Why John McCain Won’t Win

The November election to select a new president and administration to run the country for the next four years is certainly going to be an interesting exercise. But the apparent Republican nominee, John McCain, is doomed to failure.  Let us examine some “facts of life” in this matter.

Mr. McCain was the only Republican member of the “Keating Five”. Certainly you remember the group of ethically challenged senators who accepted “gifts” (label that bribes or corruption; take your pick) from Mr. Keating. The Savings and Loan debacle cost us taxpayers something north of 124 billion dollars and Mr. McCain was a central figure in this bit of public malfeasance and larceny in 1989.  Surely someone is going to remind us voters of this morsel of history before November rolls around. My guess is that the ethical lapses will most certainly be used to educate the younger voters, of which there are a significant number, on Mr. McCain’s less than ethical background.

On the current political front, McCain, a self described conservative, has less than zero support from the far right. In the previous two presidential elections, the far right provided just enough extra oomph on the Republican side to get their man elected.  Without the ultra conservatives, there is nothing as sinister to counter the Democrat spin machine.

McCain is old, he is establishment Washington, he is not the Gipper, he spouts the old line Republican mantra and he has a temper that has caused more than one fellow Senator to get red faced and steely eyed. This combination will not fly well on the campaign stage in comparison to Obama or Clinton and, just like the elder Bush looking at his watch during a debate, just one unfortunate moment is all it takes to blow away the fence sitting voters.

Now fast forward to this past week. Mr. McCain was recorded making a speech in Jordan in which he confused the roles of Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and their affiliations in the Middle East. Although downplayed by most of the media as simply a gaffe, it should be noted that the underlying assumptions of who the terrorists and extremists are in Iraq, is a false, misleading and irreverent argument used by the current administration to justify the war in Iraq. It appears Mr. McCain has been suitably brainwashed by all of the disingenuous rhetoric being spouted by the President and Vice President regarding why the USA is fighting a costly and illogical war in Iraq. The Democrats are not going to let this little gem get lost in the mist when the real debates are under way. Mr. McCain’s remarks were obviously the result of ignorance of the facts and demonstrate the minuscule and distorted extent of his much ballyhooed foreign policy experience.

But the most compelling argument regarding John McCain’s candidacy, and the one that should be most worrisome for Republicans, is that either Iraq or the economy is going to sink the Republican ship in November. John McCain’s candidacy, assuming he is the nominee, is either going to get drowned in the red ink of a sinking economy or get caught in the crossfire of a quagmire war. And it’s more than likely that both might come to pass. 

Comments

[Dave Woods]

Wonderful post, Victor, that shows real research and insight.

I think McCain vs. Obama and/or Clinton is going to shake out very much Dole vs. Clinton in '96: he'll start looking older, then meaner, then grumpier; next he'll start getting worn down by the schedule; the gaffes will mount up and start to look like genuine incompetence; finally, he'll maybe take a Gerald Ford tumble.

I expect the Democrat to ride into office on a wave of enthusiasm and positive energy while McCain shakes a fist and moans, "Where's the outrage?"

[Timo Kokko]

If this election gets into a mud-slinging contest, which it very likely will, it should be entertaining. As Victor pointed out, McCain has some interesting things in his past but both Obama and Clinton have some things that may or may not resonate with the voters. I suspect no one will really care about facts, but will go with their emotions.

On the Clinton side we have the following things that can be dredged up: White Water, Denise Rich contributions, Norman Hsu, Rose Law Firm billing records, Monica and a bunch more as she has been in the public eye for a long time.

On the Obama side we of course have Jeremiah Wright, but there are others. Tony Rezko, cocaine or a little "blow", and his wife's view of America come to mind immediately, but he has yet to be fully vetted.

It could be a very nasty general election that could cause a lot of people to sit it out.

[John J]

Watch for Al Gore if the Dem convention cannot get its act together.

[EmersonsZen]

Well Vic, you're improving. I'm going 50/50 with you on this one--agree 50%, disagree 50%.

The four *Democrats* were the only politicians found to be interfering in the Keating Five scandal investigation. Quoting the Committee's Report:

"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."

McCain became the last member of the "Keating Five" only because of his friendship with Keating, and Keating's campaign contributions to McCain. McCain never interfered with the investigation, as the others had.

This "morsel of history" indeed does need to be told, so the younger voters can see that it was the Democrats were on the guilty side of the line.

McCain is old establishment; I agree with you on that. When juxtaposed with Obama, this will be a negative for McCain.

I have a difficult time equating McCain's Sunni gaffe with being brainwashed by the Bush administration. You may need to check your "brainwashing status" as it relates to the latest Democrat Talking Points.

The economy may prove to be McCain's downfall come November. If it continues to falter, and if people's 401's evaporate, Obama could cruise to victory.

Iraq...tough to gauge. Democrats foam at the mouth over it, Republicans generally support finishing it, and independents will make their decicision in October/November.

Thanks for posting your blog Vic. Good stuff to contemplate.

[MSUGeek]

There are two sides to a nasty campaign. One is that the voters do not like them. The other is that mudslinging and personal attacks work more than not. I think McCain is the stronger candidate, but if he doesn't get down and dirty as a defense, he will seem weak, and will eventually lose.

Victor, you have to research the Keating Five a little better. McCain was basically exonerated by a Democratic Judiciary Committee investigator (Bob Bennett,) but in an act of pure partisan politics, was given a slap on the wrist by the committee.

As far as McCains gaff on the Sunni/Shia identity goes, quick Victor, without the help of Google, name the affiliation or leaning of every middle eastern political organization or country. Iran?, Iraq?, Palastinian Authority? PLO?, Hamas? Al Quaida? Hezbollah? Amal Militia? Party of God? Mahdi Army?

As confusing as it is, they are all either Sunni or Shia, all deserving of our scrutiny, and in some cases our wrath.

McCain's gaff was just that. Minor. It was not an indication of his foreign policy credentials, which, BTW, are way better than either Clinton or Obama.

[Vic Jackson]

John McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal was more than a witch hunt by the Democrats. McCain accepted significant "gifts" from Keating and tried to influence an investigation of Lincoln Savings and Loan by the House Banking Committee.

With respect to the "Gaffe" by Mr. McCain, considering the number of staff and speech writers available, if I were giving a speech in Jordan I would make damn sure I could at least tell the story straight.

MSUGeek, it's worse than you think!

[Bold Lentil]

I'm not sure a scandal from almost 20 years ago will resonate with people quite as much as a what seems like a mission by McCain to start what Bush finished in Iraq.

[Lyn]

This blog is wrong. McCain's got more than a fighting chance to win in November.

The Keating Five - most people have forgotten it. And McCain did not suffer from that affiliation you hinted at anyway. As for the saving and loan bailout most people did not understand the crisis that led up to it. They do understand the current mortgage fiasco, and they can be led to understand crooked politicians like Obama had roles in it with their subsidized programs for unqualified buyers.

This blog said McCain is "establishment Washington." No he's not. He's establishment Arizona - a state that is still all-American and trying to defend its frontier border against Mexican illegals.

Finally, Iraq. McCain is not going to get sunk by Iraq, he'll get lifted by it. He's the only candidate with a strong image that could convince everybody we can leave honorably and still have a powerful image.

[Populista]

MSUGeek, it's not important if somebody on a blog is unaware of all of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups and the countries with which they are affiliated, but it is important that our next president knows. Do you remember the interview before W was elected where he couldn't name a SINGLE world leader he was asked about (they just replayed it on Keith Olbermann this weekend); we all know how W's presidency turned out. A college grad interviewing for a job wouldn't get it if they couldn't answer questions like that, we should at the very least expect the future leader of the free world to be able to do what a college grad is expected to do. Right?

[parrot]

Does anyone see the resemblence between the s&l scandle and the housing bailout of today? And the warn the old folk to beware the scams they might get on their computers!

[MSUGeek]

Populista - I do agree that a future President should be knowledgeable about a lot of things, including world leaders, but the McCain gaffe has been taken totally out of context. It was not a prepared speech, and was just a misstatement. You libs are taking this and trying to see how far it will stretch, just as the Republicans and Ckinton Democrats are seeing how much mileage they can get out of the Rev. Wright controversy.

John McCain is head and shoulders above either Clinton or Obama when it comes to foreign policy and the security issues of the post-9/11 world. Hillary doesn't even know what sniper fire is. I really can't wait until the debates when McCain will wipe up the stage with the Democratic candidate.

How did Bush's Presidency turn out? I think he is a middle of the pack President, and I am sure you think he is the worst President ever. We have to agree to disagree about that issue because you and other far-left liberals cannot see beyond your hatred of Bush to be objective.

Did you see Saturday Night Live this last weekend (a rerun from January). Clinton and Obama were being grilled by Tim Russert as to the names of obscure foreign leaders. He asked Hillary first, and when she didn't know, he provided the answer. Then he asked Obama the same question who parroted the answer back to him. Hillarious!

[Populista]

Yes, the MSM has given Obama (and McCain to a degree) a bit of a pass while kicking Clinton around.