<p>So McCain is staking out his territory as not only a staunch defender of the war in Iraq, but a big advocate of escalating the war.</p>
<p>OK. That limits his appeal to a minority of the electorate, maybe even a small minority (close relatives of Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld?) But, heck, it’s what he believes, so go for it, right.</p>
<p>Then today he says that Rumsfeld is the worst Sec of Defense in the country’s history? Doesn’t that start to slice off even more support? I mean, what base of voters is he targeting here? Voters who love the war in Iraq, but dislike Don Rumsfeld?</p>
<p>I think he is targeting those who support the troops and the mission; but who think Rummy is callous, cold-hearted b@st@rd who views our soldiers as little plastic army men who are quite expendable. HEY! That would be ME!</p>
<p>McCain IS following the polls. He’s following the views of Republican primary voters who support the surge and approve of W. If he wins the nomination, he’ll try to tack to the middle as all of them do.</p>
<p>Fair enough. But, what having staked out the territory as the pro-war candidate, what voters does he hope to gain by trashing Rumsfeld and the Bush administration? I just don’t understand the political strategy. Seems like he’s kicking potential supporters in the teeth with no upside.</p>
<p>I agree with what you say. But, why alienate supporters of the Bush administration? I mean…those are pretty much the only voters who would buy McCain’s desire to escalate the Iraq war. It’s just strange. </p>
<p>Targeting voters more hawkish that Rumsfeld and the neocons. Wow…that’s pretty far to one end of the political spectrum.</p>
<p>ID - lol…unfortunately, that’s the John McCain way, and probably why he’ll never win. Interestingly, there may be a substantial niche there though. My father-in-law tells me the troops hated Rumsfeld; but they absolutely think it is impossible to leave Iraq at this point. I don’t like that we are in Iraq; but I also don’t think we can leave the country to the Shiite extremists. What a huge crack we are in. It boggles the mind.</p>
<p>Well, he’s gotta distance himself from Rummie’s boss somehow, who called Harriet Myers by far the most qualified person in the country for the Supreme Court (so the ones we got are distinctly second rate. But since he can’t attack the boss directly…</p>
<p>People who supported the war have to be furious at Bush, Cheyney, and Rumsfeld. Someone has to be to blame for the fact that we have lost, and lost billions. By taking the position he has, McCain is basically saying to people who support[ed] the war, especially Republicans: “Don’t second-guess yourself. You made the right choice, but you had the wrong leaders. I have the masculine strength to wage a war if necessary, and the skill to win it. I don’t turn tail and run when the moods or winds shift.”</p>
<p>I actually think it’s a good pitch. Lots of people don’t feel comfortable with cutting and running. There’s no risk that he’ll actually have to pursue that strategy. And if people attack him for it, he just says, “I know what it is to make sacrifices for your country, and I know what it is to fight a war without support at home. This is what we have to do to win and to make our country safe.”</p>
<p>It would make sense if McCain were running against, for example, Cheney. But, he already has staked out the far hawk end of the race. Is he worried about somebody outflanking him?</p>
<p>Maybe he’s worried about Lieberman switching parties and jumping into the Republican primaries!</p>
<p>ID and JHS - I think the real ‘bite ya in the butt’ issue for most of those running for President is going to be trying to back away from prior support of the war. It’s a real conundrum for both Republicans and especially Democrats who voted for the war. I think McCain recognizes that and has figured out how to play both sides of the issue. He’s ‘attacking the war’ in a way that is not repulsive to those who supported Bush when Bush freakin’ lied to us and in a way that shows McCain supports the troops and that he is not a coward in the face of a difficult task. And given that Bush has lost tremendous ground with many many Republicans, I don’t think it’s possible to alienate enough former Bush supporters to do a candidate in. I mean seriously, how many does he have left anyway??</p>
<p>mini - if you think Iraqis have control over their own destinies, I have a bridge for ya.</p>
<p>He also just came out and said he wants to overturn roe v wade. And I don’t think he was talking about water activities.</p>
<p>Bye John.</p>
<p>That sound you hear is the 40% of America that decides who wins or loses the presidency. It was yours to lose, and you’ll get your 30% and lose. I have been willing to vote for him the last two times. Now I gotta find another guy to support.</p>
<p>mini - if you think Iraqis have control over their own destinies, I have a bridge for ya."</p>
<p>I’ll take the bridge, thank you. I think they have far more control than the pork munchers in the Green Zone. It’s just a matter of time… (After the hostile, aggressive occupiers leave, things will evolve pretty quickly.)</p>