Will has a very interesting column on McCain’s and Romney’s immediate problems. McCain, to avoid contradicting himself, may be soon be stuck with repudiating the president’s Iraq strategy as immoral. And Romney, in light of new evidence, now has a harder time showing that he’s not contradicting his earlier, more socially liberal positions just to gain conservative support. (It does appear that Romney did attempt to position himself to the left of Ted Kennedy on some issues when he ran against him.)
Meanwhile, John Edwards is entering the race on the Democratic side. It would be easy to misunderestimate him, given his lame vice-presidential run. But he’s done well in making himself look and sound more seasoned yet still mighty telegenic. Edwards is clearly a very smart guy with considerable personal discipline. And he’s been concentrating on winning in Iowa, where he apparently now leads Senators Clinton and Obama. That Iowa strategy has worked before.
And the southern white male strategy has been the only winning ticket for the Democrats since 1960. (Gore, for reasons I’ll explain later, doesn’t seem southern enough--or at least most of the Gores don’t.)
McCain’s defense of the war effort, and his articulation of what is necessary to procure victory is forcing the entire GOP to take notice of him, whether they wish to or not. McCain is leading, sometimes we don’t like his leadership, {campaign finance reform legislation comes to mind...}, but one thing we all acknowledge, McCain is a force, and after a second Bush term of anti-leadership, anti-forcefulness, anti-unilateralism, McCain’s type of leadership could easily seem a breath of fresh, non-internationalist, American air.
Bush’s second term is leading towards a McCain or a Gingrich moment. Both men are clear on the war, clear on the stakes, clear in doing whatever it takes to defeat our enemies.
McCain is making people forget the Gang of 14 deal, and forget campaign-finance reform legislation. The war is a thing of such scale and moment, that the problems that Republicans have with McCain will appear inconsequential. And in reality, they are inconsequential compared to the war.
When did McCain start worrying about contraditing himself?
What’s of greater importance, maintaining consistency, or winning the war?
There is a problem about McCain’s recommendations. I don’t think increased troop levels will truly end all terror bombings. It might reduce the incidence thereof. But the terror is being promoted by Iran, and thus I don’t see the wisdom of tackling IRANIAN sponsored terror WITHIN the confines of Iraq. Sooner or later, if this war on muslim sponsored terror is real, we’re going to have to allow our military response to expand to the full measure of the problem, and thus expand out into the true battlespace. And that means IRAN. So I would oppose reinforcing Iraq, but would fully favour sending an expeditionary force into Iran. And we should do the same in Syria. Take a look at our casualties when our forces were on the move, and now examine the numbers of casualties ever since we allowed our enemies to seize tactical and operational initiative. The best way to REDUCE casualties, carry the war to the true enemy, and deliver the psychological blow that needs to be delivered throughout islam, is to move on Tehran, and reduce Damascus.
The establishment doesn’t want any part of that however, but whether they will or no, the real war, and not this phony war, this sitzkrieg, the real war is, as we saw on 9/11, it is going to intrude on their complacent, little existence.
I think it’s time for conservatives to make their peace with McCain. The war is the paramount issue.
Edwards is clearly a very smart guy
Clearly? You keed?