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 Lost (Guest Voice)

So why did Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain lose? Was he outclassed by Democrat Barack Obama? Was it a massive wave of Americans clamoring for change? In this Guest Voice post, conservative talk show host Michael Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan, argues it’s because the GOP, the Bush White House and the McCain campaign handed the election to Obama. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

Why McCain Lost

by Michael Reagan

Barack Obama is president-elect of the United States because the Republican Party and John McCain handed him the presidential election on a silver platter.

The Republican Party and the Bush White House walked away from Republican ideals and they walked away from Republican values.

George Bush allowed the Republican Congress to overspend in the first six years of his administration without once using the veto pen, blindsided the conservative Republican members of Congress on many occasions, and walked away from the base of his party on immigration reform and other issues such as Medicare and No Child Left Behind.

He refused to sit down and break bread with the conservative members of his own party on Capitol Hill, yet believed that he could break bread with the liberal Democrats in Washington the way he did with the Democrats in Austin, Texas. And when he discovered it didn’t work in Washington, it failed to stop him from trying and trying and trying over again what was obviously impossible.

Finally, the coup de grace was Dick Cheney’s endorsement of John McCain in the waning days of the campaign, which gave Barack Obama the final nail to put in the coffin of McCain’s campaign, which was striving mightily to distance him from the Bush administration.

Then there was McCain’s campaign itself.

It was the worst campaign since Bob Dole’s on the Republican side, and the best campaign since Ronald Reagan’s on the Democrat side.

The McCain campaign was a campaign out of the 20th century, while the Democrats were running a campaign in the 21st century.

We need to understand that this was not a referendum on Reaganomics and Ronald Reagan. This was a referendum on George Bush, and Bush-ism, and Bush’s lack of leadership.

John McCain wouldn’t stand up against the Democrats in Washington D.C. on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandals, against expanding government, a $700 billion bailout, and going against the traditional values of conservative Republicans.

The economic collapse was the Democrats’ fault. Yet John McCain never bothered going after them on that. He let the burglars walk away with the loot because those were his friends, and with George Bush failed to point the finger of blame at the people who caused the financial collapse that has plunged the nation into a certain recession. Bush had the bully pulpit but failed to use it, and the Democrats walked away scot-free.

Shockingly, John McCain failed to use the most potent weapon in his arsenal — the culpability of Barack Obama and his friends in the wholesale looting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current debacle. McCain had the goods, but wouldn’t exploit them.

The McCain campaign made inadequate use of Gov. Sarah Palin, who had enormous crowd appeal. A lot of people voted for John McCain because of Sarah Palin. There were bigger a crowds because of Sarah Palin. Yet some of the functionaries in the McCain campaign are trying to point the finger at her for McCain’s defeat.

John McCain lost because of his lack of a clear message. He needed more than the fact that he is a maverick. His answer to the economic crisis was a $300 billion bailout for delinquent mortgagees. He was offering welfarism, while Barack Obama was offering socialism.

People laugh at me when I tell them the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans take a week longer to embrace communism.

This was not a referendum on Ronald Reagan. As a matter of fact, my dad might well have voted for Barak Obama just based on what he was seeing his party doing.

Finally, I hope that when Barack Obama was making elaborate and extravagant promises about what he was going to do, he was flat-out lying.

I hope Barack Obama will not be what he has promised to be. I hope he doesn’t have a civilian security force. I hope he doesn’t raise my taxes. I hope he doesn’t spread the wealth. I hope he doesn’t raise taxes on corporate America. I hope he looks at nuclear power. I hope he allows us to drill. I hope that there will be no revival of the fairness doctrine.

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. ©2008 Mike Reagan. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc.

  • SteveK
    Michael Reagan said: "I hope Barack Obama will not be what he has promised to be. I hope he doesn’t have a civilian security force."

    To which Mikey's smart brother replied: "Making It Official: I Endorse Barack Obama" - Ron Reagan

    It seems the elder Reagan is unable get past the blatant lies and fear mongering stage of political grief.
  • JohnnyPotatoe
    The elder Reagan makes a pretty penny off the lies of his father, 'Rotgut' Ronald Reagan aka --Oh ,that Ronnie--. Johnny Potatoe, you didn't subscribe to Ronnie's Cult of Personality? You were the only one.

    JP: "Excuse me--you're forgetting the good son, Ron, saw thru all of his dad's phony baloney, plastic bananna, good time bunkum/doodle."

    Oh, yeah, I forgot.
  • unclejoe40
    michael,

    i urge you to continue this line of thinking for the next 4....shoot how about 8 years.

    you, and the rest of the wingnut talkers will make sure that even more progressive dems will end up in congress, and they will continue to hold onto the presidency.

    the only thing you missed is blaming the "liberal media"....you know, the same one that for some reason couldnt stop the republicans from taking the senate and the house during 94....couldnt stop bush from being elected in 2000 and 04...that liberal press.

    bush 1 was right when he called your father's policies, "voodoo economics"....oh sure, it worked for awhile, but it was all smoke and mirrors....and when finally, the smoke lifted and the mirrors all broke...there was no there, there.

    but you keep talking.....oh and please, for the sake of your party and country....keep pushing palin for 2012....or at the very least, bobby jindal

    oh, and dont you worry...there wont be a return of the fairness doctrine...we want to keep you guys talking....and talking....and talking
  • kritt11
    Yes, Michael-- but you contradict yourself. In one breath you berate McCain for running a 20th century campaign (true) while the Democrats ran a 21st century campaign (no argument here!). In the next you urge the GOP to reach backwards in time to when Reaganism led them to a spot in the sun.

    Your party has not kept pace with the times, and reaching backwards will shrink its ever shrinking minority status even further!

    But at least you are honest about your motivation--- you don't want YOUR taxes to rise-- you don't think you should have to invest in the country that you purport to love so much. And that is just sad.

    And of course you blame the Democrats who have only nominally held the majority in Congress since '06 and who were out of power since the early 90's for the mortgage/credit mess. Never mind the deregulation craze that both parties voted for, never mind the fact that both of the last two presidents encouraged home ownership at any cost, never mind the fact that as far as I know Greenspan is not a liberal---pls admit there is plenty of blame to go around.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Michael, with all due respect to you and especially to your father, please cut the crap!

    If you, the rest of your swiftboating party (the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, etc., etc.), Sarah Palin and John McCain, had only listened to the words of your father,

    "Whatever else history may say about me when I am gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to the best hopes , not your worst fears."

    you might have had a chance.

    Dorian de Wind
  • Great points Kitt11.

    I can agree with what Mr. M. Reagan says about the way the campaigns were ran but in actuality that is what most Americans are looking for. Something new. America is tired of the divisiveness of Karl Rove and the Republican party.

    The Republican party will need to redefine its in the next 4 to 8 years. If they continue to reach back to the Reagan era and will become a sideline party once again.
  • DLS
    Reagan (Michael, not the nutty Ron) would have been fine with and should have just said,

    "The Republican Party and the Bush White House [have] walked away from Republican ideals and they walked away from Republican values."

    It wasn't just after 2000. Whatever happened to the 1994 "revolution"?
  • DLS
    Obama is popular, but this election as far as the Dems are concerned was a negative vote against the GOP (2006 amplified). It is not a desire for activist liberalism (least of all, coming out of Washington!) and so-called "progressive" politics. The GOP has been no good, and the Dems, who are coherent (though we are concerned about extremism from them) will be given a chance to govern now. New Dems in Congressional seats mean a house-cleaning in Congress of a number of Republicans, too, don't forget. (That's although some of them no doubt will become lobbyists. [rolling eyes])
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC