An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Why McCain’s Former Supporters And Republicans Are Increasingly Jumping The McCain Ship

_7B69D1B165_6828_470B_9191_D3E93A8F6C81_7D.gif

And so now former President Ronald Reagan’s former chief of staff Ken Duberstein endorses Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The parade is getting almost as long as Pasadena’s Rose Bowl Parade.

So exactly what is happening to John McCain and his campaign? It’s worth noting again that what you’re seeing is not Republican disloyalty but manifestations of political content loyalty.

McCain’s biggest problem is that his 2008 campaign is to the 2000 John McCain what the New Coke was to Classic Coke.

Those who enthusiastically supported McCain in 2000 (such as yours truly) gave him the benefit of the doubt until they eventually ran out of benefits to give, due to instances that raised real questions about his judgment (appointing Sarah Palin and repeatedly insisting she is absolutely highly qualified and ready to be President in what sounded like George Bush insisting Harriet Miers was the most qualified person in the country to sit on the Supreme Court), coolness in the midst of crises (McCain’s Hail Marys showed a troubling lack of political impulse control), thoughtfulness (the John McCain of 2000 was all about issues and America while the 2008 McCain seems all about short-term tactics and attempts at political definition suggesting some Americans are quite as American as his supporters are) and the sincerity of his previous proclamations on matters such as running an issues-oriented campaign (his 2008 campaign has teetered on the brink of McCarthyism).

McCain retains some of his loyal 2000 supporters who still feel his amazing life story, foreign policy work in the Senate, knowledge of military issues, hard line foreign policy, authentic efforts to reach across the aisle regardless of Republican party ire, service to his country and past incarnation as a real maverick distrusted by both parties trumps the 2008 reservations that are causing others to vote for Obama.

Meanwhile, Republicans identified with the first President George Bush and traditional conservatives see little “meat” of classic Goldwater/Reagan conservatism as they’ve watched McCain and Palin throw out “red meat” to social conservatives and new conservatives influenced by the Limbaugh-Kristol-Hannity cable/radio talk show culture. This political talk radio culture relies heavily on defining the opposition in exaggerated, often inflammatory terms so that partisans feel they must flock to the polls to save the Republic from a grave threat.

The cable/talk radio political culture discusses conservatism, but is really more a social conservationism movement more preoccupied with attaining power by discrediting opponents than affirmatively convincing voters to adopt specific policies and embrace specific conservative ideas.

The glue that seems to unite the defecting 2000 McCain supporters with the Goldwater/Reagan/Bush conservatives jumping the McCain ship seems to be his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin for the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket.

Critics consider her a divider, rather than a unifier — provincial rather than someone who genuinely has a more thoughtful, world view. When she was first named as Veep, many pundits suggested she could turn out to be a kind of conservative Sen. Hillary Clinton, an admittedly sexist assumption. But she is evolving into more of a 21st century version of Richard Nixon.

The most notable consensus among those who’ve broken with McCain is: Palin is unqualified to be Vice President, notwithstanding assertively stated and presented spin from McCain supporters.

McCain’s big problem: several polls now show Palin may be shaping up to be The Anchor From Alaska on the McCain ticket and the media now does seem primed to pounce on her every mistake.

Even worse for McCain: his overall bad press continues unabated — such as when his key aide and supporter Lawrence Eagleburger, the first President George Bush’s Secretary of State, was asked about Palin. “Damning with faint praise” is too complimentary a way to characterize Eagleburger’s comments. When you read this, remember this is coming from a McCain SUPPORTER:

A former Republican Secretary of State and one of John McCain’s most prominent supporters offered a stunningly frank and remarkably bleak assessment of Sarah Palin’s capacity to handle the presidency should such a scenario arise.

Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush and whose endorsement is often trumpeted by McCain, said on Thursday that the Alaska governor is not only unprepared to take over the job on a moment’s notice but, even after some time in office, would only amount to an “adequate” commander in chief.

“And I devoutly hope that [she] would never be tested,” he added for good measure — referring both to Palin’s policy dexterity and the idea of McCain not making it through his time in office. (Listen to audio below.)

The remarks took place during an interview on National Public Radio that was, ironically, billed as “making the case” for a McCain presidency. Asked by the host whether Palin could step in during a time of crisis, Eagleburger reverted to sarcasm before leveling the harsh blow.

“It is a very good question,” he said, pausing a few seconds, then adding with a chuckle: “I’m being facetious here. Look, of course not.”

Read the entire piece to read the full quotes.

Can McCain still win?

You can now see pundits edging towards predicting an Obama win, but carefully coupling that with journalistic hedges, pointing to other polls that show a tightening. And while a 1948 surprise win-from-far-behind did happen before, the number of Republicans who are jumping ship from the McCain ticket suggest it’s highly unlikely McCain will prevail this year.

In past elections the GOP could rely on getting out its base, which generally meant the whole party. You can now see that in 2008 the GOP is not unified — with disunity is so pronounced that some famous GOPers are willing to announce that they’re voting for Obama. This year the Republicans will likely get their hard core, encouraged-by-Sean-Hannity-to-vote base. In other words, McCain could basically get the base of his party’s base.

McCain’s task will be to peel off enough independent voters and Democrats from Obama to win the battleground states.

And he could well do it:

After all, he has already successfully peeled off enough 2000 McCain campaign supporters and traditional conservatives from his own candidacy.

Cartoon by Patrick Corrigan, The Toronto Star

  • superdestroyer
    I think you are forgetting that McCain got his reputation as a maverick by stabbing people in the back. Now that there is no chance of McCAin winning, many of those are returning the favor.

    I think the real lesson is that being a maverick really means that you are irratic. That means who cannot run a campaign on issues because the candidate will have taken different positions on the same issue at different times. See McCain's inability to talk about immigration as an example or inability to talk about big government where he support the goverment regulation of speech.

    What most of the those who have endorsed Obama realize is that there are future jobs to hand out and that the Republican Party has no future, why not endorse Obama and stick a knife into the chest of McCAin.
  • Manchester2
    Joe -

    I will admit that at first I liked Palin, the attractive woman, mother of five, and excellent public speaker that showed up at the RNC. With time, I have to admit that she needs more seasoning. My support of Sen. McCain for President is on ideological grounds, reasons that are historic and unrelated to the distortions that campaigning always brings. Someone who is: 1) anti-abortion; 2) anti-global warming; 3) pro-immigration, and 4) fiscally conservative fits my own positions very well. He has my support on Tuesday.
  • Ricorun
    I hope you don't mind me citing you as an example, Manchester, but many of my more conservative friends have gone through the same process as you. Prior to the Palin pick the "lack of experience" argument had considerable resonance. It should, because it's a valid criticism. Obama can give a good speech, and that counts. He inspires people, and that counts too. For some that's even sufficient. But not enough to win an election. He had to prove himself in other ways. He had to answer the question, "who is Barack Obama?" That's understandable, and it was something of an uphill climb.

    But what astounded me was many of the same folks that justifiably criticized Obama for being an attractive, but empty suit were immediately and dramatically swayed by Sarah Palin -- even though they knew precious little about her. They never bothered to ask the question, "who is Sarah Palin?" That to me exposed a level of hypocrisy in their train of thought.

    Worse, it exposed an even more serious level of hypocrisy in McCain's train of thought. For months he had been building his campaign around the experience issue. He was the one that would be ready on Day 1. He vowed he would pick a VP that would be similarly qualified. Then he picks Palin. It's hard to imagine he didn't realize many people would find it a bit of a contradiction. So you'd think his campaign would have prepared themselves -- and her -- for the questions. Everyone wanted to know, "who is Sarah Palin?" Unfortunately, that question has become more inscrutable over time rather than less. I don't blame her. She is who she is. I blame McCain. Maybe it's just the acuity that comes from hindsight, but it seems to me that if she was on his short list he should have had a team up in Alaska making sure she was ready months before rolling her out, not after. At any rate, what actually happened was pitiful. She took a lot of heat for some awfully ridiculous reasons. But more than a little of the heat was justified. And the way they handled her enhanced the impression she was unqualified. After carefully constructing the experience argument for months, they took it completely off the table -- and in the process it put into question McCain's judgment. All of a sudden he was seen as erratic.
  • geek
    When you are on the Titanic you are not jumping ship you are getting off on a life boat.

    It has been remarkable that many Republicans stayed on the SS Bush for as long as they have, it showed a lack of vision and backbone. The going along with the village idiot for the past 6 years that has been their shortfall and we are all paying the price.

    Those that are losing their seats are going home. Many people no longer have a home to go to.
  • geek
    Joe,

    Senator Mc Cain has compromised everything he said he believed in and lost my support. Fiscal conservative, NO. We have a 10 trillion deficit more spending than revenue. He does not want to cut social security or defense and not raise tax's, fiscal conservative hardly. Impossible to reduce the deficit and the annual interest payments with the status quo. When the President has anything to do with abortion then we have given up states rights, I thought conservatives were for that. Anti- global warming,

    I am confused because it appears to me Senator Mc Cain has done little within the Senate other than yell about earmarks which represents less than 1% of federal spending and .003 of 1 % of the federal deficit. As Senator Moynhainn used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not facts
  • agingcow2345
    Yes Palin is a divider not a uniter. However you miss a key point. Absent Palin I was voting for Barr and so were at least 100 people I know. I had left the GOP over W's last four years including but not limited to Amnesty. I don't especially like McCain but held my nose to vote for and send $ to Palin. Now it may well be the GOP cannot win with just my kind. Fact is you cannot win without us. What does McCain offer us? McCain-Finegold? Amnesty? Gang of 14? Offset trading with Lieberman? For most of us McCain made more sense as Kerry's running mate than as a GOP candidate. How many times can you sit us in the back of the bus with the mantra that Obama [or whoever the Democrat is that year] is worse? Indeed had Hillary the Ice B*tch gotten the nod I would have voted Dem this year. [reregistered Dem to vote for her in our state caucus this past January]. WW3 is over. Anti-communism as a glue won't work. Neitehr will new foreign crusades. We didn't sign up for a crusade against Russia over Georgia. Clinton pretty much took the crime/welfare/urabn issues tangle off the table. So what are we voting for? Judges? I voted GOP and got Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter. I should expect better out of McCain and a massively Dem Senate? To get to 51% various flavors of social and religious cons plus nationalists like me are perhaps 30% of the 51%. I don't expect to win them all but if a GOP President gets me Harriet Miers, the ports deal, Amnesty and Iraq just what am I not voting Libertarian or Constitution for?
  • boyydz
    Here's the thing I don't understand: many decry Palin's lack of experience and "seasoning" (in a VP candidate) but have no problem with an even MORE appalling lack of experience in Obama as a PRESIDENTIAL - not VP - candidate. How does that possibly make sense (unless you're LOOKING for reasons to vote for Obama)? Add to that HUGE questions about Obama's background and true worldview (virtually unreported by the media, save Fox News), and there are smashing-you-in-the-face reasons not to vote for Obama. Yet we hear these namby-pamby (by comparison) reasons not to vote for McCain.

    I pray that I am dead wrong about Obama, and that he might have a successful presidency both domestically and on the world stage, but I have a nagging feeling that I'll soon be saying "I told you so" to a lot of people. I am in a state of shock that this truly unqualified person - less qualified by any objective measure than any president in the past 100 years (and that's when I stopped looking) - stands on the threshold of the White House. God, help us all - please. Especially help Obama to effectively govern our nation, because he will require your help more than any person occupying the Oval Office has needed it since Lincoln!
  • boyydz
    cow, McCain offers you the most important thing. He is not the UNQUALIFIED, QUESTIONABLE BACKGROUND Obama. Rogue leaders will fear McCain, but they will laugh in Obama's face. Do we need a nuclear Iran? Will McCain let that happen? Will Obama? That is why to vote GOP.
  • bot_feeder
    agingcow, your comments absolutely match my views on the matter.

    Forget about "hold your nose and vote for McCain". No, sorry, so long as the Republican Party is led by politicians who do not stand for Republican principles, I will have no part of "hold my nose and vote for the so-called Republican".

    Even on the pragmatic issue of what policies will be adopted in the next four years, in many ways we would be worse under McCain. McCain just might be able to get immigration anarchy legislation (normally pitched under its code phrase "comprehensive immigration reform") passed; it is far more likely that there will be no such legislation if Obama is President.

    Pelosi wanted the political cover of 60 House Republicans supporting anarchy before she would push it last year. She clearly didn't get them and probably would be lucky to have gotten 6-12.

    Of course, she needed 60 not only for political cover but also because there are 50-60 blue dog Democrats in the House that do not support the anarchy legislation. Pelosi flat out NEEDS Republican votes even to pass the excremental bill.

    Furthermore, with Obama in the White House, the Democrats no longer have a Republican dupe as President who will sign on to anarchy, allowing the Democrats to blame the ensuing anarchy (surprise!) on the Republical fool in the White House who signed it.

    No Republican fool in the White House, no "comprehensive immigration reform". That is not an ironclad fact but it is very likely to prove true.

    And as people have pointed out, McCain's reputation as a "maverick" is due to his past schmoozing with the establishment left media like the New York Times, as well as engaging in "bipartisan" cooperation with the most left wing members of the Senate to try to enact noxious legislation on a host of issues.

    And as someone pointed out his maverick image may also be somewhat due to his well-earned reputation as a back-stabber. And by that I do not mean someone who respectfully pursues policies on which he honestly differs with his colleagues, but rather that he has a long history of behaving in a gratuitiously belligerent and unprofessional manner toward his Senate colleagues.

    Is there anything good I can say about McCain? The only thing I can think of is the fact that he is going to lose and the fact that he will become a pariah among his colleagues and those who have far more wisdom and honor in politics than he will, God willing, replace the crackpots currently running the Republican Party, and redirect it toward a constructive role in serving our nation and its people
  • agingcow2345
    Actually I find McCain's call for a crusade in Georgia idiotic and his 'bomb,bomb, bomb Iran' equally so.
     
    Agingcow2345
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC