McCain's lost opportunity to shift the dying GOP

[MattusMaximus]

This is a very interesting analysis of how McCain lost an opportunity to take the reins of the GOP and move it in a different direction. As a result, after the election, I think we very well might see the implosion of the GOP (at least, in its current form)...

Crushed by the Elephant

In a season of ironies, the greatest of all might be that John McCain lacks the toughness to get elected president. During the summer, when he had his best chance, he wasn't tough enough to remake the Republican Party in his own image; instead, he surrendered to a cynical assortment of lobbyists and right-wingers who insisted on a strategic blunder that McCain would recognize from his reading of military history—fighting the last war. In 2004 President Bush won by rallying the base and destroying the Democrat as unpatriotic. They would try to do it again.

But the free-market party of Reagan is dead (thanks to the financial crisis) and the resentment party of Nixon (in the form of the ugly attacks unleashed by McCain and Sarah Palin) may find that its best days are behind it. Where is the party of McCain? The man who survived five and a half years as a Vietnam POW and a thousand political battles is being crushed by a dying elephant.

Sure, the market would likely be melting down McCain's campaign no matter what he did. But he'd have a better chance if he canned the character attacks on Barack Obama. Aside from being offensive and desperate, they don't work with undecided voters. And they're confusing to McCain's own stoked-up partisans, as he found in Minnesota last week, when he told a woman who said she was scared by Obama, because he was "Arab," that she was wrong and his opponent was actually a "decent family man." McCain's own crowd then booed him. ...

After the election, I think we're going to see a real fight for the heart of the GOP. The big-business establishment Republicans are going to have it off with the socially conservative religious-right wingnuts, and the moderates are probably going to batten down the hatches and try to ride it out. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

[BenBurch]

I fully expect a schism (at least) of the GOP and perhaps a new party forming out of its ashes. I would LIKE to see the Libertarians become what they should have become in the 70s as I respect their principles.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Perhaps the Reform Party will make a comeback? I kind of liked them back in the 90s.

 

[BenBurch]

Perhaps the Reform Party will make a comeback? I kind of liked them back in the 90s.

Also a good idea. But I think that the GOP is going to take a real trouncing, though that will not be complete for two years due to the overlap of Senatorial terms.

 

[Tricky]

The Republican party is not dying. It is changing. It has done so before and will again. It may even change back to more of what it was like before so much of it was taken over by the religious crazies. It's almost worth praying for.

 

[trvlr2]

Aw, c'mon, Tricky. Almost worth praying for?

Since prayer helps nothing, are you trying to say that we won't miss the repubs when they're gone?
Or, that they are worse(if possible) than nothing?
But then you say they're not dying?
Reborn? Haven't we had enough of that?
Idle minds wanna know.

 

[corplinx]

Good riddance. The 94 GOP was the only political movement I ever gave money to. Remember the Contract with America? It was a secular reformist movement.

The democrat solutions for all of our problems right now is more government intrusion and regulation. The same things that are exacerbating our problems. Crop subsidies, stifling energy development, etc. If it weren't for crop subsidies and energy prices, we wouldn't have had as much defaulting on loans to begin with.

I think the GOP has let de-regulation become a bad word. I think they should throw off the religious loonies and run on populist reform and de-regulation like they did in 94. They should pin the blame for the economy on years of government intrusion and over-regulation. They should stop running away from Goldwater and look in the camera and tell it like it is.

If John McCain had stood up in that town hall after Obama blamed de-regulation for the economic crisis and said the following, he would have won the debate.
"My friends. I am a de-regulator. De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis. Do you know what regulation does? Regulation is when you have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas because your government interferes with those markets. That one would have you believe the solution to that is to regulate the milkman or the oil company. My friends, we can't regulate our way out of over-regulation problems. Isn't it disturbing that people want to use this crisis to give the government more power over you? They would have you believe that this crisis is the fault of you being allowed to choose your own bank. That's not change, that's big brother."

As long as they run from de-regulation, they let the democrats further succeed in making the word toxic. Turn the issue on its head. Explain to people how big government is breaking their backs. Tell them you can't be for the middle class if you make milk so expensive that working families can't afford it. Relate how big government is impacting them.

The problem is, congressional candidates are going to ride Obama's coattails into office and give Reid/Pelosi the power to send anything through Obama's rubber stamp. Even if McCain loses, he can use the power of the press coverage he is getting to stem the flow of votes towards democrat congressional and senatorial candidates. He needs to at least prevent the democrats from riding the lie of de-regulation into a filibuster-proof legislative situation.

Obama is a nice fellow and I am sure wouldn't be a bad president. However, if America descends into one-party rule as a result of the propaganda campaign, I just fear that Pelosi/Reid will try to tax and regulate us out of a bad economy. The frightening part being that we could come out of the downturn naturally and be stuck with all sorts of silly new laws and regulations.

Nobody gives a crap about taxes or tax cuts. At this point joe voter thinks the candidates are blowing smoke about taxes anyway. Stop talking tax cuts and talk about 3-4 dollar gas. Talk about 3-4 dollar milk.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Good riddance. The 94 GOP was the only political movement I ever gave money to. Remember the Contract with America? It was a secular reformist movement.

The democrat solutions for all of our problems right now is more government intrusion and regulation. The same things that are exacerbating our problems. Crop subsidies, stifling energy development, etc. If it weren't for crop subsidies and energy prices, we wouldn't have had as much defaulting on loans to begin with.

I think the GOP has let de-regulation become a bad word. I think they should throw off the religious loonies and run on populist reform and de-regulation like they did in 94. They should pin the blame for the economy on years of government intrusion and over-regulation. They should stop running away from Goldwater and look in the camera and tell it like it is.

If John McCain had stood up in that town hall after Obama blamed de-regulation for the economic crisis and said the following, he would have won the debate.
"My friends. I am a de-regulator. De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis. Do you know what regulation does? Regulation is when you have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas because your government interferes with those markets. That one would have you believe the solution to that is to regulate the milkman or the oil company. My friends, we can't regulate our way out of over-regulation problems. Isn't it disturbing that people want to use this crisis to give the government more power over you? They would have you believe that this crisis is the fault of you being allowed to choose your own bank. That's not change, that's big brother."

As long as they run from de-regulation, they let the democrats further succeed in making the word toxic. Turn the issue on its head. Explain to people how big government is breaking their backs. Tell them you can't be for the middle class if you make milk so expensive that working families can't afford it. Relate how big government is impacting them.

The problem is, congressional candidates are going to ride Obama's coattails into office and give Reid/Pelosi the power to send anything through Obama's rubber stamp. Even if McCain loses, he can use the power of the press coverage he is getting to stem the flow of votes towards democrat congressional and senatorial candidates. He needs to at least prevent the democrats from riding the lie of de-regulation into a filibuster-proof legislative situation.

Obama is a nice fellow and I am sure wouldn't be a bad president. However, if America descends into one-party rule as a result of the propaganda campaign, I just fear that Pelosi/Reid will try to tax and regulate us out of a bad economy. The frightening part being that we could come out of the downturn naturally and be stuck with all sorts of silly new laws and regulations.

Nobody gives a crap about taxes or tax cuts. At this point joe voter thinks the candidates are blowing smoke about taxes anyway. Stop talking tax cuts and talk about 3-4 dollar gas. Talk about 3-4 dollar milk.

Great post corp, I fully agree; even hit the authentic "my friends" nail.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Good riddance. The 94 GOP was the only political movement I ever gave money to. Remember the Contract with America? It was a secular reformist movement.

The democrat solutions for all of our problems right now is more government intrusion and regulation. The same things that are exacerbating our problems. Crop subsidies, stifling energy development, etc. If it weren't for crop subsidies and energy prices, we wouldn't have had as much defaulting on loans to begin with.

I think the GOP has let de-regulation become a bad word. I think they should throw off the religious loonies and run on populist reform and de-regulation like they did in 94. They should pin the blame for the economy on years of government intrusion and over-regulation. They should stop running away from Goldwater and look in the camera and tell it like it is.

If John McCain had stood up in that town hall after Obama blamed de-regulation for the economic crisis and said the following, he would have won the debate.
"My friends. I am a de-regulator. De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis. Do you know what regulation does? Regulation is when you have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas because your government interferes with those markets. That one would have you believe the solution to that is to regulate the milkman or the oil company. My friends, we can't regulate our way out of over-regulation problems. Isn't it disturbing that people want to use this crisis to give the government more power over you? They would have you believe that this crisis is the fault of you being allowed to choose your own bank. That's not change, that's big brother."

As long as they run from de-regulation, they let the democrats further succeed in making the word toxic. Turn the issue on its head. Explain to people how big government is breaking their backs. Tell them you can't be for the middle class if you make milk so expensive that working families can't afford it. Relate how big government is impacting them.

The problem is, congressional candidates are going to ride Obama's coattails into office and give Reid/Pelosi the power to send anything through Obama's rubber stamp. Even if McCain loses, he can use the power of the press coverage he is getting to stem the flow of votes towards democrat congressional and senatorial candidates. He needs to at least prevent the democrats from riding the lie of de-regulation into a filibuster-proof legislative situation.

Obama is a nice fellow and I am sure wouldn't be a bad president. However, if America descends into one-party rule as a result of the propaganda campaign, I just fear that Pelosi/Reid will try to tax and regulate us out of a bad economy. The frightening part being that we could come out of the downturn naturally and be stuck with all sorts of silly new laws and regulations.

Nobody gives a crap about taxes or tax cuts. At this point joe voter thinks the candidates are blowing smoke about taxes anyway. Stop talking tax cuts and talk about 3-4 dollar gas. Talk about 3-4 dollar milk.

I'm impressed with your command of the language. That was an excellently written post. Having said that, there really wasn't much meat in it, just railing against a evil word. If McCain was pushing for more de-regulation, as he has in the past (this should ease your worries about your guy, corp), one could switch out your evil word for the other word and the meaning would stay basically the same, with only minor editing needed.

Then again, what kind of unimaginative asshat with too much time on his hands would even try such a thing...















"My friends. I am a regulator. Regulation had nothing to do with this crisis. Do you know what de-regulation does? De-regulation is when you have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas because those markets have failed. That one would have you believe the solution to that is to de-regulate the agriculture or oil industry. My friends, we can't de-regulate our way out of de-regulation problems. Isn't it disturbing that people want to use this crisis to strip more protections out from under you? They would have you believe that this crisis is the fault of banks not being allowed to fleece America with no oversight! That's not change, that's Mr. Burns."

As long as they run from regulation, they let the republicans further succeed in making the word toxic. Turn the issue on its head. Explain to people how big business is breaking their backs. Tell them you can't be for the middle class if you let milk become so expensive that working families can't afford it. Relate how big business is impacting them.

...

McCain is a nice fellow and I am sure wouldn't be a bad president. However, if America descends into one-party rule as a result of the propaganda campaign, I just fear that Pressler/Paulson will try to de-regulate and no-oversight us out of a bad economy. The frightening part being that we could come out of the downturn and be stuck with all sorts of critical laws gutted and crucial regulations burned.

Nobody gives a crap about taxes or tax cuts. At this point joe voter thinks the candidates are blowing smoke about taxes anyway. Stop talking tax cuts and talk about 3-4 dollar gas. Talk about 3-4 dollar milk.

 

[leftysergeant]

If John McCain had stood up in that town hall after Obama blamed de-regulation for the economic crisis and said the following, he would have won the debate.
"My friends. I am a de-regulator. De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis. Do you know what regulation does? Regulation is when you have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas because your government interferes with those markets.

Uh...no. He would be clearly full of well-rotted compost if he said that. No controls on the commodities market is what made gasoline so expensive. No curbs on hoarding it to raise the prices, so that speculators could just buy it up and stash it and make you think it was running out.

(Psst! One word counter arguement to all the right-wing woo about deregulation being good for the ecconomy.ENRON.)

 

[corplinx]

(Psst! One word counter arguement to all the right-wing woo about deregulation being good for the ecconomy.ENRON.)

Enron committed fraudulent acts which were against government laws, rules, and regulations. Much of the regulation added after Enron was to make it harder for a company to commit fraud or more of a crime to commit the fraud. The old "we'll make it a crime to commit a crime".

Not surprisingly, mark-to-market changes from the Enron era that were supposed to make it harder for companies to commit fraud exacerbated the current crisis.

You can still commit fraud, you just have can't use fair value accounting to do it or you commit another crime as well.

 

[Dragoonster]

I fully expect a schism (at least) of the GOP and perhaps a new party forming out of its ashes. I would LIKE to see the Libertarians become what they should have become in the 70s as I respect their principles.

That seems optimistic. Considering the leftovers of the Iraq War, deficit/debt, and of course the recession or depression, and possible terrorist attack still, I kind of doubt Obama or McCain will last two terms. Pretty unfortunate; but the GOP simply has to weather that storm, put up a credible candidate in '12 and go back to its old hypocritical ways.

I'd love for an internal revolution returning the GOP to true fiscal conservatism and level-headed foreign policy, but I don't see any massive shift happening. It's quite possible they put either Palin or Jeb up in four years, and if the economy does turn to absolute crap Obama could easily lose to either of them.

Also in four years a LOT of people might forget exactly when the markets started to crash, or why. They'll tie it completely to Obama. It's been unsettling how in '04 Bush supporters practiced revisionism of the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the media went along without challenging. Hope I'm 100% wrong on all of this.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I agree that the hopes for a schism or a viable third party are a bit too optimistic. The fiscal conservatives in the GOP are not about to weaken any and all chances they would for influence in the government by breaking away, nor do the theocratic have anything to gain by alienating the business community. Right now, they're tied to the hip.

This would be a much different system if we had a parliamentary system rather than winner-take-all democracy. Whether it would be better, I don't know, but it would certainly be different.

 

[leftysergeant]

Enron committed fraudulent acts which were against government laws, rules, and regulations. Much of the regulation added after Enron was to make it harder for a company to commit fraud or more of a crime to commit the fraud. The old "we'll make it a crime to commit a crime".

Enron would not have existed but for the fact that thousands of shreiking Republicans insisted that private industry could better regulate the power grid than could PUDs.

I would like to see all power companies that started as PUDs returned to that status. There is no reason for electricity generated from common resources to be traded as a privately-produced commodity when the power distributers can legally demand rights-of-way and operate as a monopoly.

 

[SezMe]

To be honest, I don't know if there is too much business regulation or not. In fact, arguing that question is probably meaningless because there may well be under-regulation in some markets and not enough in another. To paraphrase Obama talking about another topic, this discussion is a place to use a scalpel, not an axe.

One reason it is so hard to evaluate the appropriateness of current regulations is that Bush has so gutted the regulatory agencies with incompetents and with cronies that it is impossible to tell if the current regulatory regime would work if done right.

A good example relative to the current financial mess is the fact that rules against monpolies have been ignored. Companies that are too big to fail should not have been allowed to so dominate their market.

So are business regulations adequate? Who knows. I'm prepared to entertain corp's point of view but I first like some good evidence that fewer regulations would be better. If so, I would like such an approach to include better applications of what regulatory powers are left.

Conversely, I'd like to not add any more regulations until the current regulatory environment is vigorously applied. This would necessitate that regulatory agencies not be staffed at the political level by representatives of the industry the agency is charged to oversee. In addition, it would require adequate funding which ought to come from the industry being regulated.

If this is faulted as incrementalism, so be it. I don't think drastic moves in either direction are called for.

 

[Kopji]

If I as a taxpayer am going to eventually be held responsible I will vote for people who will insist the financial system be more regulated. If I am responsible for their mistakes it is not a free market anyway.

There is certainly enough blame to be passed around, but a basic problem seems to be that the appearance of prosperity is a useful political tool. (Lots of houses being built is a sign of prosperity that keeps people in power.)

The bigger question for me is about the abject failure of 30 years of ideology to deliver anything it has promised.

 

[leftysergeant]

Conversely, I'd like to not add any more regulations until the current regulatory environment is vigorously applied. This would necessitate that regulatory agencies not be staffed at the political level by representatives of the industry the agency is charged to oversee. In addition, it would require adequate funding which ought to come from the industry being regulated.

I would like to see any regulations that were repealed over the last 30 years be re-instated unless it can be proven that they hd doine harm before repeal.

I am all on board with running industry representatives out of regulatory agencies, starting with the boards regulating fisheries.

Representatives of the fishing industry were brought into positions of considerable power in regulating the industry on the assumption that, having an interest in the health of the fisheries, they would not fish them into extinction. Has this impacted me in any way?

Yes. I can no longer fish for any species of cod in Puget Sound because the stocks are collapsing due to over-fishing. Is this the fault of commercial or sports fishing? Figure it out yourself. What sports fisherman bottom-drags a spawning ground and tears out the kelp beds?

Then there is the fact that some dimbulb decided that food inspectors should not act in an adversarial manner toward the plants they inspected.

Tell the truth, now. Are you going to be more careful about sanitizing your equipment if the inspector is just going to look at it and say, "Come on, Joe, you can do better than that" and walk away, or if he says "Clean that up before another carcass moves from this plant," and then fines you about half your month's profits?

I don't recall so many cases of E-coli and Listeria infections under the more adversarial relationship between regulators and food producers going back decades. Since Reagan started cutting back, it seems to have gotten worse. And how many major outbreaks have we had of food-transmitted illness, a lot of them fatal, since Bush took office?

Maybe part of the cost of a food processing business license should be based on paying for three inspections, the one to open your doors, the one you fail, and the follow-up, with the cost of the failed and follow-up inspections carried from one term to the next, if you don't fail any.

It could save lives if screwing up can close a plant and cost big money.

 

[Upchurch]

...er, going back to the OP: If the GOP is changing I would rather it favor the big-business establishment types over the crispy-religious right types. That, at least, would represent a rational political stance that I could at least consider voting for depending on the topic. If it turns into more of that religious right baloney, it simply becomes a choice of rationality over irrationality and the religious right will lose my vote every time.

 

[not_so_new]

...er, going back to the OP: If the GOP is changing I would rather it favor the big-business establishment types over the crispy-religious right types. That, at least, would represent a rational political stance that I could at least consider voting for depending on the topic. If it turns into more of that religious right baloney, it simply becomes a choice of rationality over irrationality and the religious right will lose my vote every time.

Same here.

That said. I think the talk of the GOP's demise is greatly exaggerated. I remember the same things being said about the Democrats after Kerry lost.

I would like for nothing else than to see the GOP rid it's self of the wing nut religious right but I don't see it happening. They are good at organizing, good at rallying around their cause and are fervent believers that their side is the ONLY side. They need a place to land and the GOP is as good as it gets for them.

I remember a year or so ago how the religious right was talking about how they would never vote for McCain and here they are defending him tooth and nail. Just the the GOP is not their ideal party, McCain is not their ideal candidate but he is all they have.

I would not count any chickens here. Bush, Iraq, Katrina, a very good Democratic candidate and most importantly the economy have created a perfect storm against the GOP, that does not mean they will not come back with a vengeance in the not too distant future.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The Republican party is not dying. It is changing. It has done so before and will again. It may even change back to more of what it was like before so much of it was taken over by the religious crazies. It's almost worth praying for.

Good point. I should have used more specific wording in the OP. I think it is reasonable to conclude, however, that that GOP - in its current form - is dying. It'll be interesting to see how things change.