The 2000 Election of John McCain: An Alternate History

I was doing thinking today and this thought occurred to me.

Did Republicans choose the wrong man in 2000?

Conservatives rallied to George W. Bush to defeat John McCain in 2000. But was it the smart decision?

Thinking about the scenario. Had conservatives gone with McCain:

• McCain would not have gone along with wasteful spending in government.
• McCain would not have likely made the strategic errors in Iraq that have made the operation so difficult and cost so many lives pre-surge.
• McCain would not have pushed the costly Medicare Prescription Drug plan that’s helping drive our country to bankruptcy.

What about the issues that conservatives don’t like McCain on:

• Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform. It’s arguable that if McCain had been President, he wouldn’t have been in the Senate to work the proposal, but it’s doubtful he would done as Bush did and let the unbelievable approval ratings the White House enjoyed from 2002-to late 2003 go to waste.  
• McCain pushed amnesty, but so does Bush.
• Tax cuts wouldn’t be there and the 10% tax bracket and other Bush Tax reform would simply not exist. A huge negative, there.
• McCain probably would have authorized additional funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

So, it’s kind of a mixed bag. The question that must be asked is if Senator McCain would have won in 2000? To me, that would have depended on his choice of running mates. Even without McCain’s colossal attacks on religious conservative leaders with his “Agents of Intolerance” speech in the backyard of Falwell and Robertson, and running against Al Gore, he would have trouble accomplishing George W. Bush’s sweep of the South including the home states of Clinton and Gore, along with a narrow win in Florida. Alan Keyes, who received more than 1 million votes in the 2000 Primaries, threatened to bolt if McCain were the nominee and Pat Buchanan had a run of his own.

McCain would need to choose someone who could reach out to religious conservatives, as well as someone who would fit McCain’s reformer/maverick image. In 2000, Sarah Palin really was a small town Mayor and wasn’t available. He may have chosen Bush, but I doubt Bush would be willing to lower himself to the open lobbying for the VP that Romney went through and this VP selection process suggests that McCain has a high barrier to VP Candidate who ran tough campaigns against him.

Perhaps, the most logical choice would have been the then-44 year old Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. Huckabee would have helped strengthen the party’s efforts at winning religious conservatives, and in the South as Huckabee had just won 60% of the vote in  President Clinton’s Home State of Arkansas, a record re-election total for a Republican and included 48% of the African American vote. Plus, with the wit and charm that made him popular in 2008, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would infuse excitement into social conservatives. Perhaps, Huckabee would have prevailed on McCain behind closed doors not to do Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Al Gore may have had a tougher time of with McCain. It’d be very hard to challenge McCain’s readiness as occurred with Bush. A McCain/Huckabee ticket would have a strong appeal. On the ticket, you would have the not Clintons. As opposed to a Draft Dodger, you’d have a former POW along with the Governor that cleaned up the mess the Clintons left behind.

Of course, it didn’t happen that way, more due to McCain than to anyone else. Painting yourself as the enemy of your party’s base is not a sound electoral strategy, and you can hardly blame conservatives for the votes they cast based on the campaign McCain ran.  Still, I think I’ve got a solid theory here.