US News
ANALYSIS: Republican nominee McCain could surprise in November
Mar 5, 2008, 4:46 GMT
Washington - It's official: John McCain is the Republican Party's presidential candidate after four more overwhelming victories Tuesday, and his chances of capturing the White House in November may well be better than people outside the United States think.
While the celebrity candidacies of Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have stolen the international spotlight, the Arizona senator has diligently plotted his rise to Republican standardbearer with his populist 'straight talk' style, relatively moderate views on domestic issues and hawkish foreign policy.
Those characteristics - girded by a maverick reputation within his own party - resonate well with centrist and independent voters, making McCain a formidable candidate in the November 4 general elections despite the deep unpopularity of Republican President George W Bush.
The 71-year-old McCain's success shows that Americans might not be as ready for change as they claim in opinion surveys, and he could dash hopes abroad that Bush's successor will be one of the more dazzling, left-leaning Democrats: Obama, who would be the first black president, or Clinton, who would be the first woman to get the job.
After a quarter-century in Congress, McCain will turn 72 in August and would be the oldest ever to begin a first term in the White House.
Yet, nationwide polls of potential general election match-ups in recent weeks have shown McCain trailing Obama, a 46-year-old senator from Illinois, by a surmountable 4.5 per cent and locked in a dead heat with Clinton, 60, a former first lady and senator from New York.
McCain won all four state contests on Tuesday, including Texas and Ohio, clinching the 1,191 delegates needed to capture the party's nomination.
McCain had become the presumptive nominee after Super Tuesday on February 5, when 21 states held Republican contests, allowing him to increasing refocus on uniting the fractured centre-right party and drawing the key contrasts with Democrats that he hopes will get him into the White House.
McCain has accused Democrats of plotting 'surrender' in Iraq by pulling out troops and sharpened his attacks to cast the centre-left party's frontrunner Obama as inexperienced.
McCain warned last month that the country could ill-afford 'confused leadership' and, without referring to Obama by name, McCain vowed 'to fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call.'
In a victory speech Tuesday night, McCain promised to focus on Iraq's future while defending the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
'Americans know that the next president doesn't get to remake that decision. We're in Iraq, and our most vital security interests are clearly involved there,' he said.
'The next president must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict ... and emboldening terrorists to attack us elsewhere with weapons we dare not allow them to possess.'
Only last summer, McCain's presidential run appeared doomed as he struggled to raise money and was forced to cut staff and shutter campaign offices.
He had called for a troop buildup long before Bush's own January 2007 'surge' order. That hardline stance on the war contributed to McCains early struggles, until the surge seemed to quell the violence in Iraq, reinvigorating both the US mission and McCain's own prospects.
One of McCain's toughest tasks will be energizing and uniting his own party ahead of November. Turnout in Democratic primaries has consistently been higher than in Republican state contests.
While McCain has done well with independent voters, his moderate domestic views and maverick reputation have alienated him from rank- and-file Republicans who may be prompted to stay home in November.
The party's split was in part highlighted by the continuing candidacy of Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher popular with Christian conservatives.
Huckabee refused to leave the race until McCain's victory was a mathematical certainty, while former candidate Mitt Romney repeatedly derided McCain as a 'liberal.'
Defeated by Bush for the 2000 Republican nomination, McCain also has a reputation for a hot temper, and will need to keep his composure under the intense glare of another eight months of presidential campaigning.
McCain, however, brings 'war hero' credentials to the White House at a time when America sees itself in a conflict with Islamic terrorism. A Vietnam War pilot, he was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 and spent more than five years as a prisoner, frequently enduring torture at the hands of his captors.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
America needs change. It does not need another relic from the past. America needs to change and get with the times. No more old, almost dead, people please. The world is changing at a fantastic rate and we are stuck in the 18th century with 21st century technology. We are seriously screwed up and need to get it together. This is an anathema to the republicans who need to live in the past because they don't know how to change or live in a world that is constantly changing. They want, need, a world that they can understand. A world created by their long dead fathers. If it was good enough for my daddy then it's good enough for me just doesn't cut it anymore.
...In response to Oh, God, No for remarks like '...republicans who need to live in the past because they don't know how to change or live in a world that is constantly changing. They want, need, a world that they can understand. A world created by their long dead fathers.'...
I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking strikes me as amateurish, pop-psychology drivel. Within any large group or demographic is usually found a wide-array of individuals. Their wants and needs may find them allied in a common cause together. But their backgrounds, characters, mind-sets, behavior, circumstances, and pasts vary more widely then the possibility of moves in am infinite Chess game.
The statement from Oh, God, No relegates all individuals in a group, any group, as automotons, devoid of individual thought, devoid of humanity. Is that what the person who wrote that wants to believe so badly? That because people in a group differ in thought to my own beliefs, I have to believe they are all the same, inferior, devoid of individual thought, thus inhuman? If I think that, surely that makes me superior to them, right? I phrase these as questions, because I recognize I don't know that supposition about this person for sure. The Oh, God, No author refuses to even give that common courtesy and respect to an opposing group that person disagrees with. Sentencing their individuality into a robotic, indiscernible mass with a single period. Unfortunately, a common failing many seem to share. It's a self-trap that should be avoided as much as we all reasonably can. Trying to craft opinion into fact is usually the domain of the intellectually-challenged. An easy route for those who choose not to take the time to ponder beyond initial reaction based off of pre-conceptions.
In the public domain of politics, whether the group you ally with is Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate, we all have to sadly recognize that 'our side' is unfortunately saddled with people who craft their thought-process from reflexive emotion, and not reflective reason. No group is immune. Their have been great intellects on both sides of the aisle, surrounded by a greater number of reactionaries from within their own group. You can understand how Benjamin Franklin arrived at his conclusion, 'Passion governs, and she never governs wisely'.
Forgive my diatribe. It's my Quoxitic quest to respond to rash ramblings posted on Internet articles. A waste of time? Probably. This was not meant as a Liberal vs Conservative, Moderate vs Liberal, Conservative vs. Moderate contest. It is my hope to remind people that it is for the best in a free civilization for us to judge others based upon their own individual qualities and character instead of a group label. If one person who reads this takes it to heart, then it was worth the time.
you missed the point. You are over-intellectualizing and in your analysis of the previous post and put you own biases out in front.
page: 1


cynicMar 5th, 2008 - 05:47:37
I'd be surprised if this old fart of a fossil doesn't die of a heart attack before th election.
Report this comment