For GOP, panic ‘is in the wind’

Six months out, those who feel confident about how the presidential campaign is going to play out are probably kidding themselves. There are too many variables, and the race will take too many twists and turns.

Nevertheless, the Republican establishment is looking ahead. How confident are they? That depends who you ask.

On Thursday, the Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen reported that Republican insiders believe landscape looks bleak for McCain and the GOP: “Once optimistic about John McCain’s prospects for the fall general election, Republicans are increasingly concerned that he could wind up badly outgunned, saddled with serious deficiencies of money, organization and partisan intensity against the likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.”

A day later, the Politico’s David Paul Kuhn reported the exact opposite: “[M]any top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.” In some Republican circles, Kuhn explained, there’s talk of a McCain “blowout.”

And today, the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney weighs in, siding more with the prior than the latter.

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, Republicans say.

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain’s inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

“I think any Republican who doesn’t say panic is in the wind is lying through their shirt,” said Ron Kaufman, who was a senior adviser this year for Mitt Romney. “The question is, is that panic caused by McCain’s campaign — or lack thereof in some respects — or is it the climate?”

Panicking in May about an election in November seems pretty foolish, but I will say that McCain seems to have squandered an opportunity. When he officially wrapped up the Republican nomination in early March (after effectively winning it in early February), I’d assumed that McCain would use the ensuing months effectively — while the Dems kept fighting, McCain would raise enormous amounts of money, consolidate the GOP base, and define his campaign before the Dems could do it for him.

I’ve been encouraged by how little of that has actually happened. Some of this isn’t McCain’s fault — he’s had trouble generating much attention for his campaign while the media shines the light on the Democratic drama — but nevertheless, I’m hard pressed to identify any great strides the McCain campaign has made over the last three months. Indeed, McCain has been the Republican nominee for months now, and I’m still not sure what his central campaign message is.

It’s no wonder GOP insiders are feeling antsy.

It’s apparently not helping that the under-funded McCain campaign seems burdened by organizational problems.

Some state party leaders said they were apprehensive about the unusual organization Mr. McCain had set up: the campaign has been broken into 10 semi-autonomous regions, with each having power over things like television advertising and the candidate’s schedule, decisions normally left to headquarters.

More than that, they said, Mr. McCain organizationally still seems far behind where President Bush was in 2004. Several Republican Party leaders said they were worried the campaign was losing an opportunity as they waited for approval to open offices and set up telephone banks.

“They finally assigned someone to West Virginia three weeks ago,” said Doug McKinney, the state Republican chairman there. “I had a couple of contacts with him and I e-mailed him twice and I never heard back. I finally called and they said that the guy had resigned.”

And in terms of public image, the only campaign development that’s generated real interest of late is the fact that McCain has surrounded himself with high-priced elite lobbyists, some of whom had to be fired for controversial client work. It’s hard to know if the story reached a broader, passive audience, but it certainly didn’t help solidify the image the McCain campaign hoped to cultivate right now.

What will be interesting to watch is how (or whether) the Republican establishment responds to their discontent. Stay tuned.

McCain’s got problems by the bush-el.

  • Better the smell of panic in the winds that blow by the neocon/repug’s windows than the stench of mclame across the nation.

  • And I am not referin’ about the “ol’ person smell” that bart simpson talks about

  • McCain did not win the GOP nomination by rising like a Phoenix. He did it by not imploding as much as his competition all did. Giuliani had multiple scandals; Huckabee didn’t know what an NIE was, and was responsible for letting a rapist/murder go free; Romney gaffed about his sons’ service and his lobbyist connections; Thompson fell asleep.

    So far, McCain has done nothing to inspire people. They way he reads his speeches often suggests he hasn’t even read them before delivering them. And they are devoid of new ideas or important content. He has had multiple conflicts of interest, endorsement gaffes, changes of position, and failure to balance the demands of his microbases.

    McCain’s only chance is if Obama fails. His biggest best asset is the Republican media.

  • It is amazing – the criminal cabal that brought us dur chimpfurher had 7 years to groom a successor and the best they can do is a senile man the chimpy slimed in 2000.

    Says something – not sure what.

    Don’t underestimate that possibility of stolen elections – the “republican media” that danp refers to is the most important asset all the crimes of this administration – including election fraud.

  • Damn – this has to hurt too:

    Parsley withdraws his endorsement of McCain

    Last week, John McCain rejected the endorsement of Rod Parsley, the pastor who has derided Islam as a “false religion” that is the greatest “enemy of our civilization.” One day after proclaiming that he would not withdraw his endorsement of McCain, Parsley issued a statement Saturday, explaining that he was indeed withdrawing it. Spokesman Gene Pierce wouldn’t shed light on Parsley’s decision, saying only “this statement is a clarification on (Friday’s) statement.”

    =======================================

    When even the loosest cannons of dur chimpfurher’s base bail on ya…

  • I’ve always maintained that while I believe the Democrats are headed for a big win, it’s possible that McCain could figure out a way to pull this out. After all, even if we win by large margins in most states, particularly the big ones like California and New York, we could still fall short in the Electoral College. He is almost certainly the best candidate they could have fielded. That said, I have to wonder, what will his coalition be? He’s going to lose some of the 2004 Republican vote from one direction or the other. The same could be said for us, but even if we lose, say, the Appalachia vote because of our candidate’s race to pick an obvious possibility, I think we’ll more than make up for it with new voters, converts, and highly energized voters. And about that last group, I think there’s something to the idea that it’s very hard to win by being against one person without being sufficiently in support of the candidate you’re voting for. In other words, I think one of the reasons Bush won in 2004 was that far too few people were pro-Kerry as opposed to anti-Bush, and I think the same dynamic will hurt McCain versus Obama.

    No matter how confident we feel, however, we should follow that James Carville line about campaigning as if we were ten points down until election day. We need to register as many voters as possible, among other things, because even if we don’t win the states in which many of these voters emerge, we’ll be laying the groundwork for the future. Win or lose, expanding the map will be a lasting contribution of Barack Obama.

  • Whocares about the Republicans? They would be irrelevant as early as 2009. The better question is will the U.S. function as a one party state. Also, the groups inside the Democratic Party should starting deciding who will be the big winners and the big lowers when the U.S. becomes a one party state.

  • superdestroyer – don’t know how you can state that the gang of criminals that has successfully looted the treasury of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars will become “irrelevant”.

    The grand theft, treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity this cabal has gotten away with is unprecidented in world history. they control the MSM and use it to “catapult” lies – the mighty wurlitzer enables all the criminality.

    Our real problem is not the chimp and the folks in front of the microphone – its the folks that select and put these types of doofs in place to begin with.

    And you think they are just going away?

  • littlebear,

    Starting as soon as Jan, 2009, the Republicans will have zero affect on policy if the Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate. At the national level, the Republicans will be as relevant as the current Repubilcan Party in Mass. or Maryland.

  • superdestroyer – It’s a pretty big stretch to think that the Party of Ried and Pelosi, of Clinton and Obama, of blue dogs and yellow dogs, are going to act as a single entity. There may be some abuses, but at least they have an opposing media to keep them in check. I just wish the media had played the same role for the last 10 years, and I wonder to what degree they will have lost all credibility – even on real issues.

  • Obama handles every curve thrown his way with thoughtfulness, directness, firmness, and grace. It seems clear that what we see is what we will get, and I believe more and more folks will see and embrace that.

    Six months out, McCain has already created a bundle of gaffes and flip-flops that would doom his candidacy, and it seems pretty clear that he will stumble again and again.

    Obama will destroy McCain, and with a little luck and a lot of work from progressives, he just might help sweep us into a 60 vote Senate, in which case the real change he is talking about might just become a reality.

  • WE all know they are rich and neither should be in the white house and especially in lieu of Cindys past history of stealing narcotics and sending overseas and never being charged for this behavior-i guess rich folks get excused-should this not have provided her with criminal past-happened 1994-and when i go for job application a background check is done, but i always pass, should she have a background check.
    Now you all may think this is a non-issue and media will not touch with a ten foot pole-what is their agenda. McCain will not win anyway-but this episode with her just drives me crazy, but i will get over it. I am not sure who is worse mccains or clintons. Thank GOD Obama is here to give us new light on troubled waters.

  • GOPer lemmings fling selves over cliff, under bus, and into great big meatgrinder. Details at 11.

  • I came across the Politico article Steve mentions during one of my trips to Memeorandum yesterday – right below it was a link to an article about how a Bush-McCain fundraiser in Phoenix had to be moved from a hotel ballroom to a private home because not enough tickets had been sold – this is in the Publican candidate’s native state!!

    It reminds me of the bad old days back in 1975 or so, when Anita Bryant embarked on a cross-country concert tour to take advantage of the notoriety she had gained with her anti-gay politics in Florida – many many concerts were canceled due to bad ticket sales, and we never heard much from la Bryant after that…

  • 1) The threat of gay marriage and other “hot” button issues don’t mean squat if you’re broke and lost your job.
    2) The Repubs have nothing to fall back on. Legislative accomplishments? Successful economy? Successful war? Crickets chriping.
    3) Whatever unique characteristics McCainaic might have are negated by his age, his flip flopping on issues and the lobbyist anvil tied around his neck.
    4) The Repubs have lost in places where Dem is a dirty word. Travis Childers said nothing because he didn’t need to (to mock the loser’s campaign slogan.)

    Based on that, the Poltiico Article that Micheline refers to is a mediocre fictional piece based on sniffing too much glue or gas or whatever the hardcore Hilsbots are using.

  • I would feel a lot better if the American people were rejecting Reagan’s ideology and were ready to embrace a new era of liberalism, but that’s not the case. Bush is unpopular for many reasons, but there’s no unifying theme, no sense that Republican policies don’t work. It’s just anger that things have turned out the way they have and that it’s time to throw the bums out. Indeed, many of the 82% who think we’re on the wrong track believe we need to move even further to the right.

    So if everything goes right, and Democrats win the Triple Crown, it won’t usher in a new era of progressivism in America. It’ll be a tough slog for the Democrats, like a trial run. There’s just no wave of public sentiment out there. The Democrats, if they win, aren’t launching a long term progressive program to put America right again. Instead, they’ve got four years to end the mess in Iraq, bring gasoline prices down, and turn the economy around, and if they don’t do that they’ll be thrown out.

    There’s no long term planning or thinking any more in America. It’s more like a frenzy of instant gratification.

    And because there’s no sense of what’s wrong with America, and what has to be done to set it right, Obama is only a modest favorite in my opinion. But we’ll know a lot more when we get this disastrous campaign behind us. The dust has to settle before the polls mean anything.

  • How will the Republicans respond, especially after their audit of the three Congressional races they lost in ruby-red districts.

    None of their shit works anymore with most voters. The litany of terra, guns, gods, gays just doesn’t work when everybody sees the economy melting away. Their entire message has been based on convincing people that they can’t believe their lying eyes, and it’s all the fault of Clinton, liberals, Hollywood elites, and godless gays.

    Republicans have had no philosophy or polices other than kleptocracy, and Americans are tired of it.

  • Republicans need to understand that without significant change by their party, the Democratic primary is getting the attention because it is picking the next President of the United States. Really the only debate at this point is not that the Repubs will lose, but how badly they will lose. I do suspect it will be a close race because the Repubs are very good at rallying the base around the candidate even if the candidate is a complete disaster, and the Repub churches are good about making sure their parishioners to vote Repub.

    About the only thing that could save the Repub party is impeaching Bush and Cheney, and totally disowning them and the neocons afterwards. This would essentially get them back to where Bush I had lead the party, but it could bring the independents back on board.

  • The other thing to remember about McSame’s finances is that he is breaking the campaign finance laws that he himself helped to write. If the FEC were to get its act together (something chimpy is sure to fight against), then instead of spending 4 years in the White House, McSame may be spending up to 5 years in a federal penitentiary.

  • I think we’ll more than make up for it with new voters, converts, and highly energized voters. — Brian, @1

    I attended the Dem nominating convention for my district, yesterday — the first for me, since I’m not an official “party member” (had enough of forced loyalty to *groups* back in Poland, thank you). Despite it being Memorial Day Weekend, attendance was great. The Dem runner for the Congressional seat was approved unanimously and will get demolished in November — a 27yr old Palestinian Arab, with wife in a “schmata” isn’t going to fly very far in the rural (Shenandoah Valley) south-west Virginia, especially against a well-entrenched incumbent. But what really struck me was how many *young* people were there, particularly in the Obama camp (they also put up delegates for the presidential candidates for the State Convention).

    The district will be sending one male and one female delegate for Hillary and one male, one female and one (female) alternate for Obama. In the Hillary camp, there were two volunteers and both will go. But, in the Obama camp, there were 8 — a mini- election had to be conducted! Three of the wannabe delegates were under 25, one of them only 19. But all 3 were very eloquent about their desire to participate in the future change since — as all of them pointed out — this will be the future which will affect them more than anyone else. They won’t be going; older and better known folk got elected. But, hopefully, these youngsters won’t let their disappointment get the better of them and will continue their work of recruiting new voters (the freshman in college got himself elected as the chairman of Young Democrats and they’re going around the highschools, registering seniors). So yes, there’s a lot of energy there, only waiting to be unleashed…

  • I think McSame resembles no one so much as Bob Dole at this point–the GOPers love to nominate candidates on the “Well, it’s his turn” basis and both McBush and Dole fit that pattern, right down to their lackluster campaign style. Running on a sense of entitlement and intra-party inertia rather than real ideas and real enthusiasm. The picture is complicated a bit by the Embedded Media’s idee fixe that he’s a “maverick.” But it largely holds true. So we should be looking at a blowout. Except…

    Our guy has a funny name and dark skin.

    I’ve been an Obama supporter since back when it was a 3-way race. But my trust in the broad voting public’s ability to get around that obstacle is anemic at best. I’ve been around long enough to know that people will say one thing in public and act very differently in private when it comes to race, and that includes the privacy of the voting booth. And the GOP has 40 years of experience running on racial codewords and racial divisions behind it. I’ve been hoping for an actual victory scenario borne of the very fact that BHO is such a different candidate, as opposed to the usual 50.1% kind of race that seems to be the norm now. But the Swiftboaters and dog-whistlers are already sharpening up their operations. At this point I think he’s going to be able to eke out that .1% but it’s going to come down to the fact that the extended campaign has forced him to extend his already excellent ground operations–grass roots fundraising and door-to-door organizing–out to way more states than he might otherwise have done. McSame doesn’t have anything like that going, as the travesty around his fund-raiser in Phoenix indicates.

  • I disagree that the McCain campaign hasn’t settled on a central message. It’s “He’s black y’all, he’s black y’all, he’s blackety-blackety-blackety-black, y’all!”

  • Can we do some math here, and you’ll see why I have been predicting a blow-out for months, with any of the Democratic candidates against any of the Republicans. (This doesn’t take into account Obama’s brilliant campaigning or McCain’s specific weaknesses.)

    In 2004, the Republicans had the advantage of incumbency, and Bush was still somewhat popular. The War was still possible to be portrayed as a ‘noble endeavor’ that had a chance to succeed. Gay mariage was still a new idea to most, and Bush played that card very well, getting the entire Religious Right behind him. The economy was looking shaky, but hadn’t started to spiral down. The Democrats ran a candidate with little personal charm, little campaigning skills, and judgment so poor he considered asking McCain as his running mate. The ‘no more taxes’ meme was still working for some.

    Given all of that, Bush still only won 50.7% of the vote, to Kerry’s 48.3%, a difference of 3 million votes total. And were it not for Ken Blackwell’s Ohio, Kerry might have won the electoral vote.

    Skip ahead to 2006. Can I remind everyone how unprecedented our victory was? Some of the races were very close, but “Republicans won no seats previously held by Democrats in either the House or the Senate for the first time since the party’s founding, and it was the largest seat gain for the Democrats since the 1974 elections.” (quoting Wikipedia).

    This year we have had three by-elections in safe Republican seats — at least they had been for years. We won all three by large majorities. (I think there was one other which the Republicans held the seat.)

    Now look at this year. How many House Republicans have refused to seek reelection? (Last count was 29, but I may have missed recent ones, and this doesn’t include Fossella.) Then look at the number of those races where the Republicans have been unable to convince their first, somethines their first, second, and third choices to make the run — either because they knew they’d lose or because they didn’t want the job because they knew how powerless they’d be. (This is currently happening with the Fossella seat.)

    We have only one Senatorial incumbent that is vulnerable this year, while every day more safe Republican seats are proving to be in play.

    Then look at those factors that helped Bush last time, and see if they are still effective:

    Incumbency? nope.

    The War? nope.

    The economy? Fuhgeddaboudit.

    Gay marriage? No, for two reasons. People have gotten used to gays over the past four years. (I made this point before, but it is still valid. Republican mothers are more likely to be ‘stay-at-home’ mothers. What do s-a-h mothers do during the day? They watch tv for parts of it, frequently. And what they watch includes soap operas — many of which have gay characters — talk shows, including ELLEN. And ‘judge shows.’ Including Judge David Young, who is not only openly gay, but whose show opening plays to this far more obviously than he does during the show, picking out his ‘swishier’ moments to the point where the opening almost makes him come across like Charlesa Nelson Riley. And while I haven’t seen ratings, Young is on — on major stations — in every state so there hasn’t been a negative reaction to his gayness. He even has been nominated for a ‘Daytime Emmy’ for best Judge show. People, gays aren’t scary any more.)

    But the objections come from the Radical Religious Right — and they don’t trust McCain. (Cubbie, you missed the point of the Parsley piece. He’s a nut, yes, but a powerful one — and a very experienced political operator. If he actively works against McCain, it will cost McCain about one million votes.) Furthermore, at least a noticeable fraction of the anti-gay vote have discovered that the same politician who fired them up over gay marriage, the same preacher who preached against the ‘evils of sodomy’ were themselves gay. Some of them, at least, are going to be so turned off they won’t vote.

    Now look at the candidate, and his supposed advantages. McCain may have charisma in small gatherings, where he can sprawl out, have a beer and tell war stories, but you can’t put that on tv. (And interestingly enough, that charisma doesn’t extend to his colleagues — many of whom actively dislike him on a personal level.) When he appears on tv during his current, obligatory, ‘charm offensive,’ he comes across as uncomfortable, a little confused, and boring.

    I have repeatedly said that the supposed ‘love affair’ between McCain and the Press is exaggerated. (Remember, it started when he was the alternative to GWB. The press was charmed, somewhat, but like many of us who were unwilling to focus on Hillary’s flaws — until she forced us to do so — because she was still the possible nominee against McCain, they weren’t going to go negative on McCain as long as he had a chance of keeping GWB out of the White House. Reporters are good judges of character — they knew how awful Bush would be.)

    But what stories have come out about McCain so far this year. Hagee, Parsley, Lobbyists — including the Iseman story — GI Bill and Veterans, Cindy’s tax returns — even the Washington TIMES criticized him on that — and his health. None of these have been positive.

    And Steve is right about the fuzziness of his messages, but he can’t get specific because anytime he does, he either loses his supposed Independent appeal or his base. Republican policies just aren’t popular.

    We are talking blow-out here, but those people who are worried about a one-party state should relax. There’s plenty of room for a new Center-right Party, and plenty of people to join it, starting with Hagel, Lugar, Chris Shays, and the Junior Senator from New York.

  • libra: The word is hijab — if it is just the body that is covered and the hair, or niqab if the veil is included. “Schmatta” is Yiddish for second-rate cloth or cheap clothing.

    Pedantic Prup

  • Prup, @26

    Don’t mind your being pedantic. But I can never remember which one is which (that is, if I can remember either). And then there’s also “burkqa” (spell?) and I don’t know which one *that* is, either (one of them is, I think, veil with eyes showing and one with eyes also covered, behind a sort of netting). The guy’s family wears the open-face version, thankfully; it’s kind-a pretty, while the veiled version can be spooky. “Schmata” is what most of my Jewish friends and acquaintances use to describe *all* versions of the Arab garb and yes, they mean it to be derogatory. And you can bet that that’s what’s gonna be used when the campaign heats up.

    The word, though spelt differently (szmata), is Polish for “rag”. Whether Poles took it from Jews or Jews took it from Poles (or both borrowed from Germans)… Who knows? At home, the difference only emerged when the word appeared in plural; for my mother, it was “schmates”, for my father, “szmaty” 🙂

    Weird… I was going to out-pedant you (I think it’s spelt with a single “t”), but the word doesn’t appear at all in my “Born to Kvetch; Yiddish Language and Culture in All of Its Moods” (by Michael Wex and a riot to read, even if you don’t have a single Jewish gene in you). Oh, well…

  • Obama is so good, and McSame is soooooooooo bad, I cannot believe the the true power brokers in the Republican Party will allow this November massacre to occur. I agree with comments I probably read here that this summer, “medical issues” will force McSame to withdraw and allow the party elders to choose their candidate. And I believe their candidate will be one who can really stir up the base and make them realize we are about to elect an uppity elitist um, um,…what’s the word….oh yeah, Muslim. The candidate…Newt Gingrich.

  • Prup, I agree with your whole post except the part about McCain and the press. The press didn’t just push McCain because they didn’t like GWB; they liked him just fine (remember “the candidate you’d like to have a beer with”?). They liked, and still like, McCain because they like how he relates to him.

    That’s not to say they couldn’t turn on him — they might. But he wasn’t a “lesser of evils” preference with them.

  • The Republicans are deliberately running a lame horse in this race. They know the writing is on the wall in Iraq. For five years now, it has been Bush’s personal strategy to hand the impending regional peace failure in the Middle East off to the next president, and it has been Karl Rove’s strategy to make sure the next president isn’t a Republican.

    The people of Iraq are hopelessly riven. Far too many of them have given up all hope off a unified ‘Iraq’ within the artificial British-colonial drawn borders. The people of Iraq are not “one people” and Iraq cannot be “one nation”. Even the idea of federal Iraq with three or four independent states is not an idea that inspires much hope. There are a great people in Iraq that continue to embrace American interventionist force. And there are also a great many people that loathe it and would see us annihilated, one by one if necessary in a thousand year struggle.

    The plain fact is that people with those two opposed positions are unlikely ever to trust or forgive each other. When we leave, which we must do eventually, the people opposed to the U.S. will turn on those who supported the U.S.

    It’s a bloody civil war on that division. It’s a bloody civil war between Shia and Sunni extremists. It’s a bloody mafia war between those who want to profit most from Iraq’s oil resources. And it’s a very bloody war between Israeli-state interests and Arab-state interests.

    We are keeping a lid on the civil wars in Iraq by brutal means (including conducting target aerial bombardment of civilian neighborhoods.) The unfortunate results of our methods do not really differ greatly from the methods that Saddam Hussein used to keep a lid on Iraq’s internal strife. We face basically the same problem he faced, and were solving it by bloodshed and repression, as he did. Our methods of killing are different from his, but were solving the problem the same way – with brutal force.

    Aside from whatever really happened during the beforemath and aftermath of the 9/11 incident, the radical Republican neo-conservatives got us into this war. And the Bush administration screwed the pooch so thoroughly that it is no longer possible to determine what breed of dog it once was.

    The Republican neo-conservative cockroaches have their feelers crossed for a Democratic presidential win in 2008. And the unwitting Grampa McCain will not be so much a Republican president he will be a pseudo-Republican scapegoat, if he somehow accidentally wins.

    RH

  • Comments are closed.