Rules of Engagement are for war, not politics

After nearly two years of politics and prognostication, the presidential election is over. I, for one, am relieved, in spite of the fact that the guy I voted for did not win.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.