McCain 2008 Was Disappointing

As an independent voter, I really did look forward to a spirited election. The Democrats put forward an inspiring but young leader. The Republicans sent a long-serving, well-respected hero.

Both candidates are mavericks within their own party. Remember when Hilary was all but inevitable? When Rudy Giuliani was nearly a lock?  Obama had to put forward a Herculean effort to overcome Hilary, all the time knowing that Hilary was handing the Republican nominee weapon after rhetorical weapon. McCain lacked the full backing of the Republican party’s conservative base, but force of personality and strength of character saw him through.

Each side had strategic points in their favor. Obama could link McCain to Bush 43, and tout his own anti-Iraq war stance. McCain has much more experience, has survived an almost unimaginable personal trauma in sacrifice to his country, and has a fire in his belly.

The popular opinion is that Obama was able to hit McCain early on with Iraq, and again near the end of the campaign, strike again with the recession (and yes, we’re calling it what it is.) Obama used his oratory power, social media, and massive grassroots organization to raise money and deliver his message to independent voters like myself. How could McCain stand up to such an onslaught?

All John McCain needed to do was lead.

Instead, he attacked. He took reflexive, reactionary positions against a calm and collected opponent. If John McCain had summoned the personal courage to lead, instead of being led by the traditional tactics to attack, smear, distort, yesterday’s vote could have gone differently. The popular vote went 53%-46%. Look at all the small cracks that widened into a 7-point gap:

• Permitting stump speeches that inspired hateful cries like “Terrorist!” or (argh) “Kill him!”.
• Letting your supporters get away with such language until you absolutely had to rein them in. If you and your running mate had cut them off the first time, you’d have been more credible on election day.
• Nominating a VP candidate that would be a disaster if made President today. Sarah Palin may be the future of the party (and part of me can’t wait for the Hilary/Palin showdown in ‘16), but she’s not it today. Katie Couric demonstrated this conclusively.
• McCain’s own rhetoric. For example, “If only Obama would stop lecturing us for a minute,” and “Obama is running to be redistributionist-in-chief.” Let’s set aside the fact that Americans want to hear lectures from their candidates, as such information forms the basis of an opinion on whom to vote for. Let’s also forget for a second that redistributing wealth is one of the primary functions of government, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. McCain should have argued on the strength of his own ideas. What steps would you take to resolve the economic crisis? Why do you think Obama’s ideas are bad for the country? What is bad about the way Obama would redistribute wealth? In short, McCain’s ideas were lost behind his reflexive, “I’m tough” reactions.

I believe that John McCain did a lot of listening to Republican campaign experts about how to win an election, and forgot all the things that made him a popular politician. If he had taken personal ownership of the tone and themes of his campaign, and built his platform on his ideas and not on his reactions, he might be the President-Elect today.

Only at the end, during his concession speech, did he exhibit the personal strength he needed all along, when he held himself accountable for his loss.

When leaders are genuine, true to their own moral compass, and reject notions of “how it’s always done”, they give themselves a leg up that’s hard to argue with.

Did you enjoy this article? Please subscribe to my blog to receive updates.

Tagged as: 2008 election, Leadership, Politics