McCain Is Old Like Reagan, Not Like Dole

This year, Republicans have chosen to nominate for president a war hero and longtime senator with one losing White House bid under his belt. In 1996, the party put up a 73-year-old war hero and longtime senator who already had two failed White House campaigns to this name.
On this basis, it has become fashionable to compare John McCain to Bob Dole, the septuagenarian whose listless ’96 effort established the low-water mark for Republicans in the post-Goldwater era—159 electoral votes and 41 percent of the national popular vote.
Reflecting on Mr. McCain’s recent biography-themed campaign swing and a new ad, The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat wrote that the G.O.P. standard-bearer “pushes all my Dole-redux buttons.”
But Mr. McCain has less in common with that geriatric G.O.P. nominee than he does with another one: Ronald Reagan, who, even though he was months shy of his 74th birthday and 18 years older than his Democratic opponent, managed to be seen as the “young” candidate in his landslide re-election victory in 1984.
Physically, Reagan in ’84 appeared every bit as old as Mr. McCain, who routinely describes himself as “older than dirt,” does today. And he was haunted by the same “Is he too old?” news stories that Mr. McCain now confronts, stories that Reagan only played into when he delivered one of the most memorably shaky debate performances—filled with long, empty pauses—in the television era.
Throughout the ’84 campaign, voters told pollsters that they had reservations about re-electing a president as old as Reagan, someone who’d be 78 years old at the end of his term. But on Election Day, Reagan came within a few thousand votes in Minnesota of scoring a historic 50-state sweep against 56-year-old Walter Mondale. This revealed an electoral truth: The question of a candidate’s numerical age is like the issue of experience; it almost always registers in polls, but it really isn’t determinative when voters are finally handed their ballots.
Or, to put it another way, it’s not that age isn’t important to voters. It’s just that they prefer to measure it in less-than-literal terms, favoring the candidate who represents “the future” – no matter how old or young – over the one who represents “the past.” In this sense, a senior citizen is perfectly capable of running a youthful campaign, just as a middle-aged politician can seem hopelessly trapped in a bygone era.
This is precisely what happened in ’84. With his warm presence, cheery manner, and can-do optimism – not to mention his folksy rhetoric, rich with easily-understood parables and devoid of technocratic policy-speak – Reagan invited Americans to see the future for all of its expansive possibilities and to embrace it with confidence, while Mondale, two decades his junior, reeked of the tired world of backroom D.C. politics. The idea of Walter Mondale seemed decades older than Reagan himself.
The same could be said of Mr. Dole in ’96, who – like Mr. Mondale in ’84 – faced the added burden of opposing an optimistic incumbent president whom most voters saw little reason to fire. Mr. Dole was dour and dry on the stump, campaigning on a platform of exhausted clichés and routinely lapsing into Senate-speak, which only confirmed most voters’ knee-jerk summation of him: Uninspiring party hack. Ironically, Mr. Dole did (and does) have a winning sense of humor, but few saw it in ’96 until he paid a visit to David Letterman’s show – three days after the election.
But Mr. McCain is far different. Fair or not, many Americans see him as a fearless and principled maverick, something that explains his enduring popularity with independents and even some Democrats. The idea of a reformer is inherently “young,” no matter that reformer’s numerical age.
Moreover, Mr. McCain’s style is more high-spirited and freewheeling than Mr. Dole’s or Mr. Mondale’s. He can be tense and dour in some public settings, particularly when dealing with uncomfortable questions, but he balances that with healthy doses of wit and irreverence. Like with Reagan, voters are not left to wonder – despite his advanced age – whether he has blood in his veins.
Obviously, Mr. McCain’s circumstances heading into this year’s election are very different from Reagan’s. In 2008, the Republican Party itself is an “old” idea, saddled with two terms of George W. Bush. And in Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, voters will see a vigorously youthful candidate, more like the Bill Clinton of ’96 than Mr. Mondale in ’84.
But Obama won’t be as fortunate as Clinton in the opponent he gets. John McCain – in a way that Bob Dole never could have – has the raw ingredients to convince Americans that his vision of the future is not nearly as old as he himself is.

















If Jesus Christ ran against Ronald Reagan in 1984, he too would have lost like Mondale against Ronnie.
The age issue will be a non-factor against McCain. I predict the age issue will be Obama's albatross...his youth will be questioned incessantly come this Fall. Kind of ironic, huh?
Look, McCain came of age in the 50s, as the ultimate privledged White Boy lottery winner: private schools, arrogant, jet fighter pilot, the whole nine. Look how much he has grown as a person.
I say he has a deep self-awareness termpered by time and maturity, and he can draw on his reflections and experiences in a way his opponents won't be able to match.
Are you ready to pay for the war with Iran? Are you ready to have a President who voted against Martin Luther King day? McCain positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0 from the League of Conservation Voters last year McCain opposes a woman's right to choose .He said ,"I do not support ROE vs WADE .It should be overturned"He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children!
Children are overrated.
Of course Roe v. Wade should be overturned: it's murder. What is there possibly to argue about?
The democrats have always been behind the ball on the Human Rights: they were the "pro-slavery" party in the 1800s, they are against life today.
I betcha Bill and Hillary would have been pro-slavery back in the day too!
The old guy is going to be asked about reinstituting the draft. (There is no other way to keep his 100 year war going.) The old fool will say "Yes, of course" and that will be the end of him.
I'm glad to hear that the little fool is against Roe vs. Wade. That should bring the hardcore Hillary feminist to the polls in Novemeber to vote for Obama.
The old fool is also for privatizaion of Social Security! There goes Florida.
Also, I think the republican voter turnout in South Carolina and other southern states will be depressed when they're reminded that Obama isn't the only candidate with a black child. (Thank you Bush campaign 2000)
Did liberals cause the subprime mess?
Check it out,
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subpr...
McCain won't support reinstating the draft. The only member of Congress who has proposed that is a Democrat.
As for social security, nobody is for cutting off current recipients, and that will be made very clear. Privatization would allow younger workers to put money into investment accounts rather than paying it in social security taxes. Why this panics the knee-jerk left is beyond me. I'm in my 40s, and I'd write off my contributions for the last 20 years for the privilege of investing my own instead of sending it to Washington.
And as for Kitchen Sink's despicable remark about Obama not being "the only candidate with a black child" ... well, thankfully most voters don't put any currency in that sort of scurrilous garbage.
Age should be a factor in the presidential race.
If you see your elderly parents or grandparents infrequently, and then see them a couple times a year you can see how they have aged at a faster pace. With each passing day we're all older. At an advanced age, the aging process speeds up.
When you're 25-years-old, aging happens to someone else; not you. You can party all night, drink all night, and you don't see the affects of these detrimental life choices in the mirror. Don't worry! Aging will happen to you. One day you'll look at yourself in the mirror, and you will see some things you don't like.
Compare the video tapes of Mccain in 2000 and 2008. There's quite a difference. McCain is in his 70s, and he's aging at an accelerated pace.
Reagan was really mentally and physically unfit to be president. I would think his affinity to dye his hair black for decades didn't help his brain functioning. Yeah, a few people can do it for decades but most people can't. Yeah, a few people are long-time smokers and live to 100, but most smokers will experience health problems.
Cindy McCain has had a stroke and she's only in her 50s. Expect more health problems for the McCains.
Reagan unfit to be president?? Are you nuts?
What, pray tell, was it about Reagan that dismissed him from being president, not counting two landslide victories??
I didn't classify Reagan as particuarly intellectually-gifted. He, like George W. Bush, were/are not the brightest guys around. Being president requires exceptonal intelligence and neither one of these guys fit into that category.
George W. Bush is totally incapable of seeing the big picture. However, I think Reagan could see little glimpses of the big picture. Little is the key word. Regardless, Reagan was in over his head. What would anyone expect from an actor, anyway?
Reagan's diminished mental capacity was apparent during his second-term. His verbal skills were slipping, and Nancy sometimes spoke for him.
Reagan in over his head?? Are you nuts? Ford and Carter were in over their heads, not Reagan.
You don't need exceptional brainpower to be president. Where did you get that idea??
A modern president has a staff of about 4,000 to take care of him and do his thinking for him. Speeches, position papers, scheduling, etc. Then, all of the cabinet secretaries take care of the heavy lifting with their staffs in their individual areas.
It's interesting that the three most "intellectually smart" presidents of the 20th century were considered sub par. Wilson, Hoover and Nixon.
All a president has to be is a cheerleader in chief, have some good speaking skills (using a teleprompter) (off the cuff remarks don't count, ie press conferences,) and be empathetic (seems Americans like guys who can relate, or at least act that way.)
The federal government runs by itself basically. If we could give the executive and legislative a couple years off, that would be great.
I do have reservations about McCain's age. He is approximately the same age Reagan was when he ran the second time. By the end of that second term Reagan was operating at a diminished capacity. I remember it well.
"What, pray tell, was it about Reagan that dismissed him from being president, not counting two landslide victories??"
Aside from the Alzheimer Disease that got progessively worse as his presidency wore on?
Why do you people get fixed on abortion issues..who cares.
I don't think many people are going to swing on those cases..
Our big issues NOW
WAR & ECONOMY
get a fing grip.
I could care less about social issues right now.