John McCain takes my advice.
By mw | Related entries in Barack, Iraq, McCainApparently he reads Donklephant. Who knew? Or perhaps my advice was just so obvious that even the McCain campaign could figure it out.
Yesterday, Justin posted a video of a John McCain interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Justin’s post focused on McCain second guessing Maliki’s statements about a 2010 time frame for US withdrawal. McCain asserted that Maliki was just playing politics for the home crowd. I found the exchange later in the interview to be far more interesting.
ABC, MSNBC, and the New York Times highlighted the money quote:
“During a Friday interview with CNN, McCain called a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq “a pretty good timetable. That answer came when McCain was asked by Wolf Blitzer about the Iraqi prime minister’s recent description of a 16-month timetable as “the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
The Left of center blogosphere jumped all over it, called it a flip-flop, and completely missed the important point. Sure it was a flip-flop. But most Obama supporters cheered when Obama flip-flopped “moved to the center” on a whole host of issues. So let us just say that Maliki has permitted McCain to “move to the center” on Iraq. You know – where most of the voters are. With this move, McCain takes away the single biggest issue advantage that Obama has over him with moderate, centrist, independent and libertarian voters.
Point being, if there is no practical difference on an Iraq withdrawal time frame between McCain and Obama, independent voters will find it easier to support MCain based on other priorities. This may be difficult for the kool-aid crowd on the left to accept, but… Not all moderates and independents are enamored with a toe-the-party-line Democratic President, a 100 vote Democratic majority in the House, and a filibuster proof Democratic Senate all promising more taxes, more regulation, more spending programs, more faith based initiatives, less free trade, mandatory government service, no new drilling, and a return to corrupt single party K-Street earmark business as usual. All of this only becomes important when there is little or no practical difference between Obama and McCain on Iraq. At this point, the only real difference between them is rhetoric.
I am beginning to think we should postpone the coronation, and go ahead and hold the election.
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 26th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Iraq, McCain. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
This is the most insane spin ever. As if somehow back-tracking on his signature issue, John McCain has become more electable? Up until last night, John McCain hounded Barack Obama on his withdrawal plan, endless insulting the Illinois senator for “choosing defeat”. John McCain has committed the mother of all flip-flops. Any other interpretation flies in the face of reality itself.
Thanks for playing. Try better next time.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Just remember where you read this first Cap’n. Enjoy the kool-aid.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
All McCain had was his Iraq stance, he doesn’t have a chance without the phrases Surge and no surrender, Obama on the other hand has always been the one who supports withdrawl, even Republicans admit in polls he will bring the troops home, while McCain probably won’t. By switching on this McCain leaves himself open to attack, which is why he’s trying to cover it up with his attack on Obama not visiting the troops.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Avinash,
Everything you said is true – in the past tense. Maliki changed the game. McCain did not do anything to deserve this, he just got lucky.
Over the next few months as voters start to pay attention, it will percolate into the electorate that in the future tense – there is NO practical difference between McCain and Obama on the withdrawal from Iraq- we are mostly out by the end of 2010 regardless of who is president. Maliki set the timetable. Then voting decisions will be made on something else. Take out Iraq, and Obama just becomes your run-of-the-mill liberal with 95% toe-the-party-line voting record. I don’t know what about that is suddenly appealing to independents or moderates. OTOH McCain, unlike Obama, has frequently bucked his own party.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
This is possibly the most ignorant post someone could possible write on this issue.
McCain’s only chance to win this election was to make people so fearful of Obama’s foreign policy moves that they would ignore their overwhelming preference for Obama on domestic issues. By being forced to follow Obama on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, McCain has lost his only perceived advantage in this election. Which is why you see him going so negative now, with his cheap shots at Obama’s patriotism.
So instead of calling us koolaid drinkers, you should take a look at how blinded you are by your love of McInsane that you can try to spin such an obvious loss for McCain on his signature issue.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Ed,
fyi… Until I clearly understood that there is absolutely no difference in what will happen in Iraq regardless of who is elected, I did not know who I would support in ‘08. Iraq was and is the single most important overiding issue for me. This is true now, when I voted for Kerry in ‘04, and when I voted straight Dem in ‘06.
If I felt there was any real difference in Iraq going forward, I probably would have held my nose and voted for Obama. There isn’t, so now it is all about whether I want to vote for a garden variety big government, big spending liberal with absolutely no constraint in the legislature. I don’t. I think it is a really bad idea. Maybe in 2012 If the Reps can take back the Senate. But for now It’ll probably be even worse than the six years of single party Republican control, since they will have even more concentrated power with less opposition than the Republicans had. I don’t harbor your illusions that Democrats are angels and Republicans are satanists. Read that K Street link in the post how Harry Reid is already whipping the lobbyists and Industry trade groups into line – just like the Rove Republicans.
Hey, sorry that Maliki just took away your candidates only real differentiating issue. Not my fault. Not McCain’s doing either. Certainly not Obama’s. It just turned out that way. It’s a new game. new rules. Have fun.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Actually I disagree, see more people trust Obama to get us out, to the majority it sounds like McCain is just pandering, that he’s only saying it because he has to, Obama on the other hand has built up confidence in the people that he’ll get us out.
You may consider them the same now, but the public still sees them as different, Obama has trustworthiness on the issue of Withdrawl, while McCain is still seen as old 100 years
July 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Avinash,
The public is not paying much attention yet. Lets wait until they do before drawing any grand conclusions. Shortly after labor day we should get our first real read.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Actually they’ve done polls, the dems and indys are paying close attention, its the reps who aren’t.
I won’t comment on what that means, i’m just putting it out there
July 27th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Yes they have. Here’s mine. Where’s yours? I don’t believe for a second that general interest has surged since April. We won’t see it pick up again until after the conventions.
July 27th, 2008 at 4:11 am
And like that poll says, the vast majority have been paying close attention, even if they are tired of the length, they are tired because they’ve been paying attention
July 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am
I quite agree with the premise of your article–that McCain switching on n Iraq timetable makes this a more interesting race. With 60-some percent of the country by recent polls wanting out of Iraq, that was a big albatross around his neck.
I know some ill try to paint this as a flip-flop given the change takes place in less than 24 hours…we’re not talking an evolution of belief here… as that has become such an effective tool in politics, but I prefer to think of it as coming to his senses.
But, take away your obsession with divided government, which is not shared by the populace and you still have McCain. As we move closer to the election it will become increasingly apparent that McCain is Bush 3–and that is an albatross he cannot escape.
That’s not just a platitude–he is not the maverick he once was. Congressional Quarterly voting studies show that McCain has voted along with Bush 95 percent of the time.
How is that going to appeal to the critical independent swing vote?
Your claims that not all moderates and independents are enamored with a toe-the-party-line Democratic President may be true, but what are you basing that statement on? Republican claptrap? C’mon, on the single biggest issue of the last 10 years–vote for a war in Iraq, he was opposite the Democratic Party Line.
In hindsight, that can be painted as leading, not towing.
As for “a 100 vote Democratic majority in the House” — a) that’s speculation, and b) most people aren’t paying attention to that, and won’t until after the election. And may not care, anyway, as the alternative is to keep in power those who don’t deserve to be there.
Then we have, “A filibuster proof Democratic Senate all promising…” (debatable)
“more taxes”=more right wing hyperbole
“more regulation”=consider, maybe we need some regulation, as more than two decades of regulation have led to among other things corporate malfeasance, out of control speculation, the housing crises, environmental degradation, runaway job losses, etc.
“more spending programs”=more hyperbole and a misrepresentation or lack of understanding of what a spending program can mean. Instead of Republican spending programs that enrich big business or wealthy contributors, how about an infrastructure program that helps EVERYONE? The infrastructure improvements initiated by FDR had benefits that lasted DECADES–would you argue that we should not have spent the money on them?
“more faith based initiatives”= and maybe this time it will not be tied to faith-based groups that advocated Republican causes, and really help people this time.
“less free trade”==yes, less “free” trade and maybe more “fair” trade.
“mandatory government service” = let’s get some rich folks kids in the armed forces and see how willing they are to send people off to war…OK, that wasn’t fair on my part. Actually, I’ll have to look this one up, because “mandatory” hasn’t been in anything I have been reading.
“no new drilling”=we don’t need new drilling. This a GOP smokescreen and you are informed enough to know that there are thousands of acres that the oil industry has and is not drilling on and has no intention of drilling. Economically speaking, it is more beneficial for them to continue business as usual. To expand drilling they would need to grow the company, growth leads to increased costs, increased costs can lead to fewer profits even if more money is coming in. They’ve crunched the numbers, they know where there expenses/profits cross. If they can make more money drilling they would already be drilling. So, kindly cut that crap.
“and a return to corrupt single party K-Street earmark business as usual”= When you’re right, you’re right. I agree. In my case, I am hoping Reid and his Democratic cronies aren’t as successful as the Repub’s have been. It’s not much of a hope, but I know what we have now and I know we need to move away from it.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Right mw, the democrats are the big spenders. Have you checked what the “fiscally responsible” republicans you seem to love so much have done to our debt? Looks like you’re the one swilling the kool-aid. I especially love your K-street line! Yup, it’s those mean old democrats that sold out our government to K-street. Perhaps you should take a look at who’s running your hero McCain’s campaign before making an even bigger fool of yourself, kool-aid boy. Without fail you write the most inacurate, brainwashed drivel of anyone on this sight. BTW, don’t bother with your standard “liberal” this and that. I’m a real conservative, something you obviously have no idea about.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Wow! For mw to accuse others of drinking the kool-aid could not be more laughable! Democrats are the big spenders? Have you been conscious the last 7 years mw? My god, democrats are too cozy with K-street? Have you checked out who’s running your hero McCain’s campaign kool-aid boy? Without fail you write the most brainwashed, ignorant, fact free posts of anyone on this sight. Keep up the good work, you’re always good for a laugh. Oh and BTW, before you start spewing your standard liberal this and liberal that at me, I’m a real conservative….something you obviously know absolutely nothing about. I don’t think Obama is the saviour of the world, and I know a kool-aid drinking brainwashed toad when I see one.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:52 am
@gerryf
You gave me a few things to chew on. I’ll try and pick off a few of them.
I’d like to think that too, but am not sure its true. The simple fact is that his position was overtaken by events. The surge succeeded enough, and the elected Iraqi government wants us out by 2010. That means it is going happen regardless of President, and we will need to act exactly as McCain said we should when asked this exact question in 2004.
I am basing it on this[LINK]It’s pretty straightforward. Independent verification of CQ vote studies showing that McCain votes with his party 70-80% of the time while Obama is a solid 95%. That makes McCain more independent and less partisan than Obama. So yeah the “McCain is Bush III” meme actually is mindless sloganeering.
To your other point – I agree tht in 2003 Obama was right about Iraq and spoke clearly about it when very few did. McCain was ead wrong in 2003. In 2007 McCain was right about the surge and Obama, in retrospect was dead wrong. If we listened to Obama in 2003 we would not be in this mess. Because we listened to McCain and not Obama in 2007, Maliki is in a position to invite us out by 2010 now – eliminating any difference in who is elected president on this issue. So its a wash. They each got an important one right and wrong. The Iraq government, not the US government is setting the timetable for withdrawal. Which is exactly as it should be. The issue is moot.
Regarding the “debatable issues” – it looks to me like you agree that most of my characterizations of what to expect in an Obama presidency are true. You are just giving rationalizations of why you think they should be done. Of the ones you question – More taxes – That is right from Obama’s mouth. More spending – again just look at his shopping list of initiatives on the website and during the campaign. He is disingenuously pretending that we can just “divert” money being spent on Iraq, which is complete nonsense. We can’t afford the level of spending we have now, it is driving the deficit to record highs and continuing to increase the financial burden on future generations. Plus the military will have to be rebuilt, so there is not that much to divert, unless we continue this ruinous level of spending. If we do a fraction of what Obama is promising, it’ll have to increase. Finally at least McCain is talking about the deficit. He doesn’t have much of a plan, but at least he is aware of the problem. Obama isn’t even bothering to talk about it – and that is telling. Mandatory service – I may have stretched that one a bit, but not much. Obama talks about it in almost every speech in the context of financing college – in effect he is saying – we’ll subsidize your college but then you must perform National Service in some form. Very slippery slope there – the core concept is frightening “We the government graciously provide you with [FILL IN THE BLANK GOVERNMENT SERVICE] , so we have a right to make you earn it by providing mandatory X years of government service.” Ah yes … I can’t wait to see the shining happy faces of the Obama Youth Corp marching off to perform whatever good deeds our glorious leader deems need doing.
Yeah – completely agree about the K-Street stuff. Really disheartening. The only difference is that the Republicans had six years of pulling all the levers, and the Dems have not yet had their hands on all the controls yet. Once they do, I doubt it will take them six years to match the Republican levels of corruption. I think they can do it in 3-4 years, seeing how Reid is working a getting head start and they appear eager to emulate the Republican model.
Yeah it is an obsession, because it is based on documented historical fact.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:03 am
@David
I’d like to reply, I really would. But I can’t find anything in your comments that vaguely resemble a coherent or even understandable argument. As near as I can tell it’s all invective and partisan sloganeering. So I am perfectly fine with your comments standing on their own merits. They say more about you than anything I can come up with.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 am
Carnival of Divided Government Quattuor et Vîcênsimus (XXIV) – “Lost At Sea” Edition…
Exactly so, and the very advice that mw has been offering to the McCain campaign for some time….