special way, too. It's not his skin-color or his ancestry that's so upsetting, he's a marxist! What a bunch of florid BS!

ruth| 11.5.08 @ 1:12AM

Also, what was Christian about the left the last 8 years? Was it lying about President Bush and calling him Hitler? No wonder we lose all of the time. The GOP--the stupid party.

midge| 11.5.08 @ 4:02AM

THANK YOU.

you are fucking saying something that everyone, left and right, has been thinking. can you please ask the Corner to WAKE THE EFF UP?!

midge| 11.5.08 @ 4:02AM

THANK YOU.

you are fucking saying something that everyone, left and right, has been thinking. can you please ask the Corner to WAKE THE EFF UP?!

Liles| 11.5.08 @ 9:37AM

"Conservatives have offered so very little outside of criticizing liberalism."

This is so true. We have alienated too many I am afraid. I hope we start from scratch. There has been nothing conservative about the past 8 years and there is very little conservative about McCain. Even Palin is not a true fiscal conservative (look at her profits tax in AK and increased taxes as mayor). Social conservativism as it exists today will NEVER win another presidential election. It's time to move on to true fiscal conservativism mixed with social moderation. It's the only chance we've got.

And.....Briddemo....
people heard the accusations and they don't believe it. It appears that there is very little there. He was a professor (so am I) and when you are a professor you are associated with people of all types. It certainly doesn't make you a thug. One sign of true intelligence is being able to associate with people unlike you but not being swayed by their beliefs. Remember the lies told about Clinton prior to his election (Russia, murderer, etc.). I am no Obama fan, but it's time for us to wake up too. There may not be enough there to hang your hat on. It's hard to imagine McCain (or the Clintons for that matter) not using it if it were true.

Mrs. Polly| 11.5.08 @ 10:11AM

One of the reasons the Republicans are in the weeds is that they have believed their own propaganda. Lilles' point about the ability of people to interact with those who hold widely divergent opinions shouldn't be ignored. Trying to use a classic logical fallacy against Obama didn't work: he is simply not a radical, and serving on a board (especially the Annenberg foundation!) or even attending a church fronted by a paper lion (quick, what terrible radical things has Jeremiah Wright DONE?....crickets) doesn't a radical make. And the public knew it.

robert green| 11.5.08 @ 10:33AM

not buyable?

the man literally sold himself to charles keating. not a little bit, but a whole shitload. he changed legislation for him (and he's done so over and over on land deals for his big AZ contributors) and though he wasn't convicted of that, he is thought to have leaked (per TNR and many others) to the press and to lawyers involved in the case to cover up and mitigate his involvement. he's a lot of things, mccain: war hero, interesting person, terrible flyer, smart politician, hothead, and so on. but he's also eminently, provably buyable.

i don't look forward to your list if you start from false premises.

damselfly1213| 11.5.08 @ 10:46AM

Upfront - I am a liberal Democrat. And I just want to say that anyone who thinks it's a good idea to run Sarah Palin again needs to wake up. She's an extremely polarizing figure. I'm 58 years old, and though I always vote, I have NEVER, EVER, in my long voting life sent multiple contributions to a political candidate. It was the prospect of a Vice President Palin that got me off my duff and motivated me to send money to Obama, not once, but three times. Her ignorance and lack of preparation for the vice presidency was just too dangerous.

Floridan| 11.5.08 @ 11:22AM

Don't blame McCain; blame Nixon, blame Reagan, blame Rove for initiating and continuing to pursue a Southern Strategy that as the racial animosities of the 1960s faded, doomed the GOP to becoming a party of the unreconstructed South.

The choices made back in the 1960s, and never corrected, have led, inevitably, to the election of a liberal Midwestern Democrat.

Aedemmair| 11.5.08 @ 12:41PM

Thanks for the reply, Liles.

I disagree, though: fiscal conservatism with social moderation will win nothing but what it's already won. Conservatism is not about money, it's about what undergirds a healthy society. Being afraid to say so will not lead the Republican party out of the wilderness they will now be inhabiting. A society that is rife with people who value the buck above all, is a society that will stand for very little and fall for a lot.

Neither McCain nor Palin spoke in the language of social conservatism. But McCain's gabfest with Rick Warren stood him in good stead, while Obama's flippant "above my pay grade" comment revealed his bankruptcy on this issue and the polls reflected that. Please see Tony Blankley's recent call to arms to get an historical and eloquent understanding of what we should be about.

I really believe that if the issue of life and fiscal concerns are taken on with conviction and zeal and tempered by historical imagination and eloquence, for every granite State citizen who has been put-off and lost by talk of values, more will be won over. And, by the way, the cause isn't about a harangue. It's about refusing to bullied out of your principles. Refusing to say this is something I can't, and am not allowed to speak about.

What we need are people who know what they believe and why they believe it. What we need are people who are intelligent, but not necessarily intellectual. What we need are people who are attractive and secure, and who realize that power is not the prize for adhering to first principles, it's the natural result of so doing and should be wielded with a Washingtonian mindset.

I don't know if the war in Iraq was mistake or not, only time will tell. But I do think that in this election the electorate, among other things, is saying NO to similarly involving ourselves in future, and is also saying the next time you want to talk about "grave and gathering threats" and pre-emption, make sure your intelligence isn't the crap sandwich served before the crap sandwich of financial collapse.

I respect Senator McCain, and wish him many more years of life with his family. But, he's the last Republican I'm going to allow to snap conservatives in the balls with impunity.

Heard Pat Buchanan this morning who said we should not be in the business of ex-communication, and I do agree with him, but Brooks, Noonan, Frum, et al need an ass beating! And that comes from someone who doesn't believes that Palin, presently or even as early as 2012, is ready to become President of the United States.

Her interview with Couric and her recent confab with Canuck comedians should make her want to hurl. In the first instance, not because she wasn't well versed in Supreme Court decisions, but because she played a coquettish and stupid game that they'll be able to use against her with good effect. In the second instance, because she was embarrassingly played, and nothing punctuated the charge that she was an unserious contender more than that incident. That will also be used against her to good effect.

I'm not saying she can't come back, but she has to come back so strongly that each of those incidents make it seem like they're the words and actions of a completely different person.

As for the psychosis that Palin produces in her detractors, that's something that needs to be examined from the lab of mother's little helper and the couch.

SteveH| 11.5.08 @ 1:07PM

"John McCain, personally, is responsible for the single worst Republican general election presidential campaign sinc 1964."

Oh, please! Was John McCain responsible for the Republicans losing control of the House and Senate in 2006? Was John McCain responsible for the Republican occupant of the White House being the most unpopular President in the history of polling? Was John McCain responsible for doubling the national debt in 8 years? When you answer those questions and start thinking about others, you'll realize what a foolish statement the first sentence of this blog is.

Marcos El Malo| 11.5.08 @ 10:59PM

Ugh. So few of you are even close to getting it. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Republican, and I voted for Bob Barr. If I lived in a battle ground state, I would have voted for Obama.

A couple of things stand out in the comments.

1) You folks are seriously deluded if you really think Obama is a Marxist or part of the Radical Left. Perhaps that's a hazzard of being part of the Radical Right. The center, to you, is Radical.

2) The "Conservative" Movement is anti-intellectual and anti-reason. I note with chagrin Aeedemmair's comment, "What we need are people who are intelligent, but not necessarily intellectual" as well as, "Brooks, Noonan, Frum, et al need an ass beating!" Let's face reality: The GOP base evaporated this election, leaving a residue of fanatical true believers, hate mongers, and know nothings.

3) Conservatism isn't a philosophy, it's an approach to philosophy. It's a way of analyzing the world. Conservatism isn't an ideology. Ideology is a sickness and conservatism should be and can be the cure to that disease.

4) Social "Conservatism" is inimical to the idea of small government and to Liberty itself. Attempting to legislate morality is immoral in and of itself. You're replacing the left's nanny state with a nanny state of the right. You want a moral society? Then be a moral leader and lead by example, as Jesus did.

Aedemmair| 11.6.08 @ 10:13AM

Marcos -

My bad. What I meant by intelligent but not necessarily intellectual is smart but no navel gazers. You're right, my comment about Frum, Brooks and Noonan was out of line.

Social "Conservatism" is inimical to the idea of small government and to Liberty itself. Attempting to legislate morality is immoral in and of itself. You're replacing the left's nanny state with a nanny state of the right. You want a moral society? Then be a moral leader and lead by example, as Jesus did.

I agree with this. I don't think that anything I wrote contradicts it. Though you were right to admonish childish comment mentioned above. If you'll re-read what I wrote, I think you'll see that what I was writing about is the ability to speak freely about social issues and not be bullied by people who would prefer you didn't.

Jesus did lead by example, He also spoke defiantly against that which He thought immoral and corrupt.

Social conservatism is not inimical to the idea of small government and to Liberty itself. Your own candidate voted yes on a bill to make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while in the commission of another crime. Bill did exempt abortion doctor and woman seeking same. Isn't this social conservatism, however incoherent? Has he backed away from this issue as he has from The Defense of Marriage Act that he authored?

Libertarians will never be able to win an election because they don't understand that the question of values is going to be taken up by either the right or the left. And in that tug-of-war drag bring in the middle depending on economic anxiety, overreach and/or under performance.

Economic conservatism is as dead as social conservatism is, and that's because it is the moral man who will take nothing he did not earn from another. Smaller government existed when values were not only taught in the home, but were spoken from the podium as well.

Aedemmair| 11.6.08 @ 10:57AM

Correction:

Attempting to legislate morality is immoral in and of itself. You're replacing the left's nanny state with a nanny state of the right. You want a moral society? Then be a moral leader and lead by example, as Jesus did.

I agree with this. I don't think that anything I wrote contradicts it.

damselfly1213| 11.8.08 @ 4:34PM

Aedemmair:

"As for the psychosis that Palin produces in her detractors, that's something that needs to be examined from the lab of mother's little helper and the couch."

Ah. You're absolutely right, of course. Those of us who opposed Palin should have our heads examined.

By all means, nominate her again. No, really.

pigment Red| 4.6.10 @ 2:41AM

pigment Red
czmaxpct@gmail.com

Although Obama has run his campaign Organic Pigmentsalmost completely as a to the administration of one George Ink Pigments the parallels between their campaigns are apparent.