Mark McKinnon Dissents a Bit, But Also Defends Steve Schmidt

michael - You need to correct your header - just a little grammar typo.

This is not a bad argument. It's worth noting, though, that McKinnon treated this campaign the way a cat treats a puddle of perfume.

Republicans can do no wrong? Ok. Thanks for posting MS

Considering McKinnon left the campaign because he didn't want to be involved in disqualifying Obama, how can he say Schmidt's run a "very good campaign," and that he wouldn't have done anything of "significant difference?" It seems to me they've run exactly the kind of campaign McKinnon didn't want to be associated with.

Okay, let's see if I can figure out how to unmoderate this comment: Considering he left the campaign because he didn't want to be involved in disqualifying Obama, how can McKinnon say Schmidt's run a very good campaign, and that he wouldn't have done anything of significant difference? It seems to me they've run exactly the kind of campaign McKinnon didn't want to be associated with. -Have removed quote marks-

Unfortunately I cant cuss at Mike Scherer anymore because of this new set up. But I will take issue with the dumb guy that you posted. First of all if he was a part of McCain's campaign wouldnt he know that McCain was a bomber pilot and not a fighter pilot? Secondly is he really going to try to over look the Palin pick as a key to McCain being down in the polls. Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt picked that airhead and they definitely should be held accountable for that. That is just a guy who wants to bash someone but doesnt have the heart to so he ends up saying that defeat was inevitable but the race isnt over. Scherer you should REALLY insult him and for onc tell HIM to grow a pair!

Now i didnt even cuss and I am still stuck in moderation. I give up

thanks Michael - can you get comments out of oblivion too?

On the one hand, this was pretty tough. On the other hand, the opponent is an african-american man who many think is a secret muslim.

McCain should have done more to get the base fired up between March and September. He was diddering around during the Clinton/Obama fight and it cost him.

He should have thrown bombs then, got the base fired up. Then there would have been no need for a Palin to enthuse the base but frighten moderates. I have gone into base world tonight. They are taking Palin's side in the skirmishes between the two camps.

stuck in oblivion - will chat tomorrow. night all.

I wonder why this guy used the terms "discredit him" instead of the more appropriate "smear him".

It is worth noting that for a while now that the republican spin is "If it weren't for the economy"
and yet every indicator going into the election was that it would be a Democratic year.
As has been born out, so far, in races large and small across the country.
Add to that McCain's approval ratings after each debate. They dropped each time.
People, by which I mean those outside the media and Beltway, just do not like him.
Why that is so hard to accept for so many is up to them to explain. They cling to him the way they clung to George W Bush. The people lead.

Most of all, I know that Steve Schmidt and his colleagues have run a very good campaign and have taken McCain further than he had any reasonable right to, given the political climate.

This is, quite simply, nonsense. An unwittingly comical counterfactual. This is Bagdad Bobism. They have run a very bad campaign. Res ipsa loquitor and quod erat demonstrandum and radix malorum cupiditas est. The queen of hearts would only believe this before breakfast. Some popcultural reference is on the tip of my memory, but I can't quite reach it.
It's true that gap is as wide as it is because of the Crash, but Obama was leading in PA, CO and VA before that, and Palin was picked before things got really bad too. And there are lots of things that Obama could have used and hasn't, at least as much as he could have ("you wouldn't do it, my friends!" "I did everything I could to get President Bush elected! Twice!"). And McCain's foreign policy capacities are dangerously over-rated.

Also, he was a bomber pilot, not a fighter pilot. People really have to stop listening to Tom "Daddy Issues" Brokaw on McCain.

Jim, Foolish Literalist, un-nym'd

What McKinnon seems to (wantonly) overlook is the fact that Palin imploded and McBush exposed himself as more of the a**hole he really is about the same time that the economy nosedived. The economy simply provides a more convenient excuse that happens to be outside the control of the idiots in his campaign.

I don't pretend to know anything about running a political campaign, and even I recognize that the Three Stooges appear to have been reincarnated.

I, too, have to disagree with McKinnon.

Even without the economic crisis, McCain's pick of Palin - counseled by Schmidt - would have been enough to do him in. Check the weekly polling data - McCain was only up, briefly, just after his pick of Palin. After the nation got their first good look at her in the Gibson interview, the numbers started to fall. After the Couric interview, they fell more. After the VP debate, even more. She energized the base, but alienated everyone else. The base was the one group who had nowhere else to go...McCain needed them less than he needed the independents and centrists. I would guess that as much as a quarter of Obama's September fundraising haul can be attributed to Sarah Palin. Bad, bad choice.

Aside from Palin, Schmidt, as campaign manager, is the one who thought this campaign could be won without a coherent policy narrative. One can't blame Schmidt for thinking that, since he's from the Rove school of political character assassination. But you aren't going to win on those grounds with a candidate who's attached at the hip to the most unpopular president of the modern era.

Then there's the whole issue of Schmidt not being able to see beyond the 60s culture war tactics that have served Republicans so well for 40 years. Shouldn't he have been asking himself how those could succeed in a race against a post-Boomer candidate, with an electorate mostly now too young to remember the 60s?

Schmidt failed McCain in the same way Penn failed Hillary - by not realizing that the game had changed.

Jim they say you can get your old sn back if you go to your profile on wordpress. Jayackroyd seems to be the authority on it though so if you see him on a thread you might want to ask him about it. That is assuming you don't want that long string of letters and numbers as your sn of course.

It's not the economy stupid...it's McCain. The person who should be thrown under the bus (if the GOP loses) isn't the chief strategist or the campaign manager, but the person at the top of the ticket. The campaign has been so reflective of McCain's own flaws as a candidate and leader (gadfly, temper, inability to stick to a coherent message even when guided to do so) that we will consider ourselves lucky if he is not the next President. Deciding to disqualify Obama (which continues on TV and the stump to this day) means failing to qualify oneself, which McCain has failed to do. There is still little positive articulation of why people would want to vote for him.

Well, let's try this again:
I, too, have to disagree with McKinnon.

Even without the economic crisis, McCain's pick of Palin - counseled by Schmidt - would have been enough to do him in. Check the weekly polling data - McCain was only up, briefly, just after his pick of Palin. After the nation got their first good look at her in the Gibson interview, the numbers started to fall. After the Couric interview, they fell more. After the VP debate, even more. She energized the base, but alienated everyone else. The base was the one group who had nowhere else to go...McCain needed them less than he needed the independents and centrists. I would guess that as much as a quarter of Obama's September fundraising haul can be attributed to Sarah Palin. Bad, bad choice.

Aside from Palin, Schmidt, as campaign manager, is the one who thought this campaign could be won without a coherent policy narrative. One can't blame Schmidt for thinking that, since he's from the Rove school of political character assassination. But you aren't going to win on those grounds with a candidate who's attached at the hip to the most unpopular president of the modern era.

Then there's the whole issue of Schmidt not being able to see beyond the 60s culture war tactics that have served Republicans so well for 40 years. Shouldn't he have been asking himself how those could succeed in a race against a post-Boomer candidate, with an electorate mostly now too young to remember the 60s?

Schmidt failed McCain in the same way Penn failed Hillary - by not realizing that the game had changed.

It's all over except for the voting and Michael is still fluffing. The economy tanked the same week Palin had her week long train wreck on CBS news. One word for this campaign - FAIL. One reason - Palin.

Ok, I give up. Maybe someday I'll come back when you've fixed this mess.

I wonder if the press covering for McCain's temperment ended up hurting him. AMC wrote about how McCain is like a cranky uncle with too much coffee. But the press (the base) ignored it in their reporting. When McCain was his cranky self during the debates, it came unexpected to people who aren't political junkies.

I thought McKinnon was out of the McCain campaign. Is he back? I guess he dosn't know what he wants to do.

I don't think that McKinnon is really defending Schmidt. As a matter of fact, his attitude seems to be more that of a "good soldier" a la Colin Powell than anything else.
.
Let me elaborate a bit:
He is basically saying that Schmidt is doing what he had to do and made the most of McCain's chances. That isn't a defense, that is a professional evaluation.
.
On the other hand, McKinnon states that he didn't want to be a part of what would be the only strategy that was likely to work: to "disqualify" Obama.
.
If you think about what he didn't say, which are the specifics behind his decision to not participate, it is there that you will find the meat of the message.

Jennofark, Don't go!
Compare and contrast:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/25/new_rnc_ad_aims_to_stir_doubts.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/25/obama_asks_will_the_country_be.html