Thursday, October 30, 2008

John McCain and Pat Buchanan birds of a feather?

With McCain's likely impending defeat next week, I suggest the Republican party's national leadership consider the following:

- McCain's campaign imposed an omerta on anything that could be even tangentially perceived as bringing Obama's blackness into play. Nineteen months after Steve Sailer made known the Illinois Senator's focus on taking white wealth and giving it to blacks, along with his close association with Jeremiah Wright, Obama's glaring political weakness was left unexploited. Although all the hate over race took place on the left, McCain's campaign continues to be denounced for being racist.

- McCain's lifetime actions on immigration legislation earn him a grade of "D", he has entered into a legislative amnesty alliance with Ted Kennedy, at his RNC acceptance speech he spoke of the "God-given right" of the "Latina daughter of migrant workers" to reach her full potential in America and disallowed other speakers from mentioning immigration at all, he chose strident open borders champion Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director, and he made three appearances before Hispanic groups in July alone (including La Raza). Obama, meanwhile, was clobbered among Hispanics in the Democratic primaries. For all of McCain's hispandering and the uneasiness Hispanics showed for Obama, McCain is losing among Hispanics by more than 2-to-1.

- Despite a highly-publicized suspension of his campaign to ensure passage of one of the largest governmental bailouts in American history, McCain is being accused by Obama and portrayed in the major media as a diehard supporter of unregulated, hands-off free market capitalism.

- McCain was the major media's favorite Republican Presidential candidate. How much goodwill does that count for? Pew Research reports:
By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4.
In short, this most leftist of Republicans is being portrayed as a far right 'extremist'.

From this, the GOP should conclude that following a couple steps behind the Democratic party in a race to the left is not a winning formula, nor will it endear Republicans to a leftist media.


Justin Halter said...

Yup, great observations. As a practical measure, that means Republicans need to close their primaries again. It was the Independents that provided crucial margins of victory for McCain throughout the early primaries, especially in his crucial squeaker of a victory in South Carolina, which allowed him to take front runner status going into Super Tuesday.

It also means the Stupid Party needs to organize their primary process more effectively, so that multiple conservatives don't split the base, allowing a "moderate" to steal the primary.

Anonymous said...

Right, whatever person we put up for president, that person comes to define the confines of the respectable right. Anything to the right of him is the loony fringe.

It happened with George W. and it's happened with McCain.

Audacious Epigone said...


Agreed. Mitt Romney would've likely been the GOP's Presidential nominee had the party done what you advise it to have done. The economic mess would've played to him a lot better than it has to McCain.


Yes, it's hard to see how cutting out as much of the natural base as possible has been helpful.

tommy said...

Excellent summary. Now if only mainstream conservatives will wise up and get the message.

Fat Knowledge said...


Do you really think Mitt Romney could have won this election?

I think that with the bad economy people just blame the incumbent party and no matter who the Republicans ran they were likely to lose. Also, the number of self identified Republicans has gone down quite a bit, so a Republican would need to reach out to more independents in order to win.

I also find it odd that while McCain was a moderate Republican in the senate and in his primary campaign, he tacked to the right when running against Obama. The positions he touts are fairly standard Republican positions: lower taxes, more drilling and nukes, rural people good, urban people bad, media bad. His selection of Palin had nothing to do with being moderate and everything to do with appeasing the base.

While you might see him as Democratic lite, I see him running a standard Republican campaign.

More selfishly (as I would like a choice between the two parties), I hope that the take away for the Republicans is that they need to fight for intelligent urban voters. The libertarian intelligentsia has left the Republican party. My guess is that the vast majority of people working at Google are voting Democratic. The Republicans need to fight for these people, and not go the Palin route of calling only rural people "real" Americans. I hope the Republicans will fight for the most educated cities.

Audacious Epigone said...


I doubt it. But I think he would've made the Republican party look better. He has more whiterperson appeal than Palin does, as he is probably the most enterprising, industrious person who ran for President in either party this election cycle.

As the Democratic party becomes increasingly Hispanic, and economic leftism replaces social issues leftism, I think that will happen naturally.

That NYT opinion piece is silly. Heh, those cities are "ethnically diverse" my ass--none of them are very black for major US cities. Urban areas are the most unequal places in the country, so they're always going to skew way to the left of the national average.

Interesting that you see McCain as the typical Republican. He's really managed to be everything to everyone--problem is, it's everything everyone doesn't want!

Anonymous said...

For absolute, uneqivocal proof of the left-wing/probama media bias, simply compare their response to two recent fundraising "scandals."

The McCain campaign accidentally sent a fundraising letter (they've mailed out millions) to the Russian ambassador to the UN. It's been reported by Reuters, AP, BBC, Washington Post, and a few other major news orgs.

But the Obama campaigns disabling of AVS checks on its fundraising form? Only mentioned by a few right-wing blogs, conservatives news sites, and a few small town papers.

Two stories of a very similar vein, coming out at the same time, but with very, very disparate treatment.