Is John McCain really over?

In case you don't get time to read Republican guru Peggy Noonan today (she's writing about the latest candidate debate), this was funny and interesting:

John McCain seems liberated by loss. Once he was the front-runner, then he was over. Unburdened by the pressure to do well, he has rediscovered the pleasures of the trail. The other day when a student was impertinent, he pleasantly responded, "Thanks for the question, you little jerk."

It reminded me of the time Mayor Rudy Giuliani told an insistent radio caller who pressed for the legalization of ferrets that he probably cared about the issue because he was insane.

It's a long shot, I grant, but it does make me wonder whether it's really over for McCain. He is ill-suited to being a front runner but makes a brilliant insurgent. Circumstances have forced him back into that role.

When you look at the Republican race and see Rudy Giuliani out in front, you have to calculate that there is at least one shock out there before we get to convention time.

Why not a resurgent McCain?

Now Jay Cost argues that being a moderate can work in the primaries but that being a maverick doesn't. Voters need a swift way of understanding what a candidate stands for. They haven't time for a maverick.

That's true unless Republican voters are actually looking for unpredictability, surprise, excitement, being different. Being a maverick may be a poor shorthand description if you're trying to pin down the candidates, but it is a good shorthand for unpredictable excitement.

Is it so impossible to believe that Republicans arrive in the Spring dissatisfied with their front-runners and pessimistic about victory and conclude that a gamble might be worth it.

I know, I know. But I'm just saying it could happen.

Comments

[Richard Young]

We can but dream... Can't help feeling that the Dems will be desperate to show conservative credentials - "we are a safe pair of hands, even on terrorism" - so given Bush's low status, the GOP might be better off going with a maverick who'll offer a change of course. Ron Paul actually seems to want to shake things up and is prepared to say so. McCain has a history of saying things reasonably straight (we'll overlook his ultra-naff Baghdad market sortie), and even Huckerbee has a certain air about him. All, as you point out, are free to be engaging because they don't have anything to lose.

Meanwhile, god save us from Rudi - and heaven help us if Fred Thompson exploits his "fame" to become the serious challenger. The rest? Hopeless and frightening, especially Mitt Romney...

[Debbie]

I hope he's done for. He's more like a RINO than a Republican.

[Trisha Kelly]

IMHO John Mc Cain never was.Ron Paul is the most intellectual and capable leader.Besides this country is sick and needs a Doctor,not another lawyer.Ron Paul we <3 you! 2008

[Huntington]

Debbie's comment exemplifies what I thought when I read what you think McCain might bring to the table: by definition "unpredictability, surprise, excitement, being different" seem to me to be the opposite of being "conservative."

[joe]

This Lieberman-style Democrat hopes you're right.
My party wants nothing to do with liberal hawks like me anymore - screw them, I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat.

[Richard Myers]

I hope knee-jerk narrow minded partisans like Debbie are done for.

[Doug]

I'm looking for a RINO and I'll take McCain. Whatever McCain's fate, orthodox Republicans really are done for. Deservedly, now that they're big-government, free-spending, sanctimonious interventionist statists. If I wanted that, I'd just vote for Hillary and be done.

[Charles]

Why does the notion that McCain is a "maverick" stick around? It's an invention of the press, and it's become conventional wisdom, but it's a false premise. McCain's just as likely to get his gay hate on as the next Republican, and he sure didn't look like a maverick when he gave the commencement speech last year at Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University. Anyway, perhaps it's a minor point...