The Surge Strategy: McCain's, not Petraeus's
By Erick Posted in 2008 | John McCain — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here's your must read of the day from Patrick Ruffini. We should all stop underestimating John McCain now. He's going for the independents in New Hampshire, again, and might throw a wrench in Romney's plans.
When Pat Hynes told me that McCain was going to surge, I thought he had been smoking something. Turns out, the McCain camp just might know what it's doing. And as much as I detest these global warming pushes, they are working with independent voters.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | In search of an across the board "leave me the heck alone" conservative — Comments (93) »
The Surge Strategy: McCain's, not Petraeus's 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Awww, sticking up for poor McCain are we? Come on. This guy lost to Bush in 2000. He doesn't have the support in New Hampshire to pull it off. He shot himself in the foot with his terrible immigration legislation. He's a terrible candidate that should've left the race months ago.
My last comment may've been a drive-by but at least I doubled back to follow through.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
I don't like some patterns of commenting that have grown on this site with respect to our Presidential candidates, and I've taken to lashing out at those patterns, no matter whose ox is being gored.
I don't think pointing to his poll numbers and his support of the McCain-Kennedy bill is really all that unfair.
McCain's got a sterling military career. Nobody can take that away from him. But as a politician and as a Republican, he's just not that good.
I'm perfectly fine with him being in the Senate. But I do NOT want him to be president. I suppose he'd be better than any Democrat though.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
to make argument for "why you should vote for" x "over" y without doing a bit of attacking on y.
I wish I knew how to just say the good stuff and still make the argument for Fred. I personally think the top 5 are all at least acceptable and several would actually make good Presidents. But I also think my guy is the best of the lot.
....why?
McCain has very little chance of winning New Hampshire or getting the nomination. He's not "throwing a wrench" in anyone's plans, either.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
...on the bus with the campaign for a few days?
Seriously, I love how we're apparently in the tank for every single candidate in the race. Keeps things interesting :-)
other campaigns will notice that inviting new media reporters gets them some significant coverage. It would be great if we were invited along all the major campaigns.
McCain invited, we accepted.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
....and, now knowing that info, I too wish other campaigns would invite you guys too.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I did notice that the McCain to other coverage ratio changed a lot with my posts. That is why I tried to string them out (I have one or two more to finish). But that made the effect seem like we were covering McCain a lot for a longer period of time.
Eh. It's not like we consciously try to balance our coverage or anything. McCain was undercovered before this and overcovered during it.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
If McCain's hopes rest on a surge of independent voters in the NH primary, then his biggest opponent might really be Barack Obama, the other candidate who is reportedly the darling of the independents. If we see McCain start teeing off on Obama with good effect, then maybe his independent strategy has a hope.
This is the perfect reminder of why. John McCain doesn't have any problems at all taking positions that'll shiv other Republicans and the Republican Party in the back if it'll promote John McCain. Someone like that shouldn't be invited anywhere near the White House, much less live there.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
For why McCain has some more liberal positions. How do you do know people's motives? Where can I sign up? Or do you just happen to think that any position that you and the "base" don't agree with must have a bad motive behind it?
Does it really matter why McCain is stabbing science and conservatism in the back in order to try to win in New Hampshire? Do you know anything at all about supposed AGW? Is there any doubt that John McCain's first and only master is John McCain?
You've got a d***ed lot of gall to go calling yourself 'PopulistConservative' then going around using 'base' as if it were a dirty word.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
can believe in global warming is out of self interest. Its rather arrogant to think that your opinion is so right that someone must have bad reasons is they think differently than you do.
"Is there any doubt that John McCain's first and only master is John McCain?"
Of course there is. If he that was the case he would've taken early release as a POW, and he would've sold out on CIR to have won the nomination. I know you think he does all of this for media attention, but that doesn't really make sense when you consider that his goal is to become president, yet he has put his principals above that. And if he just went for positive media attention he wouldn't have supported the surge. So it doesn't really make sense to say that McCain has no principal.
"You've got a d***ed lot of gall to go calling yourself 'PopulistConservative' then going around using 'base' as if it were a dirty word." I'm talking about the supposed base that McCain has supposedly stabbed in the back. This is at most the 30% of most conservative people, and you can't win elections just playing to such a base. And you're not obligated to serve only such a group. You hardliners think that becasue you are the base you have some special obligation to be represented above and beyond people who are moderate. Well I got news for you pal, the votes of the base count just as much as the votes of those of who aren't orthodox conservatives.
Have you actually looked at anything about global warming? Have you read about the Mann hockey stick graph and what a total load of crap it is? No, you haven't, and John McCain hasn't either, which is why you're swallowing whole this piece of excrement. McCain is pushing it because he wants to be loved by the media and thinks that he can win the Republican nomination if he can get enough independent liberals to vote for him.
And I'm really sure that only 30 percent of the 'base' care about, oh, illegal immigration-- must've been why it was pushed through the House and Senate while we weren't looking, then. And campaign finance reform-- to heck with the First Amendment, John McCain knows better for the country! John McCain not only has been on the wrong side of too many issues, he's been in the forefront of trying to lead us all down the Road To Hell on them. And that is exactly what I don't want for the leader of my party and my country.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
First of all show me where I claimed to be in favor the global warming theory. Actually I tend to think its likely but its not all the big of an issue and I'm not sure that humans can do a lot about it. BTW since you so convinced about it and think that scientists are on your side I would encourage to take on the challenge at the bottom of the page.
"And I'm really sure that only 30 percent of the 'base' care about, oh, illegal immigration-- must've been why it was pushed through the House and Senate while we weren't looking, then." Actually if you look at some of the polls on the issue there seems to be about a 65% support of CIR, or what the "base" calls amnesty.
I don't think the numbers were near as big as the noise on the issue, but you all had a big effect in stopping the legislation so congrats.
Try asking Erick or Thomas if I'm an 'orthodox conservative'. I'm sure they'd laugh, given a few of the back-and-forths we've had in the past.
Your use of terms like 'You hardliners' pretty much tells me that you're not a conservative of any type.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I'm very pro - life - meaning I'm in favor of crimnalizing abortion. I am anti legalized gay marriage. I am anti civil unions unles we make some kind of civil union for any couple whether the unions is sexual in nature or not. I am pro drug war to the fullest extent. I'm anti legalized gambling. That gives you an idea of where I am Socially.
Fiscally I think capitalism is great and much better than Socialism, but I still think we need a safety net. I support privatizing the school system as much as possible. I support privatizing Social Security. I support cutting government waste. After this I support us raising or lowering taxes to the point where we have a balanced budget and can start paying down the national debt.
On defense issues I was for the Iraq. A lot for the reason that I wanted to see the butcher cast out of power. When we can justify going in and taking out a brutal dictatorship constitutionally ( guess it would have to be on the grounds of defending the constitution) I would tend ot error on the side of taking out the dictator. I'm in favor of keeping a strong military.
On immigration i'm in favor of letting in as many people as possible while still being able to keep track of who and what is coming into the country.
Whether that makes me a conservative or not I don't know and I don't really care.
And rightfully so. McCain, more than any other Republican leader(including Bush), is responsible for getting the necessary troops on the ground in Iraq.
Did McC propose Petraeus and his counterinsurgency strategy? Did McC make a national address, in the face of overwhelming opposition, proposing more troops in Iraq? Did McC fight for his ability to exercise his constitutional authority over the military against massive Congressional Majority opposition?
Come on, now. You're oversimplifying by a wide margin.
who actually used his authority to usher in The Surge. And clearly putting more troops on the ground is what has made the progress in Iraq possible.
My simple point is that McCain pushed for this strategy atleast 2 years before Bush saw the wisdom and he did not stop pushing for an increase of ground troops even when it seemed his president had no intention of going this route.
Jeff, is "not oversimplified" really true? It seems to that there is a lot more to the Petraeus strategy than merely "more troops." Most of the "need more troops" arguments I heard over the last several years were about U.S. forces taking on more of the load, not less.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
My understanding is that most of the independents in New Hampshire find the Democratic primary more interesting this year. They intend to vote as D's, not as R's as they did in 2000. If that's true, any hope McCain has of improving his chances in NH by appealing to independents would seem to rest on nostalgia more than anything else. Independents may well find a global warming pitch attractive, but why would that pull them out of the D voter pool? If it's D politics they want, why not stay in the D primary?
We know that McCain has a problem attracting support from actual Republicans. Adding to his problem by becoming a Global Warming pimp seems like odd strategy to me. It's another instance of McCain seeking media approval by taking positions favored by Democrats. At what point does he figure out that being a media darling is incompatible with winning the Republican nomination?
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
At what point does he figure out that being a media darling is incompatible with winning the Republican nomination?
He didn't figure it out in 2000, so my guess is: never.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
None of the candidates are attacking McCain right now. Fred wouldn't. Huck wouldn't. Maybe Romney or Rudy would.
It was a fragile thing trying to count on New Hampshire as a stepping stone, given that New Hampshire more often than not rejects the eventual winner of our nomination these days. All those non-Republicans flocking in to send some left-wing message to our party, blah blah blah.
Though in this case, I really don't see why McCain, rather than Paul, would get those independents.
I really don't see why McCain, rather than Paul, would get those independents.
That's simple:
McCain, for all his faults = Sane.
Paul = Stone cold nucking futs.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
people in NH tend to have a very deep libertarian streak, they are not necessarily conservative. There is a very good chance that RonPaul could reach his high water mark in NH.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
McCain has been consistently with the majority of climate scientists on this issue for years now.
An open challenge to any and all reading this:
Provide as many citations as you can of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals published since 2001 that contradict the theory of global climate change or anthropogenic causation of same and I will match your 10 cites to 1 with articles supporting the theory of AGW.
BTW I think I have about 20 pdfs waiting on my hard drive, so if you want to make me work you'll have to find at least 3.
Mixing "majority rules" and "I'm so scientific" is ludicrous. Try not to do that.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
BTW I think I have about 20 pdfs waiting on my hard drive, so if you want to make me work you'll have to find at least 3.
To do what? Line a bird cage.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
To you both. Articles being published in a peer reviewed journals is evidence of at the very least meeting certain minimum standards. Being published in a top journal like "Science" or "Nature" is evidence of meeting a much higher standard. Internet crankery has no standards beyond a keyboard and internet access. I limited the challenge to this in order to limit us to evidence that has some minimal set of standards.
All theories are continuously being challenged. Thus far AGW has stood up to those challenges remarkably well. The fact is I would be convinced by one elegant paper that convincingly dismantles the theory. Thus far I have not seen 1, much less three or more. It is relatively cheap to make a challenge. The data sets are available and I haven't met a scientist without a computer. All that is required beyond that is knowledge, access to journal subscriptions, mathematical aptitude, and time. So why no publishable papers that support the position you think is so obviously superior?
McCain is a tired old joke. He doesn't stand a legitimate shot at the nomination. He won't win New Hampshire. Forget about it.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill