What if -- special presidential version

Posted at 3:33 PM on July 16, 2007 by Bob Collins (9 Comments)

Charlie Cook of the Cook Report said in the New York Times last week of John McCain's campaign:

“It’s effectively over,” said Charlie Cook, the editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter. “The physicians have left the hospital room and it’s the executors of the estate that are taking over.”

The media's portrayal of this, of course, is a campaign in decline. A frontrunner -- sort of -- who fell from grace.

But what if he never was? What if the only reason he seemed like a viable candidate is because he became the favorite Republican of John Stewart of the Daily Show, would appear on any Sunday morning network news talk show for the asking? What if he seemed like a bigger deal in Minnesota because our guy was clearly vying to be his running mate?

What if the story here isn't the failure of John McCain to sustain a candidacy, but the inability of political experts to adequately assess a candidate's electability?

Comments (9)

Bob,
I think that you bring up some interesting points. I think that after the 2000 campaign, it was reasonable to assume that McCain was the front-runner for the 2008 nomination. Cheney was pretty clearly not ever going to run, so there wasn't a VP in the way. Here was a well-known senator who was known as a "maverick," a veteran and a POW, well-liked by both independents and moderate democrats, and on top of all that, willing to talk to anyone at any time about anything (as you pointed out).
All of that makes a recipe for a legit front-runner. The problem is that there was a failure of many people, especially the media types, to actually look at John McCain circa 2006 and notice that there had been a lot of changes since John McCain circa 2000 both in his beliefs/statements and in his base of support.

Posted by MR | July 16, 2007 4:15 PM

This sentence jumped out at me:

"What if he seemed like a bigger deal in Minnesota because our guy was clearly vying to be his running mate?"

Governor Pawlenty repeatedly said he would serve a full second term.

Posted by Michael B. Brodkorb | July 16, 2007 6:13 PM

This sentence jumped out at me:

"What if he seemed like a bigger deal in Minnesota because our guy was clearly vying to be his running mate?"

Governor Pawlenty repeatedly said he would serve a full second term. It seems like a stretch to say "our guy was clearly trying to be his running mate."

This is a quote from Pawlenty that appeared in a post from Tom Scheck:

"For the 900th time, I am not running for Vice President. I don't want to be Vice President and I'm focused on being governor of the state of Minnesota and have said I will fill out my term."

Seems clear to me.

Posted by Michael B. Brodkorb | July 16, 2007 6:18 PM

Yes, he did.

Posted by Bob Collins | July 16, 2007 8:49 PM

Pawlenty has not earned the benefit of the doubt on these denials. I think you may be on to something as far as questioning how shallow is conventional wisdom on matters political and how much herd mentality rules the day among the punditry. Did anyone see this coming eight to ten weeks ago? I don't think Pawlenty did! It's a good chuckle.

Jack Ray

Posted by Jack Ray | July 16, 2007 11:24 PM

What if you're all wrong and McCain comes back and wins this thing? After all, the election's still a LONG ways off.

Stranger things have happened. I think it's a little early to be writing McCain's political obituary - especially when the rest of the GOP field is pretty weak. Giuliani is out in front, but his personal life could really come back to haunt him. Romney is an empty suit - a completely blow-dried phony. Fred Thompson is no Ronald Reagan....and so on.

McCain might just win it by default. And let's face it, he's the only one in either party who is really willing to risk his political career in order to stick to his beliefs.

Everybody always complains about phony, finger-in-the-wind politicians who govern by polls, not conscience. Then someone like McCain comes along and acts on principle - and he's nearly crucified for it. Sure, you may not LIKE his principles, but you can't deny that he often ignores political considerations (often to his own detriment) in order to follow his conscience. In doing so, he's managed to piss off conservatives (like with the immigration bill) and liberals (like with his support of the war) in nearly equal measure, alienating nearly every major constituency. Shame shame, right?

For what, for sticking to his beliefs?
We're all hypocrites....we say we don't want a politician to govern by polls, but then we attack someone like McCain mercilessly for "not listening to the will of the people."

Which is it? Govern by polls or by conscience?

Posted by John | July 17, 2007 9:20 AM

Fine points, indeed.

What if we don't want what we say we want in a politician?

What if other politicians know that?

Posted by Bob Collns | July 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Bob wrote:
"What if we don't want what we say we want in a politician?

What if other politicians know that?"

Wow that really is the question. I think the answer is Yes to both.

Michael B. Brodkorb wrote:
"Governor Pawlenty repeatedly said he would serve a full second term."

Michael please we all know that situations change, I for one don't think the Governor should say things like "never".

What if VP Cheney dies in office and Pres Bush asked Governor Pawlenty to serve? A much different situation.

Posted by Brian Hanf | July 17, 2007 1:34 PM

"What if we don't want what we say we want in a politician?"

I think you just nailed it....we're all like the people who, when surveyed about dating, claim that personality ranks far higher than physical attraction on the "what I look for in a mate" scale.

Look around you and see how many incredibly attractive people are in relationships with unattractive people (who aren't stinking rich). Exactly....a big fat zero.

Maybe we'd be better off if we just admitted it - we want a politician who governs by his or her conscience, as long as his conscience tells him or her to do exactly what WE want him or her to do. Otherwise, to hell with governing by conscience.

Posted by John | July 17, 2007 2:45 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories