Why did Bush beat McCain?

[clk]

I've been meaning to start this thread for a while, but never got around to it. Anyways...
Bush's nomination in 2000 disturbed me greatly, because the Republicans chose him over John McCain. I mean, McCain was a well respected, intelligent, honorable, experienced, competent, qualified, and courageous candidate. Bush lacked all of those qualities. McCain fought against pork barrel politics and fought to change the campaign finance system while he was a senator for 15 years. Why did the Republicans nominate someone who was unqualified? Bush did not even hold a considerable seat of power...he was governor of Texas. I'm sure most people would say, "oh, wow, that's a pretty powerful position", but they probably don't understand the Texas government structure. The Governor is only the 3rd most powerful person in Texas, behind the Speaker of the House and Lieutenant Governor. Nominating the Texas governor to run for president is like nominating the Secretary of State from, say, Illinois. I don't mean to say that people in those positions don't have alot of power. All I'm saying is that the presidential candidates should have held a considerable seat of power.

Another thing I don't understand: even if you didn't agree with 100% of McCain's policies, why wouldn't you vote for him because he is a well respected, intelligent, honorable, experienced, competent, qualified, and courageous candidate? I'm sure there are people who disagree with me with regards to the previous statement. But I mean, come on, is there any doubt that McCain had excellent qualities and experience compared to Bush? And that he deserved to be President more than Bush? I was also disturbed when Arnold was elected as Governor of California. Why do the Republicans insist on nominating unqualified candidates for high seats of power? It doesn't seem patriotic to me.

 

[corplinx]

Well, the first thing I assume is it was because he was Bush Jr. However, the party wasn't exactly Bush Sr's to give away.

The difficult answer is that his people busted their humps to get primary votes.

I think the last thing most republicans wanted was a second milquetoast president like Bush I. I am not sure how they could ever look beyond to vote for Bush II. Really, his nomination still baffles me (mind you, i was pretty politically apathetic at the time and didnt read the news daily back then).

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Why did Bush beat McCain?

Well, the first thing I assume is it was because he was Bush Jr.

I agree. I doubt he would have even been elected Governor if his name weren't George Bush.

The difficult answer is that his people busted their humps to get primary votes.

That's true, and it is partly the fault of the voters for voting for Bush in the primaries. Why vote for him over McCain? What were they thinking?

I think the last thing most republicans wanted was a second milquetoast president like Bush I. I am not sure how they could ever look beyond to vote for Bush II.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that issue. I think the Republicans wanted Bush over McCain. If they really wanted McCain to win, then it would have happened. Bush got alot of support from Republican politicians, and that also contributed to him winning the nomination.

Another thing that I've been thinking....McCain lobbied to change the campaign finance system. Could this have hurt him? Maybe the corporations were unwilling to contribute to his campaign because they knew he would not be their lap dog?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I was living out of the country at the time, but I would have to think that at least part of the issue was name recognition.

 

[shuize]

Bush was more conservative than McCain. This was apparently important to those more likely to participate in the primary process (and what I thought might happen in reverse on the left with Howard Dean).

But don't look at me, I supported McCain. I thought he would have crushed Gore in the general election and was mildly surprised to see Bush win in 2000.

 

[Crossbow]

The best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush is having the former President Bush for a father.

George W. was able to take advantage of the fund raising network that was setup for his father. McCain never had that kind of leverage.

Also, McCain is dynamic and colorful (kind of like Clinton), whereas George W. is plain and inarticulate (quite unlike Clinton), and I think that most Republicans were wanting someone as far removed from Clinton as they could get (especially after what happened with the impeachment).

 

[Tricky]

Bush was more conservative than McCain. This was apparently important to those more likely to participate in the primary processelection and was mildly surprised to see Bush win in 2000.

True. But what he was most conservative in was maintaining the status quo, vis a vis campaign financing. Politicians in general (and Republicans moreso) rely on getting lots of bucks from corporations and wealthy "patriots". Bush had the biggest war chest anyone had ever seen. And by golly he delivered for his friends. McCain was the proverbial "loose cannon" what with his insane ranting about campaign finance laws. He had to be stopped before the general election, which he would have won much more convincingly than Bush.

As the Repubs found out with Clinton, it is better to have a president who supports many of you policies, but whom you can trash unmercifully, than to have one of your own party who doesn't support all of your policies that you have to defend.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Bush sabotaged the primaries. Look at south Carolina where voters recieved "push polling" calls asking what they thought of Mcain's interracial baby. Which of course he didn't have. I also think special interest groups and lobbyists wanted a president that they could count on to deliver for them. McCain is obviously his own man and an independant thinker. I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat although my political beliefs tend to lean democrat. McCain would have handled the aftermath of 9-11 MUCH better than Bush has.

 

[subgenius]

The best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush is having the former President Bush for a father.

George W. was able to take advantage of the fund raising network that was setup for his father. McCain never had that kind of leverage.

"There's no need to be evasive
Money talks and its persuasive."
--Elvis Costello

And there's no bigger money than Big Oil.
McCain got screwed.

 

[hgc]

McCain would be comfortable in the Democratic party (not that he'd ever switch). For instance, when asked what he'd do if his daughter was pregnant and wanted an abortion, he replied that it was a decision to be that would be made within their family. That's not the kind of abortion=murder position that's official Republican policy. It sounds precisely pro-choice. Then of course there's campaign finance reform -- much mentioned already in this thread. I think die-hard Republicans knew that he wasn't their kind of guy, at least not to be President.

 

[Snide]

I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat although my political beliefs tend to lean democrat.

Ditto.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Ditto.

What's sad is that is the only time I would have been voting for the man himself instead of voting against the other guy and I was denied it. As it was, I voted against Bush instead of voting for Gore.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

McCain would be comfortable in the Democratic party (not that he'd ever switch).

Any other questions why the Republicans didn't carry him on their shoulders to a sweeping victory?

By the way, I am a small bit surprised at the universal love for the campaign finance reform measures pushed by McCain and the automatic assumption that those who oppose(d) it simply had to stop this wild-eyed reformer, etc.

The campaign finance reform, as written, was bad law. It -is- bad law, especially restrictions on core, political speech within 30 days of the election. I cannot believe that the provision passed through the Supreme Court, or that civil libertarians have apparently let that issue slide without a peep.

This is core political speech -- the right of people to get a politcal message out. The bill favors incumbents and harms challengers who are running against them, both in terms of money and the limits on ads themselves. The answer to the corruption so widely talked about, though no one would name the culpritsat the time, is not further regulation of speech, but exposure. Monies given to and on behalf of candidates or parties are public -- give that information to the voters and let -them- decide whether that money bought anything.

N/A

 

[Crossbow]

Bush sabotaged the primaries. Look at south Carolina where voters recieved "push polling" calls asking what they thought of Mcain's interracial baby. Which of course he didn't have. I also think special interest groups and lobbyists wanted a president that they could count on to deliver for them. McCain is obviously his own man and an independant thinker. I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat although my political beliefs tend to lean democrat. McCain would have handled the aftermath of 9-11 MUCH better than Bush has.

True enough!

I would have been pleased if either Gore or Mcain would have become the president.

 

[corplinx]

The campaign finance reform, as written, was bad law. It -is- bad law, especially restrictions on core, political speech within 30 days of the election. I cannot believe that the provision passed through the Supreme Court, or that civil libertarians have apparently let that issue slide without a peep.

I think this and other McCain stances that seemed more politcally expedient than principled are what deterred primary voters. McCain started getting that "media whore" vibe and his detractors like Rush Limbaugh were happy to paint him as such. For some reason, I have a feeling that GOP primary voters put a lot of stock in Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Tricky]

Any other questions why the Republicans didn't carry him on their shoulders to a sweeping victory?

By the way, I am a small bit surprised at the universal love for the campaign finance reform measures pushed by McCain and the automatic assumption that those who oppose(d) it simply had to stop this wild-eyed reformer, etc.

The campaign finance reform, as written, was bad law. It -is- bad law, especially restrictions on core, political speech within 30 days of the election. I cannot believe that the provision passed through the Supreme Court, or that civil libertarians have apparently let that issue slide without a peep.

This is core political speech -- the right of people to get a politcal message out. The bill favors incumbents and harms challengers who are running against them, both in terms of money and the limits on ads themselves. The answer to the corruption so widely talked about, though no one would name the culpritsat the time, is not further regulation of speech, but exposure. Monies given to and on behalf of candidates or parties are public -- give that information to the voters and let -them- decide whether that money bought anything.

You are right about this Nosed one. The Campaign Finance Reform that McCain proposed would have been ineffective at best. It would have been evaded almost as quickly as it was passed. But the Repubs could not tolerate one of their own even talking about campaign finance reform. Additionally, they are terrified that McCain appeals to so many Democrats, or more correctly, that he might actually support Democratic positions. Republicans don't actually care for moderates. They like to give them lip service (I'm a compassionate conservative *wink wink*) but they don't want them to truly do anything moderate. Of course, all of this is IMHO.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I think it was partly due to McCain's stance on the abortion issue. Bush also got out early in the primaries and did some bible thumping which plays well in the early primaries like Iowa.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

As I stated in another thread:

Mr. Bush was essentially selected by the party and promoted for the top position for a number of reasons, all of them cultivated to ensure his election. Among these, his supposed strength in the traditionally Democratic Hispanic community (due to his governing a border state), his proclaimed religious piety, and his name recognition (along with the idea that electing him would be poetic justice for the defeat of his father at the hands of the Dread Pirate Clinton).

The Republican party had a fine, capable, qualified candidate in Sen. John McCain. The problem with him is that he wasn't "theirs," in every meaning of that word.

The country was robbed of a President McCain by selfish, anti-American interests. Were it to have happened, who knows how things might've gone. But I, for one, would've liked the chance to find out.

One thing for sure, we wouldn't today be talking about his going AWOL.

 

[Agammamon]

I thought your question had the answer in it. McCain is against pork. Too many powerful constituencies in this country are dependent on it.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You are right about this Nosed one. The Campaign Finance Reform that McCain proposed would have been ineffective at best. It would have been evaded almost as quickly as it was passed. But the Repubs could not tolerate one of their own even talking about campaign finance reform. Additionally, they are terrified that McCain appeals to so many Democrats, or more correctly, that he might actually support Democratic positions. Republicans don't actually care for moderates. They like to give them lip service (I'm a compassionate conservative *wink wink*) but they don't want them to truly do anything moderate. Of course, all of this is IMHO.

Well, I resent this.

I don't even give moderates lip service.



N/A