Joseph C. Ben-Ami

Reflections of unrepentant conservative

If I were running the show, I’d fire the lot
Tuesday, 11 November 2008

Want to know why John McCain lost the presidential race to Barak Obama? It’s no secret really – all one has to do is listen to the criticism now being directed against Senator McCain’s running-mate, Sarah Palin. Every story leaked to the press, every attack leveled against the Alaska Governor, demonstrates with awful clarity just how unsuited members the McCain team were to be running a presidential campaign in the first place, and how inept they probably would have been running the White House if their candidate had won.

Over the years, I have organized or managed many political campaigns, local and national. Each of these has been unique in its own way, with its own issues, its own dynamics, and its own surprises both pleasant and unpleasant. One thing that never changes is that the candidate is always a human being, with unique strengths and weaknesses, who has good days and bad days, who says smart things and not so smart things, and who is kind and patient most of the time, but irritable and impatient some of the time, especially in the pressure cooker that is the modern campaign for public office.

It’s the job of campaign staff to work together to manage all this, with emphasis on the word “manage”, a responsibility that it seems those hired to work with Governor Palin were – if their version of events is to be believed – singularly unable to perform. Admittedly this is sometimes the fault of the candidate themselves, but only rarely so. In any event, only rank amateurs would expose their own candidate’s flaws even after the voting was complete, let alone blame those flaws for the failure of the campaign.

It was this lack of basic political sense combined with an astonishing lack of professionalism that did the McCain campaign in, not Governor Palin’s shortcomings, real, imagined, or simply invented.

Consider the extraordinary length of time it took for the McCain team to transform itself from a primary campaign to a presidential campaign. It was as if nobody had considered the possibility that the Senator from Arizona might win the GOP nomination. Was this the fault of Governor Palin?

How about the inconsistent, and at times, incoherent messaging of the McCain team throughout the campaign? Did it really take Joe the Plummer to point out that that the Obama tax plan was blatantly redistributionist? And when that issue was working to Senator McCain’s advantage, why did the campaign release new ads in the final week on – wait for it – the environment? Did McCain strategists really believe that winning over Sierra Club or Greenpeace members at the last minute would put them over the top?

What about Senator McCain’s participation in the deliberations over how best to respond to the credit crisis? Presumably his decision to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to take part in the negotiations over the so-called bail out package was meant to demonstrate his commitment to “country first”. Certainly it was a practical application of the principle. No discernable attempt was made to portray it as such though.

On the subject of the market meltdown, where were the ads laying out the Senator’s warnings regarding Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac well before the crisis hit? Surely I wasn’t the only one surprised never to see or hear “John McCain – right on the surge, right on the economy” or some such variation.

Is Governor Palin to blame?

The sad fact is that time after time, on issue after issue, the McCain team was out-classed and out-performed by a better organized, better disciplined, Obama campaign.

Even the post-election criticism of Sarah Palin illustrates the grade-school level of thinking that permeated the McCain campaign. If everything being said about the Alaska Governor is true – and I do not believe for an instant that it is – what does that say about judgment of John McCain who chose her to be his running-mate, or his advisors who one can reasonably assume played a role in the selection process?

It says a lot that those who think they are throwing mud at Governor Palin are blissfully unaware that it’s Senator McCain himself who is on the receiving end of their attacks.

It’s obvious that there are many things wrong with both the Republican Party and the Conservative movement in the United States that will need to be sorted out if the GOP is to return to power as the representative of common-sense conservative values in Washington. Sarah Palin is not one of those problems.

What’s needed now is a frank assessment of the competence and capabilities of key GOP operatives, and the cutting loose of all those who cannot make the grade. And the place to start is where the most damage is being done – the remnants of the 2008 McCain presidential campaign.

Frankly, if I were running the show, there are a few people who would never work for, or with, Republicans again.

Comments (7)add comment
Michelle: ...
Thanks so much for defending Governor Palin. It's nice to see that there are still real conservatives in Canada too!
1

November 11, 2008
Andrea Mrozek: ...
Good column, good points. I posted about it on my web site.
http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=2436
2

November 12, 2008
Jack: ...
Good insight into the ineffectiviness of the campaign. It's time the GOP realize that Sarah Palin actually carried McCain through the election, and it was the devastatingly weak-kneed campaing that buried McCain's chance to win.
3

November 12, 2008
Link Byfield: ...
Good column. I have similar concerns about those who handled the Conservative campaign here in Canada. They should not have disowned and disrespected the social conservatives in the run-up to the campaign by pre-empting Ken Epp's private member's bill, and then promising to suppress pro-life activity in the next Parliament. It was unnecessary, unwise and unjust.
4

November 12, 2008
nbt: ...
You're probably right Joseph. McCain should have had two waves of firings, not just one. Although, I'm sure the press would have portrayed the second as a signal that things weren't going as that well for the Arizona senator, even after his nomination victory (and they needed all the good press they could get).

To be honest, I think you can blame the lack of staff experience, Palin gaffes and mishaps on three things: 1.) McCain had trouble bringing on good help because many core Republicans didn't like the way he cozied up to the Dems post 2000 election. In other words, his lack of support on the right weakened his campaign and potential staff considerably, 2.) Judging from the Sarkozy "punked" telephone call from the two Quebecers, the campaign team was learning on the fly on how to handle certain situations, not to mention, follow the VP code (always differ to your superior). Obviously,in this case, they did neither, and 3.) I don't see McCain as an easy guy to work with. His maverick style, I'm sure, spilled over into the decision making where he probably overrided final campaign strategy. I think that showed when he appeared on Kady Couric with Palin so as to appear as "the handler", when in retrospect, he came across as incompetent.


5

November 12, 2008
Ed. Fredrickson: ...
..you reflected my(and many others), thoughts exactly in your column. Thanks.
6

November 12, 2008
Tom B.: ...
With a bit more time for perspective, I have to respectfully disagree with much of this column. 1. McCain-Palin did remarkably well, at 46% of the popular vote, carrying 22 states, etc. -- given the gross unpopularity of the incumbent, and the immense popular dissatisfaction with the Bush regime's approach to policy-making. I'll argue that McCain-Palin did better than any other candidates or team the Republicans had available. The Republicans would have gone down much further without them. 2. The real battle is NOT for the right-wing 20%, but for the middle 40%, the independent plurality. and, in that group, Palin's increasingly phony lowest-common-denominator appeal cost the Republicans a lot of votes that McCain's long quasi-independent record would have otherwise attracted. I can't begin to count the number of people who voted against this ticket because they were scared silly of her being a heart-beat away from the Presidency. While those same people may not have been thrilled by Biden, they were at least not afraid of him in the top job. In this respect, BTW, Cheney's Machiavellian record has convinced a lot of Americans they have to pay more attention to the VP, and they want someone who is both qualified (ruling out Palin), and respectful of American institutions (i.e., never another Cheney). The recent history of Veep's who have ascended, sooner or later, has made the #2 spot on the ticket an increasingly important choice. Personally, I thought Palin was a brilliant choice -- until we all found out more about her. 3) In addition to what Joe has pointed out about the management errors in the campaign, I'm really curious to know more about how well Palin was vetted before McCain announced her selection. With the benefit of hindsight, we have to wonder how some really obvious flaws were ignored. Who campaigned for her selection, and what were they using for intelligence? How did the campaign / party gatekeepers miss so much? 4) At some points of the campaign, she did a great job, especially given the jump in media attention and scale to which she was subjected after the nomination. And yet, at the end, it became clear she wasn't ready, that her candidacy for this level of office was badly flawed, and she did drag down the ticket, especially among the swing voters in the middle of the American electorate. 5) If we want to throw blame again, the real difference makers here seem to me to be W. and Cheney. There simply was no Republican slate that could overcome the handicaps this widely detested regime created. Kudos to McCain and Palin for making it as close as they did, and for holding the fort so well in a lost cause.
7

March 14, 2009

Write comment
Please note that you can no longer comment on this column after 30 days.

busy