McCain and the right — we’ve been going at this the wrong way

February 7, 2008

At first blush, there’s not much more to be said about far-right opposition to John McCain’s campaign. Limbaugh, Dobson, Coulter & Co. hate him. We get it.

But reading this LA Times piece, which is a good overview of the lay of the land, got me thinking.

“We’re in a political dilemma, as well as a personal dilemma,” said Jessica Echard, executive director of the conservative advocacy group Eagle Forum. “What will we do? What can be done?”

Sit out in November? Unite behind McCain? Pressure the Arizona senator to change his policies? Demand a specific running mate? The debate, often biting, has consumed online forums, talk radio and conservative groups.

Behind it all, a key question looms: Will conservative Republicans be selling out if they back McCain — or if they don’t?

“I keep hearing that we need to be loyal Republicans and support McCain if he becomes our candidate, but I question why we should have to be more loyal to the party than McCain has [been],” a caller told right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh.

He interrupted her with enthusiasm: “That is brilliant! That is brilliant!”

The LAT piece notes that the far-right could rally behind one of McCain’s rivals, but it’s too late. They could mount a third-party effort, but there’s no real enthusiasm for the idea. This crowd is left to debate a) how intense their criticism of the GOP nominee should be; and b) whether to stay home in November.

For the past several months, I’ve enjoyed highlighting the conservative/McCain schism, in the hopes that conservative ire would lead GOP voters to nominate someone other than the Arizona senator. But now that McCain appears to have wrapped up the nomination, it’s time for a different strategy altogether.

Highlighting the right-wing clowns who hate McCain may inadvertently help McCain’s campaign. The goal, moving forward, isn’t to point to the schism, but rather, to point to how much McCain has in common with those on the far right who are attacking him.

As the presumptive Republican nominee prepares to enter a general-election phase, his goal will be to expand his voting base — keep Republicans together, while reaching out to the middle and independents. What better way to do that than to highlight the complaints of the far-right fringe?

I don’t doubt that there’s a chunk of Americans who find Limbaugh and Coulter appealing, but when push comes to shove, it’s still a fringe audience, most of which will vote Republican anyway simply because they hate Democrats. For the typical American voter, hearing Coulter rail against McCain makes McCain look better.

I suspect for most of the country, there’s widespread disdain for the Republican Party right now. When these folks hear about who’s condemning McCain, their first thought is likely to be, “Well, maybe as Republicans go, he’s not so bad.” Indeed, if I were with the McCain campaign, I’d be tempted to encourage these attacks, because they only make the GOP candidate more appealing to a general-election audience.

If we were willing to get really creative about this dynamic, we might even consider the possibility that Limbaugh, Coulter, Dobson, & Co. are engaged in an elaborate Kabuki Theater, trashing McCain with the express purpose of improving his chances. (I don’t really believe this, mind you, but it at least seems possible.)

The left — and I include myself in this — have been making the wrong argument, reveling in the Republican divisions. The goal going forward should be the polar opposite — the differences between Limbaugh and McCain are minor. They’re two conservative Republicans who fundamentally want to take the country in the same (i.e., wrong) direction.

We should stop emphasizing the differences, and start emphasizing the similarities.

I am just pleased that I, as a former democratic voter who has been disgusted with the party since the Clinton Empire of Evil, now has a chance to vote for a Democrat that I can respect.

If Obama loses, I have no problem voting for McCain. But I really hope that I can cast a ballot for a Democrat in the General Election for the first time in a while.

  • He interrupted her with enthusiasm: “That is brilliant! That is brilliant!”

    Just for the record, anytime Limbaugh yells “That is brilliant” or any other such compliment to a caller, it means the caller just repeated something Limbaugh said a few minutes ago. It’s a brilliant way to keep the listeners on his side. I hope the callers have this figured out, if not the LAT.

    And yes, it is time for the Dems and the Left to start hammering McCain for what he truly is and to also start hammering the press for their mancrush on the so-called Straight Talkin’ Maverick that they so love to play to.

  • McCaint moves right, he loses more indies. We point out how rightwing he is and he loses more indies. That is brilliant!

    Let’s invite him to debate in the Dem tv debates since he’s such a warrior.

  • IV,

    This idea of “I’m an Indy/Dem who will vote for McCain if Clinton wins the nomination” is asinine. You are lying. You are neither an Independent nor a Democrat. No matter what you think of HRC, if you believe McCain would be a better representative of core democratic principles, your brain is broken.

  • I think the line “a third Bush term” that Howard Dean put out on McCain the other day is both effective as well as being true and easily proven. It also has the advantage of pitting the crazies against their own party’s current leader on issues like immigration. So it both highlights GOP divisions and makes the case that McCain is just another Bush.

  • Heh. I put forward the Grand Kabuki theory a couple of days ago but I really think Flush and his companions in public idiocy are simply scrabbling for relevance. They know they have zero chance of impacting the Democratic nomination because reasonable undecided voters only listen to those people to laugh. Or suppress their appetites. Even if they came up with undeniable proof that Hillary wanted to turn us all into soylent green or Obama was planning to sell us all to China, no one would believe them.

    Where does that leave them? “Rah rah Bush!” is stale and the audience is too small. “We love Romney!” might work but their specialty isn’t love, it’s hate. For whatever reason (or non-reason) they picked Romney as their hero so they could go to work on all the non-Romneys in the race. In other words, they could just as easily be bashing Romney. It likely all came down to a coin toss.

  • Independant Voter said:
    I am just pleased that I, as a former democratic voter who has been disgusted with the party since the Clinton Empire of Evil, now has a chance to vote for a Democrat that I can respect.

    You’re as independent as your spelling.

  • Not sure I agree with you here (and I normally do). I think the more attacks on McCain the better, and I don’t think his “moderate and independent” supporters are so moderate and independent that many of them wouldn’t perchance flip by Rush on the radio, stroke their chins and say, “Maybe Rush has a point, there…” After all, these people were going to vote for John “100 years in Iraq” McCain, for Pete’s sake.

  • I want to be a democrat. But I cannot stomach the thought of a Clinton in office again. The Soap Opera must end.

    Obama in 2008!!

    Obama is Great!!

    Hillary is Scum!!

  • The Grand Kabuki theory doesn’t hold up only because the likes of Limpdick and Christatollah Dobson don’t have enough self-awareness to grasp that they’re fringe figures. They see themselves as voices for the masses–vote totals be damned.

    But I do like the idea of emphasizing McCain’s similarities with his foes on the far right. Essentially, they hate him because he doesn’t seem to hate Democrats/liberals–which is basically their reason for existing. They revere Bush precisely because we detest him; his actual performance or beliefs, such as they are, don’t matter at all.

  • I’d like to see the numbers. Highlighting the differences tells the zany part of the far right exactly what we need them to hear: stay home, there’s no total nut for you to vote for.

    Can we really be arguing that McCain will be able to make a run at independents, over a Clinton or an Obama? It doesn’t matter which one–I don’t buy the hype that a Republican has a shot with independents. “McCain = liberal” will only hurt McCain.

    If you’re an independent and you vote for a Republican in 2008 after 8 years of Bush, than: (1) you are a Republican. Stop telling pollsters you are independent; or (2) Democrats really don’t know how to run an election.

  • the possibility that Limbaugh, Coulter, Dobson, & Co. are engaged in an elaborate Kabuki Theater, trashing McCain with the express purpose of improving his chances.

    No, they’re in it for themselves, as usual. They know McCain has little chance of winning the general, what with Bush’s baggage and with a recession on the way. By preemptively trashing him they’re distancing themselves from his coming defeat, and teeing up the argument that if the GOP had nominated a “real” conservative they would have won this time.

    Tying McCain as tightly as possible to Bush and to the GOP right wing is the correct campaign strategy now. Make him Sister Souljah them, which will both aggravate them and make his defeat even more likely. Or if he doesn’t, then he inherits Bush’s unpopularity.

  • The goal going forward should be the polar opposite — the differences between Limbaugh and McCain are minor.

    I don’t think that will work. Here’s why: McCain is a media darling who has been branded by them for years as: A Maverick and a Straight-talker.

    Those brands are entrenched. Hell even Limbaugh buys into them.
    They’ve worked its way deeply into the minds of millions.
    Unlearning something… is far harder than learning something in the first place.
    Nope. The McCain brands are hard-wired into many a brain.

    The only way to beat him in the Fall is to have a candidate who can out-wrestle him for the Indies, Conservative Dems, and the Liberal Reps.

    There really is no other way…

  • McCain claims he’s a conservative. His liberal/moderate/independent supporters claim he’s ‘authentic’. If he’s authentic then he’s telling the truth that he’s a conservative.

    A 100 year occupation of Iraq so he’s not preceived as a coward conservative.

    Have I deviated from that meme over the last year?

  • “democrats” and “indys” who say they’ll vote for st. john if clinton is the nominee are just repeating the old “it makes no difference if a republican or a democrat is in the white house” line.

    anyone who can say that with a straight face either a) is ralph nader, or b) has been stoned the past 7 years!

  • 100 years in iraq should do him in just fine. If I was one of the Dem’s, I’d be all over the TV sreaming how McCain voted to shelve the stimulas pakage yesterday by not showing up to vote. & How he said in the debates that this was the first thing to do to help the economy.

  • I fear that ROTFLMLiberalAO is right about the difficulty of un-branding Maverick(TM) McCain, but Steve, you’re right about this — we’re reinforcing the branding by paying this conflict so much attention.

    I want that hug picture on a billboard looming over every highway in America, with the slogan FOUR MORE YEARS.

  • By preemptively trashing him they’re distancing themselves from his coming defeat, and teeing up the argument that if the GOP had nominated a “real” conservative they would have won this time.

    Ayup. Sadly the only way to shut them up would be for them to trash McCain for the rest of the year and then have him win the election without them anyway. But then we’d have 4 more years of the same crap we’ve had over the last 8. And that makes it a deal not worth taking to me.

  • BTW, I heard a comment yesterday that may explain why anti-war independents cling to McCain. Apparently, there’s a belief that his combat veteran machismo will enable him to end the war more swiftly & efficiently than the non-veterans running.

  • I agree with idea that the far right bashing McCain is to his advantage. I know many many people who aren’t well informed think of McCain as a “Maverick”. They believe his press. And, with the far right bashing him so much, it is just more evidence of his “independence.” They believe “Hey! The right doesn’t like him- he must be doing something right.”

    But, I think Howard Dean has the right idea that the Democrats need to attack that idea NOW, not wait until Hilary or Obama is selected.

  • McCain=Bush.

    He wants to spend your children’s future on someone else’s war.

    That’s not national defense — that’s insanity.

  • I’m not so sure about this one. Because I think we need to make him fight for his conservative bonafides and to prove to these people that he’s one of them. That way, he’ll have to make more speeches and platform ideas that conform to what they want to hear. And by doing so, he’ll turn off the rest of the country and make our job easier.

    Now you’re suggesting that we do that for him. That we attack him for being too conservative, and thus making conservatives want to defend him. So then he can focus more energy on showing what a maverick he is, and how he’s not as conservative as we’re portraying him. And while I see some wisdom to this, I don’t think it’s the best strategy.

    The best strategy is, as always, to just tell the truth. He’s a lying flip-flopper who says whatever he needs to say to get elected. We contrast his words on the campaign trail in 2000 with what he’s saying now. And we compare his ample praise of Bush and the Iraq war with what he’s now pretending his position was. That’s where the attack is. We shouldn’t let him take any ground, and we’ll deny him the ability to claim either the conservative OR maverick labels. The conservatives will hate him for his words in 2000, his inconsistencies, his maverickness, and his attacks on Bush; while moderates will hate him for his more recent words, his inconsistencies, his conservativeness, and most of all, his support for Bush. And so he’ll be stuck trying to please both groups, while finding it tough to do either.

    And let’s not forget: This is the same mistake we made with Bush. We kept trying to paint him as an idiot cowboy who was too conservative; and they kept recasting all our criticism as showing that he’s a regular cowboy who is consistent. And then he could campaign as a moderate while his conservative base was confident he was a conservative, based upon liberal outrage of him. And that’s exactly backwards. Republicans are lying conmen who will say anything to be elected. That’s where the attack needs to be. McCain isn’t too conservative. He’s too big of a phony. And best of all, this undercuts his great appeal: Which is that he’s authentic. It’s not true and we should do our best to convince people of it.

    Make him fight to prove he’s not a phony, and he’ll have to take a side and piss off the other. And whichever side he takes, we just attack him for having said the opposite and showing how this proves what a phony he is. That’s what they did with Kerry, and Kerry wasn’t nearly the phony McCain is. Everything we say about McCain must be a part of this bigger narrative of him being a phony. That’s just how it’s done in politices.

  • Adam at 4,

    Do I want HRC who will pull the Dems to the right just for the sake of having a Democrat (one who could easily lose the senate in 2010)? Or do I vote in order to encourage the GOP to go after moderates/progressives by nominating people like Romney/McCain (compare with Hunter/Tancredo for some perspective)?

    Short term loss for long term gain?

    Progressive Democrats DO ponder these strategies. Independent Voter needs not be a mole.

    I’ve asked before: If McCain somehow convinced the GOP to embrace single payer health, reduction of the national debt, to recognize and fight global warming, tighten pollution restrictions, level the trade playing field, reinforce constitutional rights, support tolerance of abortion rights in liberal states, and separation of church and state, am I supposed to hate them just because of their name and their mascot?

    I don’t hate the name, their people, or their mascot. I don’t like what they DO when they have power. If they change what they do, all bets are off.

    For the I-bleed-blue loyalists’, I suppose they can be happy the chances the GOP wises up any time soon are infinitesimal.

  • I know a lot of independent voters and I quite a few far-right voters. Most of these people are only somewhat interested in politics. They’re not political junkies. They don’t know a great deal about politics. (They tend to think they know quite a bit more about politics than they actually know. They don’t seem to realize how much political data is out there, and how little of it they’ve seen and considered.)

    These people are generally hard-working, busy people, and they simply don’t want to spend a lot of time on politics. When I converse with them about politics, they often seem comfortable talking with me for maybe 30-60 seconds, and then they figure out some way to stop the political talk. They might change the subject, turn their attention to someone else in the area, walk away, or whatever.

    If you want to make a political point or two about John McCain with these types of folks, you have to be very quick and very succinct. They’re not going to sit there and listen to you talk for several minutes about McCain flip-flopping on campaign finance or immigration or Iraq or whatever.

    I’ve decided that when I’m talking about McCain to people who I believe to be independents – people who are capable of deciding to vote for Obama or Clinton – I am going to concentrate on using the following words, terms and concepts: 1) old, 2) melanoma, 3) cheated on his first wife, 4) “my friends,” 5) McCain = Bush.

    For example, I might say, while slowly shaking my head back and forth, “He’s an old guy. 71, I think.” It only takes 3-4 seconds to say that.

    Or I might say, “He’s had melanoma, which, I understand, is the most deadly of the skin cancers. And it tends to come back. I don’t really want to see a president die of cancer while in office.”

    Or I might say, “He cheated on his first wife, you know.”

    Or I’ll say, “The next time you see him on TV talking to a crowd, notice how often he uses the words “my friends.”” My thinking here is that once people start listening for this verbal tic, and start hearing it frequently, it will annoy them and cause them to think less well of McCain.

    Or I’ll say, “You know, I really don’t think he’s that much different than George W. Bush. Do we want four or eight more years of that? God forbid.”

    I’ve decided that when I’m talking to far-right folks – people who will not vote for either Obama or Clinton but who might decide to refrain from voting for McCain – I will emphasize some or all of the following words, terms, and concepts: 1) old, 2) melanoma, 3) cheated on his first wife, 4) “my friends,” 5) McCain = liberal, and 6) McCain = traitor to the Republican Party.

  • The idea that the apoplectic right is faking their dislike for McCain is just silly. These people genuinely believe that they have an impact on events, that people listen to them and act on it, and to some degree they are right. They are far too egotistical to engage in the weird “people hate me, so I’ll pretend to dislike a candidate I actually like, so those who hate me will be tricked into voting for him” thing that has been suggested.

    McCain has many terrible positions, especially on the war. That said, I’m pleased that he’s likely to be the Republican nominee. He is the least bad of that bunch. If Hilary or Obama implodes before the general, I’d rather have McCain than any of the other Republicans.

  • “Steve Benen: We should stop emphasizing the differences, and start emphasizing the similari….”

    We interrupted Steve with enthusiasm: “That is brilliant! That is brilliant!”

  • We should stop emphasizing the differences, and start emphasizing the similarities.

    Um … not to toot my own horn or anything, but didn’t I suggest this a few weeks ago, when McCain started to look like the presumptive winner?

    I tell ya … if I were part of the RIAA, I’d be suing CB right now!!

    😉

    Kidding aside, I’ve been trying to convince my wingnuts coworkers that McGrumpypuss really is one of them. All of those things they hate him for — opposing Bush’s tax cuts, immigration, campaign finance (an issue I still don’t think is that big of a deal, but they do), his shots at the religious right — he has now recanted.

    The American Conservative Union (the gold-standard for wingnut ratings) gave him a lifetime 82.3 rating — just 0.2 lower than Kit Bond of Missouri, nearly 10 points higher than new Mexico’s Domenici, and way higher than Stevens of Alaska.

    And McCain loves him some war in Iraq, and all of them think it’s been an incredible success, so they’re on the same page there.

    After pointing all of this out, they argued with me about it, saying none of it matters — McCain is a GOP traitor, a closet liberal, and there’s nothing that will change their minds.

    The most dangerous thing that could happen is for the general public to feel the same way.

  • Highlighting the differences tells the zany part of the far right exactly what we need them to hear: stay home, there’s no total nut for you to vote for.

    Why would the far right listen to us? That’s the flaw I see in this argument. Whereas, to Mr. Carpetbagger’s point, moderate Rs, conservative Ds and independents may listen to reasonable, cogent arguments that highlight the strong ties between McCain and Bush. The hug and “4 More Years” arguments are going to the be ones that sway those who are swayable.

    The far right will only listen to the far right wingnuts. I think they are likely to stay home and not open their wallets for McCain. But that’s because they will only listen to Dobson, Colter and Limbaugh, etc. Our target audience is the broad middle.

    McCain = 4 more years of W.

  • The vast majority of the electorate does not want four more years of Bush, and the hard right are in a minority position at the moment, so we lead with The Hug and “Do you want four more years of Bush-McCain policies”. This works great for Obama, and it even works for Hillary – if the question boils down to another Bush term versus another Clinton term, “Clinton” should win.

    If you get into a wonk-discussion, then the direction to go is, “McCain flip-flops and will say anything”. “Will say anything” is the standard complaint against Hillary, but it is much more true about McCain, so it’s a good argument to make. (Hillary may support anything in search of triangulation, but whatever she decides to support, she’s typically consistent in maintaining her position. On the other hand, McCain is against the McCain-Feingold bill, and hasn’t been able to decide whether the hard religious right are good or bad.)

  • McCain has clearly moved to the right inorder to win this nomination.
    He has disavowed his own immigration plan, embraced the bush tax
    cuts, etc, as you have pointed out yourself. The Democrats need to
    hold his feet to the fire. Not allow him to return to the center where he
    can say “I voted against the Bush tax cuts”, or “I worked with Kennedy
    on immigration”. Nay, the Democrats must remind the public what
    position he took during this nomination campaign, not before.

  • Why would the far right listen to us?

    Why?? Because they hate us. Look, there IS NO rightwing ideology for most of these people. It’s all about liberal hate. Almost any rightwing blog you go to will show a complete obsession with attacking liberals; far more than anything they actually say about being conservative. Even their mantras of “smaller government” and “global warming doesn’t exist” is all about stopping the liberal agenda. They hate us. That’s just what it’s about.

    And so if we start denouncing McCain as a uber-conservative Bush-lover, that will set off the dog whistle that will get them out to defend him in droves. It’ll drive them rabid. It’s what they live for. And people are like this on our side too. There’s no better way to get someone to strongly defend Hillary or Barack then to attack them; particularly with an attack deemed unfair. Even non-supporters will defend these people against attacks they deem unfair. But it’s even moreso with conservatives.

    If we want them to defend McCain and vote for him on election day, we should start denouncing him as a wingnut. But if we want them to keep hating him, we should continue to point out how inconsistent he is, and how he’ll say anything to win elections. He was a straight-talking maverick who denounced religious intolerance when he thought that’d help; and he became a Bush-loving wingnut who embraced religion when he thought that’d help.

    In essence, he’s a phony. We don’t need to lecture long for people with short attention spans. We just need to start smirking whenever people talk about McCain and scoff at him for being the phony he is. It’ll sink in. That’s how it works. They turned Mr. Boy Scout Al Gore into a lying hypocrite with less material then we’ve got to work with. This is how elections are won. McCain is a phony and we’d be fools not to tell everyone about it.

  • If McCain somehow convinced the GOP to embrace single payer health, reduction of the national debt, to recognize and fight global warming, tighten pollution restrictions, level the trade playing field, reinforce constitutional rights, support tolerance of abortion rights in liberal states, and separation of church and state […]

    Tooweary, @27

    … certainly, the problem would then not exist about pulling the lever for them. But what kind of basis do you have for your assumption about McCain and the rest of the party suddenly becoming reasonable on all those issues? I can also assume that, if my grandma had a couple of wheels instead of legs, she’d be a bicycle. But it’s as likely as GOP becoming sensible (especially since my grandma’s been dead since before I was born).

    As for pulling the lever for someone just for the sake of having a D after their name… There *is* one reason: SCOTUS and other judicial nominations. I’m not enamoured of Clinton either; if she’s the nominee, I’ll have to pinch my nose very hard with one hand, while pressing the “key” for her with the other. But those nominations are *vital* to the health of our country… So I’ll follow the Victorian Mother’s advice: “close your eyes, my daughter, and think of England” (only, in this case, I’ll be thinking of US).

    I will also spend whatever money I have not for support of HRC, but for support of the most progressive members of both houses of Congress, on the “belt *and* suspenders” principle 🙂

  • You can’t pin tag McCain as a flip-flopper — the media won’t let you. It contradicts their narrative of the straight shooter.

    And unfortunately, McCain didn’t flip-flop on the one issue all terror-driven Republicans care most about: he was always for the war and when he says he’s going to win in Iraq, they believe him because they passionately want to believe that misbegotten war can be won. Those are the Republicans (and there are millions) who will tell you Vietnam could have been won. McCain’s toughness is legend from his POW days. In the general election, he’ll contrast his smarts (the surge was my idea) with Bush’s incompetence. He’ll portray both Hillary and Obama are Kerry-esque weaklings who want to surrender to the terrorists by pulling out of Iraq. Romney just fired the first volley of that meme when he bowed out a few minutes ago. Our candidates had better be ready with a good answer.

    It’s not our war?
    He’s flushing away our kids’ future?
    It’s not keeping us safer?

    None of it plays as well as the crap he’ll spout, which people will swallow like it’s chocolate.

    And, as a last resort, if it looks like he’ll lose, those who have a financial interest in another Republican administration will orchestrate another terrorist attack in the U.S.

    I hope at least some Democrats are thinking ahead…

  • As for pulling the lever for someone just for the sake of having a D after their name… There *is* one reason: SCOTUS and other judicial nominations.

    Libra – There’s more than that: The people they hire to do the actual work. Do we want a knowledgable person directing FEMA who actually has experience handling disasters, like who Clinton gave us? Or do we want an actual disaster like Brownie in the job? Do we want experts deciding which drugs are approved and which studies are funded; or do we want ideological hacks? Do we want civil rights experts determining if voter laws violate civil rights; or do we want Republican hacks? Same goes for every department of government. Conservatives despise government and Republicans consider these jobs to be a reward for services rendered. Only Democrats actually have a vested interest in making sure it works. Even if McCain has the idea of using experts to fill these jobs, I can guarantee you that his staff will make sure he never hears about those. That’s how they do business.

    The presidency is the most important job being filled next year. But one of the most important parts of that job is who they hire to fill all the little jobs. That’s where the real difference is. It’s not about Democrat v. Republican in the Whitehouse. It’s about Experts v. Hacks. The choice is clear.

  • N.Wells said: “The vast majority of the electorate does not want four more years of Bush, and the hard right are in a minority position at the moment…”

    If you mean by that the hard right says in polls it supports Boy George II, I’d just suggest to you that they actually WANT him out of office. Tax cuts aside (and they are expiring in 2010 and they know it’s because he’s too weak to make them permanent) BGII is for immigration reform and imperial wars.

    They won’t give you and me the satisifaction of saying to a pollster that they don’t support BGII, but I believe they are sick and tired of him and are ready for a change.

    Like the ability to openly hate President Clinton or President Obama.

  • Dalloway @ 37 – Screw the media. They won’t let us peg anything negative on McCain, anyway. So they’re useless. Besides, they’ll NEVER say he’s a conservative either. They’ll pull the same routine they did with Bush, which was to assume he was a moderate pretending to be conservative to fool the suckers; and the media LOVES a good con game. So why are we wanting to repeat the same attack that failed against Bush twice? In any case, the media won’t help us and isn’t really who we’re after. The people we’re targeting are either undecideds who don’t really follow the news, as well as conservatives who don’t trust the media. I’m telling you, some well placed ridicule tossed at Phony McCain will go much further than anything these people will hear in the media.

    Besides, he HAS flip-flopped on the war. He was always a gung-ho supporter of Bush and Rummy, right up to the time that it became too obvious that they had both screwed everything up. Then he flip-flopped and said he had always been a critic of them. And so when we attack him as a phony, we’re highlighting to moderates what a loyal Bushie he was, and to conservatives what a flip-flopping betrayer he is. And this will make him take heat from both sides, while reinforcing the fact that he’s a phony.

    Again, this is how it works. If you people really want the wingnuts to embrace McCain, go ahead and make him one of them. They’ll be too busy attacking us to bother listening to McCain become a moderate again. But if you want him out there floundering as he tries to prove to moderates and conservatives that he’s one of them, while reinforcing our attack on him, then attack him as a phony.

    The one truth I learned from Karl Rove is that you attack your opponent’s strengths, not his weaknesses. His weaknesses speak for themselves, so you need to punish him for relying on his strengths. McCain’s strength is that he’s a “straight talker” and the best way to undermine that is to show the world what a phony he is. I’m telling you, this is how it works. The flip-side is that you promote your weaknesses as strengths, so a semi-literate spoiled brat appears to be a regular joe strongman. The cowboy hat and ranch were perfect accessories, and liberal hatred helped seal the deal. I’m telling you, we need to do this the Rove Way; minus the lies, of course. That’s how it’s done.

  • Mark D: “The American Conservative Union (the gold-standard for wingnut ratings) gave him a lifetime 82.3 rating… way higher than Stevens of Alaska.”

    Not surprising; Stevens is pro-choice on abortion. Not to mention pro-big government, as long as Alaska gets mo’ money. Almost makes Stevens the anti-McCain.

  • Actually I’d say the best bet is not to affiliate them with the wingnuts, which may or may not help or hurt.

    Affiliate him with Bush.

    It needs to be pointed out, repeatedly, he’ll be like Bush Term 3. McCain needs to be linked to Bush repeatedly. This way, you not only get the Wingnut War, but honestly show how he’s not a change from Bush.

  • Not surprising; Stevens is pro-choice on abortion. Not to mention pro-big government, as long as Alaska gets mo’ money. Almost makes Stevens the anti-McCain.

    But yet when I was talking with my co-workers, they brought up both Bond and Stevens as examples of true conservatives. LOL!

    These people demand fealty above all else, yet can’t even decide on what litmus test a candidate must pass before being deemed worthy of support.

    They really are a strange bunch of folks …

  • Yes, billboard across the country: McCain=Bush in large font over the photo of the two of them hugging. Even for those too busy to follow politics in depth, that should get the message across.

  • WOW — amen to Doctor Biobrain on all his reasoned posts here.

    As far as post # 27 …”Progressive Democrats DO ponder these strategies”

    You’re not a Progressive Democrat, but a left wing-nut, just like a right wing-nut is not a Conservative Republican.

    Your attitude reflects being a spoiler (High probability of being a past Nader voter). As explained by more intelligent contributors here… It is time to think about the future of the country by voting for the Democratic Candidate, regardless of who it ends up being, because it will be best for EVERYBODY living in America, including you.

    If you think it is more important to vote your conscience, and thereby risking having another Republican appoint future members to the Supreme Court, then I say, you probably don’t have a conscience. Not to mention that when a Democratic president appoints cronies to his/her cabinet, they will at least be intelligent/capable/professional candidates.

    When it comes to the spelling challenged “independant Voter”…. Are you a recently registered Independent voter? Probably more an ashamed former Republican voter, hence your willingness to vote for the “maverick’ McCain.

    • Comments are closed.