McCain attributes Romney’s OBL position to “naivete”

April 27, 2007 – 5:42 pm

Race4008’s Jen Rubin asked Senator John McCain about Mitt Romney’s statement about Osama Bin Laden. McCain attributed his position to "naivete."

Recall the quote:

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only "a small percentage" and would not see "a very insignificant increase in safety" if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. "It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person," Romney said. Instead, he said he supports a broader strategy to defeat the Islamic jihad movement.

In response to Jen Rubin’s question, Senator McCain said, (quote from NH Pres. Watch):

On a conference call with "bloggers" Senator John McCain took aim at Romney. In response to a question, McCain said "this is a national security issue," and that he "disagrees in the strongest terms." He also criticized Romney by saying "it takes a degree of naiveté to think he’s [bin Laden] is not an element in the struggle against radical Islam."

Note that this is the second major gaffe on a national security issue. Earlier, Romney had mentioned a secret timetable for withdrawal that Duncan Hunter blasted. This was similar to a plan offered by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) which got no traction.

Senator McCain also mentioned bin Laden’s return to operational control of al Qaeda. There was also recent discussion of bin Laden’s assassination plot against Vice President DIck Cheney.

This whole discussion seems strange in light of Romney’s speech at Yeshiva University:

“Jihadism - violent, radical, fundamental Jihadism - is this century’s nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century’s nightmares: fascism and Soviet communism. The September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a ‘religious obligation.’ … We are faced with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. Radical, nuclear Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity. It cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated.”

Romney’s former driver, Dean Barnett, claims that this speech indicates that Romney "gets it."  I wonder if it suggests more than Romney is confused, or, as McCain says, "naive."

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

MoveOn giving McCain a helping hand?

April 20, 2007 – 12:15 pm

Doesn’t MoveOn cutting an ad attacking John McCain help him? I think that Michael Goldfarb nailed it:

As the Hotline points out, "The more liberals bash McCain, the more comfortable conservatives tend to get." Truer words were never written. The idea that this ad could do any damage to McCain in a primary is absurd. Republicans don’t take their cues from the defeatist advertising of MoveOn.org–images of burning American tanks? Do they seriously think that will help them get their message across in Red America?

64 percent of Republicans approve of the president’s handling of the war in Iraq. How does tying McCain to Iraq hurt him in the primary? If MoveOn.org really wants to go after McCain, they should endorse him as the Republican most likely to take action on global warming. But this…this is a gift. I’m feeling more comfortable about a McCain presidency already.

After all, the air mail line got an applause from the veterans. Of course, MoveOn edited that out. But hey, no one ever accused them of being honest…

Now, my friend Matt Lewis makes an important point:

Give McCain credit for taking it to Iran.  I might add that Mitt Romney has also done a good job of this as well.  Moveon appears to be afraid of a McCain candidacy — at least, that’s what this attack implies to me …

Are they making  the calculation that McCain will be the nominee? This stuff does work with independents. Are they being strategic for the general?

And McCain’s response:

"Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends," he told reporters. "My response is, lighten up and get a life."

Classic.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

McCain said no to draft in NH

March 30, 2007 – 1:59 pm

Today Jack Murtha called for a draft again. Last weekend in New Hampshire, John McCain gave an articulate defense of the all volunteer force and service, but pointed out the insanity of a draft:

There is a bunch more video in there on the military, service, and similar issues. Just pimping my video…

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Elections are experiments

February 15, 2007 – 5:28 pm

Jonah Goldberg has a great article at NRO about how Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are two different strategies for handling coming from a liberal, northeastern state. Romney’s strategy is basically to change his position on every issue in sight to come in line with the conservative base. Goldberg doesn’t totally buy it, and regularly readers can see that I don’t either. Rudy Giuliani’s strategy is based on another strategy. His campaign is based on the proposition:

Taken together, terrorism, Iraq and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue for conservative base of the party.

Conservatives will decide that winning the war on terrorism is so important that the rest doesn’t matter or is secondary. Furthermore, Romney’s campaign is based on the idea that domestic issues will dominate the election, and Rudy that security and terrorism will. (although Republicans seem to think that he would do fine running the government)

Which will it be? Time will tell. And what if McCain wins? I think that his campaign is a hybrid. He can credibly claim to be a conservative whose strength is foreign policy. In other words, he could credibly claim to be the best conservative at fighting the war on terror. But, Goldberg would probably argue that a McCain win tells us more about McCain than the Republican Party. I think that’s probably right.

All of these candidates have different theories for where the party is. We will see.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

More thoughts on Diageo/Hotline poll: Security

January 24, 2007 – 10:02 am

A couple of days I wrote on the results of the Diageo/Hotline poll. Most people have focused on the Presidential results. BlogPI has written about McCain’s credibility on security with Republicans. I started looking at how GOPers prioritize issues, and thought it had some interesting presidential implications. So here’s the data:

Issue % Issue %
Oppose Iraq 19 Fear 6
Support Iraq 18 Illegal Immigration 6
Terrorism 10 Religious and Family decline 5
Moral Values 7 Healthcare 4

For 47% of self-identified GOPers, national security is the highest priority. Add in "Fear" and you get 53%, a majority. Simply put, that is why Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are the frontrunners. It is not just name ID. Their credibility with voters is precisely on the issues that the GOP electorate most cares about. It will be interesting to see how the other candidates break through this wall.

By coming out against the Surge, Sam Brownback is trying to shoot for that 19% that are opposed to the war. One could imagine that a group of those voters, combined with a good chunk of the 7% moral values and 5% religious/moral/family decline voters, could be a powerful voting block. Furthermore, an anti-surge GOP Presidential nominee will get a lot of free media as the issue moves through Congress.

You can also see how Mitt Romney is trying to put together a coalition. He will try to split the moral values and conservative voters with Brownback. He is the only major candidate (unless you really count Newt) who has expressed opposition to President Bush’s guest working plan, giving him a credible shot with those voters (6%). (although you have to wonder if Tancredo entering will have much of an impact in western Iowa on this issue. To make it more fun, Tancredo even looks like the local congressman, Steve King, who is equally outspoken as Tancredo on almost all these issues). Romney can also talk to a lot of the healthcare crowd (4%), although one wonders how much of that is doctors. I don’t know where they come down on Romney’s healthcare plan. It also highlights why Romney has to get more international credibility through speeche, like he did earlier this week. (one is left to wonder what Romney would have done if George Allen was in the race. Where would he have gone for votes?)

Of course, voters vote based on a lot of things other than issues. But voters are one important way that candidates reach out to voters.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Romney weighs in on Iraq with a mealy-mouth statement

January 10, 2007 – 10:11 am

Update: Brownback had previously taken a position and this blog suggests that Romney is talking about 20k troops.
Update II: Silence from Giuliani.

So far, the debate on the relationship between the Iraq and the 2008 Presidential has focused on the Democrats running from the war and the effect on John McCain’s candidacy. I wrote on both of these earlier in the week. (John Dickerson from Slate agrees that it won’t hurt McCain all that much)

Yesterday, John McCain continued the debate with a post on Powerline and Sunday with an op-ed in WaPo.

And today, Mitt Romney weighed in. But it appears that there were some difficulties with his first intervention in American foreign policy.

Rob Bluey at Human Events thought it looked like another Mitt-flop. You see, just two weeks ago, Romney said:

I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. I’m not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That’s something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.

Well. Mitt didn’t wait. He got an opinion. But it gets worse for Mitt. Redstate’s Dan McLaughlin reads a criticism of President Bush in his statement:

although you can see him straining to both embrace and distance himself from the Bush Administration from the opening line: "I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change." But it also includes this head-scratcher: "Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror."

Now, I understand the argument that we have not done that adequately, but does Romney really believe we have not even been trying to protect the civilian population of Iraq from violence and terror? What exactly does he think 130,000 soldiers have been doing there for three and a half years?

I would add that the debate is over the number of troops. McCain and Lieberman have said 30k+. The President will land with a smaller number. Romney doesn’t give a number, he gives a structure:

I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

While that line means something, it makes him hard to quote in the future. No voter will know how many troops that means. Not only is he reluctant about taking a position, he is reluctant about being accountable for the position he takes. Come on MItt. Put it on the table!

But he has to. As Bluey said:

No serious contender for the GOP nomination in ‘08 could remain silent on this issue, and Romney’s reluctance to lay out his position beforehand shows the learning curve he faces as a first-time national candidate.

McCain, who has articulated a clear position on Iraq, has the most to gain from Romney’s wait-and-see attitude.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

How bad is “The Surge” for McCain? What about the Dems?

January 8, 2007 – 9:57 am

In recent weeks, there has been interminable talk about how John McCain’s Presidential hopes could be over because of his position on Iraq. While I see that McCain’s position on Iraq could be a threat to his candidacy, I think that the Democrats are between a rock and a hard place.

President Bush is clearly telegraphing what his proposal will be. And the Democrats are clearly responding. But not coherently. This issue will split the Democrats. Democrats running for Pre sident must oppose the surge. The base will kill them in their cribs if they don’t. Just look at the blogs (here, here, and innumerable more). This issue defines the Democratic party today. And opposition to the war is the most credible explanation of what happened November. And stories about more years being required in Iraq, are exactly the sort of thing that feeds the base. The New Yorker has a great story on the problem for the Democrats.

But let’s be clear about something. If the President pushes it, there will be votes. At this point, Iraq is the Bush legacy. And his legacy will bad if he doesn’t start sharing ownership on this. And Congress, and that means Democrats now, are the obvious people to start sharing ownership with.

It seems that the Democrats have 3 options:

  1. Allow the surge with open support. The Democrats shatter. John Edwards or Al Gore win the nomination. Maybe Feingold gets back in.
  2. Stop the surge. Then all the Dems have is an (old) issue. But Bush and the Republicans can claim that the Democrats gave up on the war. Anything bad that happens, at that point, GOPers can blame on the Dems. But Iraq will be gone. We might even pull out.
  3. Allow the surge with extensive and skeptical oversight. This gives the Dems the highest chance of success. But that means that the Dems will have to vote for more money. They have will to go along with the President — and John McCain. And John McCain will be the GOP leader in the consensus oversight process of Iraq, the most important issue facing America.

That’s why the Democrats are trying to kill this policy in its bed:

I’m not sure that in my over 20 years of involvement in politics and media have I seen as disastrous a pre-launch of a major policy initiative as what the President will propose this week for Iraq.

So back to McCain. What’s the impact on him (or the rest of the GOP)? Hard to tell. But if the surge is blocked, then we will likely start pulling out. There’s simply no other option. And Iraq will become less of an issue. But terrorism will re-emerge as the major foreign policy issue in the election (helping Rudy Giuliani and McCain), along with a stronger Iran, problems with (Romney’s "family oriented") China, and international trade.

If the surge goes on, it will be because the Republican Party unified behind McCain’s position, but attempts to stick it on McCain will be much, much harder because it will have passed with many Democratic votes. And the base will say, "The country sent Dems to Washington to stop Bush and they kept collaborating."

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)