I'd like some input from readers on a specific question. At the heart of the "McCain might be back" stories already percolating is the notion that the strength of his remaining candidacy is his outspoken support of the "surge" (see links provided here yesterday, as well as David's Broder's latest and an article from the Weekly Standard). Is that what the GOP is looking for in a standard bearer?
Specifically, set aside the other issues a good number of Republicans have with McCain, which are many. Do Republicans want a nominee who is very publicly tied to Iraq?
Republicans obviously want to win there, as well as in the broader war against radical Islamic terrorism. They expect a nominee who demonstrates a serious, credible commitment to doing that. And if there's one issue McCain finds commonality with the Republican base it's Iraq. But my gut instinct is that many Republicans also recognize Iraq is causing the party immense problems outside of its base (i.e., independents).
For example, regular readers know I fall firmly in the national security conservative camp (not to be confused with neoconservatives). I support aggressive action against Iran. I support FISA reform that empowers the Executive Branch to track terrorist communications without excessive judicial oversight. I support the surge. But I'm incredibly leery of Iraq hamstringing the GOP nominee when voters outside of the Republican base are ready to begin putting the issue in the rearview mirror by the time fall of 2008 rolls around...hopefully following the long-term success of the surge.
McCain seems like the only of the top-tier candidates who is intrinsically tied to Iraq. Indeed, he's hugging it pretty tightly. Is that a good path for the GOP or not? There seems to be a difference between handling the issue right and turning it into a centerpiece of the campaign.
Do you agree or disagree? I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who consider themselves likely to vote in the Republican Presidential primary. Try to keep the comments in this thread on topic.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 08, 2007 08:47 PM | Email ThisThe light at the end of the tunnel on this issue is the headlight of an oncoming train. That oncoming train is a Democratic victory in November.
Now, if the R's nominate Ron Paul, they have a chance to retain the Exectuive Branch, and have a true, fiscal conservative in the White House, who would happily veto each and every socialized medicine and pork-laden spending bill that came his way. Paul could beat Hillary, who has been a supporter of the Iraq war spending bills. Ron Paul could point to his anti-Iraq war voting record. He's the only R who could peel off the anti-war voters from the D candidate.
But that will never happen, and this is why the R's will lose in 2008, and we will have both the D's and R's to blame for socialized medicine and higher government spending in the US for decades to come.
I'll be voting Libertarian.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 8, 2007 09:08 PMNow anyone can claim victory.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 8, 2007 09:39 PMRon Paul has managed a decent internet presence which shows he has at least a few thousand followers among the disaffected legion of obsessive net users.
The bottom line is that we need a conservative candidate that addresses fanatical Islam, runaway federal government bureacracy, social security, etc. Whatever the issue, it's not going to be fixed or addressed on the left, because all they want is the 90s all over again with Isolationism and a Progressive in office. That's why we must elect Republicans. The Democrats are not willing to have a rational debate any longer. A rational debate can only happen on the right.
Now, I think it's also important to point people to McCain's "" timeline. Our GOP front-runners really can't have it both ways (e.g. Romney). In my opinion, either they're for victory, or they're for surrender.
P.S. If you're interested in hearing Ron Paul (not a fan personally--but I'll hear him out), email me for details. He'll be speaking in Seattle on Friday, September 14.
Posted by: Patrick on September 8, 2007 10:09 PMRon Paul has made several very public and hugely disturbing remarks that have completely dismantled any campaign he might have had, which in reality he never had in the first place.
A vote for a libertarian is a vote for a Progressive. And a
Progressive will get you much further from, not closer to, your libertarian dream.
Unfortunately, there is noone out there that even comes close to duplicating the vision that he had for our America.
I pray that I will see another, like him, rise up in my lifetime.
Posted by: Susu on September 8, 2007 10:33 PMThe belief that America is the last great hope in the world, and believing that it can and must undertake difficult tasks to keep the world safe for freedom, is the one thing that Republicans have that Democrats cannot take away no matter how hard they try, because the overriding ideology of the majority of the party, does not believe this, and cannot believe this. Americans like victory, and they don't accept defeat for long, even when they think they want to.
Let's put it this way: Democrats haven't gotten more then 50.1% of the vote in any election since 1964. Republicans have gotten more then that 5 times, and won 7/10 times. There is a reason for that, and while part of me hates to admit it, it's not because of our position on taxes or federalism.
As to Romney, he was and has made the point that he supports the surge and thinks it's showing signs of success. He's also being prudent and not insisting it's working, because even as Gen. Petraeus's recent letter to his command outlined (and as the report he and Crocker are preparing will likely indicate), the military portion is working well in some areas (al Anbar), is helping improve others (Baghdad), but there remain problems with how quickly the Iraqis are getting there act together...which is a large part of what the surge is about ultimately.
I don't see what the problem is with Romney saying "there are some good signs the surge is working but I'd like to hear Gen. Petreaus's report before I make a final judgment." That's his position. And frankly, good executives want to hear input on complex policy questions, not just make snap judgments and then never budge from them like McCain has made a history of in the Senate.
Perhaps Romney could have said it better at the debate, but I'm not sure where that differs wildly with where most Republicans are at. McCain's point seems to be "it's working because I say it is and anybody who doesn't agree is a wuss who wants to retreat." That's illogical and rather moronic, but that's the essence of what his message amounts to if this exchange between a Romney and McCain surrogate is correct.
When it comes down it I totally agree with Ramesh Ponnuru's take on the exchange:
I find the reaction to his remarks last night a little dismaying. Do conservatives really want to tie themselves to the position that the surge is not only working, but that there can be no doubt on the score and that anyone who acknowledges the existence of doubt is a heretic? As for Romney's looking forward to a possible troop drawdown—something Bush has also done!—what's our bottom line there? Do we want troops there forever? Is that what conservatives should want Republicans to campaign on next year?
I guess it should be no surprise that based on his record the last couple years that McCain has trouble finding how to promote the right policy with effective politics, but it's still troubling nonetheless.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 8, 2007 11:58 PMI am all for winning. but can we win the war with McCain? I say no. McCain saw water boarding as torture and therefore "off limits." He ties our hands and wants us to fight an uphill battle? For how long? And then we find another way to get info and it to is rather unpleasant, so it is "off Limits?" Where does it end?
Theoretical bullshit does not get us victory, tactics that work do. And water boarding is a humane, but harsh, tactic hat got results. It is now off limits. So we throw cotton balls at these guys until they crack? WTF Homer.
This guy is living in a theoretical fantasy world where success comes by.... ... .. . what, you tell me.
I cannot support him on the war on terror. Convince me with more than his stated support for the war.
Posted by: JDH on September 9, 2007 12:02 AMYou say "the nominee has to be right on the war on terror, if he is wrong we have no use for him." I totally agree.
Yet, having observed the candidates thus far I don't see any serious difference at all in how Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson would attempt to prosecute such a fight. But, I guess McCain has to find some way to at least try to differentiate himself rhetorically at this point.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 9, 2007 12:19 AMAs far as "winning the 'war on terror,'" I'm not really sure what that means. I would like someone to explain to me how we will know when we've won.
This is one of the problems with presenting the fight against Muslim terrorists as a Global War to Make the World Safe for...Whatever. If it is that, then we need an objective definition of victory, otherwise the "war" will simply go on until some President decides that it's more useful to claim victory than to claim that there's a war on.
But of course, that's not what it is.
Posted by: ScottM on September 9, 2007 05:37 AMFor the uninformed or delirious:
The USA is the single most miitarily powerful nation to walk the face of the earth, combined with the most compassionate nation on earth which has shed more blood for the sake of others and asked nothing but for land to bury our dead. Sixty plus years commpassionately relieved the German nation and the Japanese nation of their propensity for world domination and propensity to terrorize other nations and ethnic groups. Granted, it took almost total destruction and annihilation of their countries. Such is the price to pay for a change in national attitude away from aggression.
In the end, such a benevolent act must be bestowed not on a nation, but on the true beleiving practicioners of a religion based on the inevitability of world domination and extermination of non believers.
And, in the end, to preserve western civilization and all its attributes
-tolerance of homosexuality,
-women are not the personal property of men, -dissent,
-alternative lifestyles,
-a properous intellectual class whose beliefs cater towards the destruction of capitalism and democracy
we will have to bestow a massive attitude adjustment upon fundamental Islamic practitioners of terror, similar to the attitude adjustment administered to Japan and Germany sixty years ago.
History lesson complete for those who ignore it, or those who meandered through the uselessness of the Seattle Public Schools the past 30 plus years.
These looney liberals, with an ability to think clearly, would be the most passionate supporters of the war on terror, as if we lose it, they will be the first to be beheaded, ran through shredders, become the personal property of a man.
To protect ourselves, to liberate the confused, let the administration of benevolence begin......
Posted by: Hank on September 9, 2007 06:02 AMI spect it did him no good. Noone believes that John respects lil Bush.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 9, 2007 07:39 AMHow many of these same folks can't see that Obama is a socialist fool or that the so called peace protestors are running a scam?
Sadly many of these fools are eager to suck up the drivel of a known known pathological liar and his global warming scam which is nothing but a diversion from real world problems, Islamofascist terrorism being one of those problems...
Posted by: juandos on September 9, 2007 08:32 AMHe's more of a patsy to kennedy than a leader. If McCain had any leadership ability, he would be Newt by now, instead of out in the wilderness from both parties.
I think a Mitt/Rudy or Rudy/Mitt ticket would attract the middle like nobody's business. I love the idea the Mass and NY are back in play.
In the case of terrorism thats taking out terrorist networks, a great job for cruise missiles, spies, and special forces. This does not so much involve toppling nations that support terrorist cells, as much as ignoring what they say, and going into their country anyway. If they stay out our way as we hunt down terrorist we ignore them, if they try and stop us, we make it so they can't.
On Iraq we are going to see lots of talking about how violence is down and we can start bringing troops home. The surge not so much being about anything other then expanding the whack-a-mole enough that we can have a few months of stability to get out. The Dems will seize this as an opportunity to fulfill a camping promise and most republicans are to scared of losing more seats to argue. Bush will crow about victory and everyone will pats themselves on the back for a heckava job well done.
The corrupt Iraqi police and dysfunctional army will then hold it together for a couple months until all hell breaks lose, or a strong man emerges. Given the governmental chaos, and the complicacy of said corrupt and dysfunctional police and military full-scale(as if not really already) civil war seems the most likely. I think it will go something like this. More people will pull out of parliament casing the government to collapse ostensibly triggering new elections. Without central leadership military and police forces will return home to guard their own communities. Local leaders like Sadr will beign solidifying control and seeking more power. Either one will manage to do so relatively peacefully or they’ll be fighting (much more likely given history).
After 4 years of war, and thousands of US soldiers dead, we’ll either have another dictator, or the worst mid-east civil war in a generation leading to another dictator. The funny thing is that all the current candidates are fundamentalist Muslims. While Saddam only played lip service to religion in order to secure his rather secular rule, these folks believe it to the core. Victory!
Imperialism breeds terrorism and it always has.
If the party continues its current course, it will crumble. Those that currently consider themselves to be the Republican base will be considered the tailings of this failed experiment and be pushed aside by those that will come to rebuild.
Posted by: Cascadian on September 9, 2007 09:07 AM"Winning the war on terror" will have a very strange resemblance to "winning the cold war". There will be a region-wide, if not world-wide, shift in ideology. Radical Islam would no longer represent 25-35% of the Islam world, it would be fringe elements, less than a tenth of one percent and focused on specific battles. There would be a shift away from Theocracy and more towards secular leadership in Muslim areas, a moderation of the Islamic religious leaderships tones. Capitalism, liberty, the 'American way of life' would be demanded and acquired by the population and in so would reduce violence based on religion.
When was the cold war finally won? Did Reagan decide in 1982 that victory in the cold war would be when the Berlin Wall finally fell? No, there will be indicators and goals achieved to show that the war on terror will have been won. Most of the war will be an ideological one, parts of it will be military and policing, parts will be diplomacy and espionage. Obviously the most visible aspects will be military, but like the war in Iraq, it's just the Boston Tea Party in metaphor. Most of the battles in the war on terror will be fought and won without guns, but without that catalyst and big stick, it couldn't be won.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2007 10:38 AMThe key to winning the war is to prevent the surrender crowd from winning at the polls again like they did in 2006.
What this means is that the pro-winning candidate must not only convince the American electorate that winning is in our interest, but also that winning is possible.
Most American want to win in Iraq, so that part is not too difficult. The second part however requires a candidate that can sway the American voter away from the practically un-rebutted verdict the American left and its willing friends in the press have had two years to drum into to its collective heads - namely that the war is already lost or un-winnable.
McCain an Guiliani have good credentials on this, but neither has credibility with the right wing of the Republican party on most other issues that face the country. They might bring out the right on election day, but only if Hillary runs.
Romney seems to be hedging on the war by tying himself to surge as if the surge is the issue rather than the war itself. To me this kind of nuanced approach is better left to the Dem's who invented it and who are far better at it.
Unlike many here and elsewhere I did not mind in the least Thompson's delayed entry. The Dem's are the ones who insisted on making this race into a four year contest, and they are welcome to the costs.
I still do not see McCain, Guiliani, or Romney as capable of winning in 2008 unless Hillary is the Dems candidate - and even then it will again be tight if Hillary doesn't screw up badly.
Thompson's time is limited now that the primaries have been moved up and if he is to win against the Dems he first needs to win against his fellow Republicans. That means convincing them that he can win against Hillary, Obama or anyone else.
In the end, to bring America back from the brink of surrender, Thompson (or whoever) needs to communicate the truth to the American people - that we can and will win in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Posted by: deadwood on September 9, 2007 01:37 PMMassachusetts and New York are not in play against Hillary even with Mitt or Giuliani running. Look at the NY polls and Hillary wins by double digits. But Rudy does put Pa and NJ in play and that might be enough.
I just cannot see the electoral route to victory in the general election for anyone but Rudy or McCain but McCain is way behind in the Republican Primary. The big blue states except Michigan seem to be leaing to Rudy in the primary rather than to Mitt or Fred or McCain.I do not see how McCain changes that dynamic through a Pro Iraq war emphasis when Rudy is also pro war. Rudy even leads in Florida. Where does McCain lead? Is even Arizona in play instead of locked up?
On the issue of "Security" (as opposed to just Iraq); it is the one issue that Republicans score about as well as Democrats with the Public. An antiwar Republican may lose that as well and then what do you run on? A successful Iraq where our forces are seen to be starting to draw down by November 2008 combined with a continuing radical islamist threat could be the best chance we have for victory in the Presidency and to hold down the inevitable losses of Senate seats.
Rudy does not need McCain for VP to win the National Security voter. He may need someone to shore up Florida like Gov. Crist or Former Gov. Bush. Either would work well with his theme of competent management.
Posted by: KW64 on September 9, 2007 08:03 PM
And if the GOP nominates an anti-war, anti-Patriot Act candidate then America loses.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2007 08:25 PMThe UTube video of Giuliani in drag, kissing Donald Trump, plus his very liberal position on abortion and other moral issues, finishes Giuliani for the religious right. Either he doesn't get the Republican nomination or he loses the general election to the democrat.
Mitt Romney is probably less liberal than Giuliani but not by much. Romney also has the problem of being a Mormon, which is a negative with many on the religious right, so his chances of success as a Republican in a national election are poor.
John McPain has caused too much pain for all conservatives to be considered a viable candidate.
That leaves Fred Dalton Thompson. Fred has a proven record as a campaigner and he is also an excellent lawyer who understands constitutional law. His judicial picks would be in the mold of Roberts and Alito. That alone would rally the conservative base. While he is not an overtly religious candidate, he understands the concerns of the religious right and will comport himself well enough to earn their vote without alienating those Americans who are not so religiously inclined.
I predict that Fred will win the Republican nomination and be elected our next president in 2008.
Posted by: Paul on September 9, 2007 08:27 PMThats about right. Anyone else in the current pack and we see 1996 all over again.
Posted by: deadwood on September 9, 2007 08:55 PMBut hey, when he needs illegal votes, he can get the illegal invaders to do the job no American will do.
And don't get me started on his speech stifling McCain feingold disaster. Just ask Kirby Wilbur about that.
America loses what? Loses the oppurtunity to lose a few thousand more men protecting iraqi streets?
Regardless of who the republicans nominate in the primary, America will be electing an president that will be pulling troops out of Iraq. Like it or not, that is what America wants and is demanding. (even 1/3rd of republicans are now opposed to the war and want troops withdrawn.)
So the question is, do you want Hillary pulling the troops out and pushing for Hillary care, or do you want Dr Paul pulling the troops out and pushing to end the IRS, end the dept of Education, re-privatize health care, etc...?
I would think the choice is easy. That is the choice we are making when we chose the GOP nominee.
Travis
Posted by: Travis on September 9, 2007 09:44 PMSeattleJew: stop lying.
Eric: yeah, that exchange was mostly nonsense. Just like the Giuliani-Paul exchange where Paul was correct (Bin Laden, as the 9/11 Commission acknowledged, had said he attacked us in part for our activies in Iraq and so on), it seems McCain "won" this exchange with Romney just by being righteously angry.
Romney was simply deferring to those who knew better and wasn't going to make claims he wasn't an expert to claim. He is not going to say "the surge is working," because he isn't qualified to say that (and I am not so sure McCain is, either). He is going to say "Petraeus says the surge is working," or whatever.
That's why I think what's really going on here is not McCain trying to show up Romney per se: he was just trying to point out that he DOES have firsthand knowledge. Not that he's tougher, not that he is more willing to say something, just that he knows better. He is the national security guy. You want to know what is going on, talk to HIM.
WRT Eric's original ??:
''McCain seems like the only of the top-tier candidates who is intrinsically tied to Iraq. ..... Is that a good path for the GOP or not? There seems to be a difference between handling the issue right and turning it into a centerpiece of the campaign.''
Not a good path; because it will be a huge negative for legions of (I) voters in Nov 2008.
I.e.: I agree with Eric that there is a difference between handling the issue right and making it the centerpiece.
Like as been said many times before... LIKE IT or NOT, 70% of americans are opposed to the war. That number is growing, not declining. So unless the GOP has some new message that will convince americans to support the war, they will lose putting forth a pro war candidate.
Travis
I think that is a disingenuous statement. People are against the war because the media et al. have convinced many that we are not winning it and CANNOT win it. If the progress made over the summer continues into next year, there will not be a large majority, or perhaps any majority, that opposes the war. As the professor in Back to the Future said "You are not thinking 4th dimensionally". People are not voting for president NOW, they will be voting for president 14 MONTHS from now!
By the way, I am a "small l" libertarian, but disagree strongly with the Libertarian Party on the Iraq War issue--as do most libertarians I know. And I voted for Hospers/Nathan in 1972 (although it was in a high school English Class poll!)
Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 05:43 PMActually you are wrong there. A NY Times poll released in August disagrees with you "WHEN THE New York Times poll found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."
Round Two found that 42 percent of voters think America was right to go into Iraq, while the percentage of those polled who said that it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61 percent to 51 percent." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/02/EDC2RB8A72.DTL
And from the CBS/NY Times poll released yesterday "The poll finds 35 percent say the surge has made things better, up from 29 percent last month and 19 percent in July. Only 12 percent say it has made things worse, but nearly half see no change in either direction, according to the poll." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/09/opinion/polls/main3244734.shtml
You also say " Most people I know are opposed to the war not because of how successful or unsuccessful we are there, but rather because they feel it was an unnecessary war, and they were taken into it based on lies and/or misrepresentation". Where do "most people you know" live? If your answer is Seattle--you are living in an echo chamber. Seattle does not in any way represent the "mainstream" in America.
Free Minds and Free Markets
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 10, 2007 10:31 PMUnder the above scenario, Libertarians would get a much larger percentage of the vote, even if they did not make it to the run-off. This would give more exposure to Libertarian views and would give the party the opportunity to build more support. I believe this is how they operate elections in Louisiana--not sure if other states have this method or not. It would make sense to me for the Libertarian Party to concentrate on those states to build support.
Posted by: Bill H on September 11, 2007 05:41 AM