From a hot-off-the-presses interview between McCain and the Columbus Dispatch:
This is not wholly different from what McCain told voters in New Hampshire, or told Katie Couric. But after taking some heat for his remarks, McCain is not backing down. In fact, he has broadened his criticsm: now anybody who fails to acknowledge the success of the surge -- and probably anyone who opposed it in the first place -- is apparently branded as something just short of a traitor.Q: Does that mean it's the same as putting politics ahead of country?
A: It means ... I said, I will repeat my statement again, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign.
The McCain campaign has taken a couple of cheap shots at the Obama campaign while he has been in Europe and the Middle East. This is one of them, and the other was McCain's new commercial directly blaming Obama for high gas prices. This is smart politics I suppose, considering that Obama's staff isn't in a good position to respond. But McCain clearly thinks this phrasing is a winner for him, and if the Obama people don't get on the case pronto, they may find themselves going down John Kerry's well-worn path.
219 comments
First!!
I love how liberals are so scared of success in Iraq. I bet they were hoping it didn't work and that more Americans would die just so that it would fit their political agenda.
Well McCain saying Iraq was the first major conflict since 9/11 must sound good for those who have fought in Afghanistan.
My guess is that the Obama campaign will respond with something like this...
"The American people are tired of the politics of division in which candidates hope to gain political ground by questioning each other's patriotism. John McCain knows better than to suggest that Barack Obama wants us to lose in Iraq. And we all deserve a presidential campaign that rises above such empty sloganeering."
Obama has to turn it around this way: McCain is willing to say x,y and z about me in order to win the election. Then, proceed with how McCain's policies would make America a global loser (there's no pot of gold in Iraq, Brandon, even with a successful surge).
Personally I find it a bit scary that anyone talks about Iraq in terms of a war that will be won or lost.
That kind of nuance might be a hard line to spin, though.
Well.... isn´t the Iraq War over? Isn´t Saddam Hussein beaten? Isn´t the war McCain is talking about the war on terror?? Isn´t Afghanistan the place where we have to win the war on terror?
McCain is arguing with a wrong premise here.
McCain = Faust, Karl Rove = The Devil.
McCain: "Help, what can I do to win?"
Rove: "Say personal victory is more important to Obama than American victory. Start calling him 'far left' and just keep making people suspicious of him. And stay away from supermarkets - you just look silly."
McCain: "Thanks. But won't the media keep reporting on all my foreign policy gaffes? I keep mixing up countries, ethnic groups etc. I'm worried that I am starting to look silly as the 'foreign policy expert'."
Rove: "Don't worry. Now that you've sold your soul to me, I'll tell you the secret. Keep calling the media biased towards the other candidate, then they will feel bad and ignore all your gaffes."
McCain: "It's funny. If Obama made half the gaffes I did, he'd be finished...Thanks Karl."
Rove: "See you in hell."
McCain: "Not if I don't see you first!"
(Both laugh heartily)
It's a bit of a leap to "traitor." Just like it's a bit of a leap to say he "directly blam[es] Obama."
Why is it that conservatives are willing to guarantee American defeat in Afghanistan in the pursuit of a hollow, muddled victory, at best, in Iraq? Traitors all.
Simple response: If the surge worked, then we are done. If it didn't, there's nothing else we can do. Either way, it's time to come home.
Remind me again, what is McCain's definition of victory in Iraq?
Perhaps Obama could simply remind folks that we there is no way to "win" an occupation. You either annex the country or you depart when the sovereign government asks you to leave.
McCain is no chess player. Obama needs to call this the slime it is and talk about his vision for the FUTURE of the Middle East - for which he now has the cred.
By the way has anyone noticed how McCain was found outside a restaurant in Ohio that looked at least 50 years old, the photo with Pappy Bush - the old and tired image is being given some legs.
Bill B says: There are two things all Americans, that is Liberals, Conservatives, and everything in between have in common. They don't like losers, and they don't like quitters. There is another thing they also don't like,and that is liars, but politicians all do it so they have made an exception for them. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong. Wouldn't it be refreshing if Republicans would admit in hindsight we probably should not have invaded Iraq, and Democrats would admit the surge has worked and they are pleased that it did. Oh well! There I go with my wishful thinking again.
It's time to take off the gloves:
"McCain would rather start his own war, I will end George Bush's war."
Another victory like Iraq and will be our undoing. Call it McCain's King Pyrrhus strategy.
Guess you could say John McCain would rather win a war than save his country.
This comment "...and if the Obama people don't get on the case pronto, they may find themselves going down John Kerry's well-worn path" pretty much sums this situation up along with Anonymous 6:38's remark. McCain knows that what he's saying is intellectually ridiculous but he's being advised to go down exactly the same "red-baiting" path that Bush did against Kerry. "It worked in 2004, it'll work now" is the logic. Is enough of the electorate stupid enough to go with the divisive, low road "either you're w'us or agin us" nonsense? McCain's campaign clearly thinks so. How much will they be able to add onto Bush's refractory 28% with this tactic?
Exactly Anon @7:38.
McCain would rather win a war than not wage one.
or
McCain would rather win a war than do what's best for America.
or
McCain would rather win a war than spend the trillion dollars it costs here at home.
or
McCain would rather win a war than do just about anything in life.
Barack Obama is not just another Democrat - its different this time - but being a Democrat who has seen alot of disappointment over the last decade or two I am of course a little paranoid too - but still its different this time
What Obama must do is to hit back now - hard. For a whole month he has been letting McCain and the media directing the narrative. The media whines now that the media is biased (yes, the media whined about that first. I've seen six op-eds about that in the week before McCain made a statement, many more afterwards) and too much focused on Obama - that, actually, is a good thing for McCain and most people either deliberately ignore it or are simply too idiotic. Most of the coverage of Obama right now has him on the defensive and most coverage of McCain has him on the offensive - these are both good for McCain. Their media-whining now is simply another tactical maneuver designed to make a fool of the American people since they know very well the media benefits him right now, and sadly, the Americans are buying into it like they have been for the past fifty years.
I was going to vote for McCain but after this kind of talk I feel he has no grasp of the situation in the mideast. If we elect him it will be non-stop war.
It doesn`t matter how great the surge worked the Iraqies want us out and McCain doesn`t seem to understand this fact.
I think this kind of talk will hurt him in the long run considering 60% of Americans want a timeline let alone his hypocrsiy about wanting an issues oriented campaign and then going into the gutter by questioning Obama`s patriotism.
Obama needs to fight back, he seems to be taking these insults to easily.