I suspect that I'm thinking too hard about this, but hear me out:

the GOP knows that McCain is easily their silver bullet candidate in the 2008 general election. they also know that (although the constituents may have finally learned) he has historically not been as strong in the primaries and road to the nomination.

McCain has been a proponent of sending more troops to Iraq for some time now (and I believe we needed to either do so--maybe even on a bigger scale than we're doing now, or simply quit and come home...but that's another thread). McCain's position on this issue could likely be a major political liability (although presented as his determination to do what is right rather than what is popular might could ease the political pain).

What I wonder is if the big GOP machine decided that the Iraq surge would put all of the '08 contenders (except for McCain, who was already on the same page) in a box. Either they could break party lines and not play the political game, or they could go along with it. In either case, they'd be on equal footing with McCain on the two things that are somewhat of a political liability for him.



Seperately, the surge plan details all sorts of requirements for the Iraqi government to keep. Again, a win-win politically. If they play ball and things work out, then you can't beat that outcome. If they don't play ball and things continue to shit the bed, it's an opportunity for our government to pass as much of the blame as they can to the Iraqi government, then pull out of Iraq ("don't look at us! we told you so, and you didn't listen!")

[Edited on January 23, 2007 at 9:36 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/23/2007 9:33:20 AM

The "surge" is too little and too late to fix Iraq. Another 100,000 may have helped several years ago. This isn't going to help the situation, and I don't think the public buys it.

I think your theory falls short, even if all candidates support this, for one simple reason: It is being dubbed the "McCain Doctrine" or "McCain Plan". If it doesn't work, he will be (rightfully or wrongfully) tainted far more than others that signed onto the plan.

1/23/2007 9:38:54 AM

Quote :

"The "surge" is too little and too late to fix Iraq. Another 100,000 may have helped several years ago. This isn't going to help the situation, and I don't think the public buys it."

not at all the point of this thread.

Quote :

"I think your theory falls short, even if all candidates support this, for one simple reason: It is being dubbed the "McCain Doctrine" or "McCain Plan". If it doesn't work, he will be (rightfully or wrongfully) tainted far more than others that signed onto the plan."

such a backfire would certainly be possible. i haven't really heard it called the McCain Doctrine/Plan very much, though.

1/23/2007 9:44:10 AM

The GOP doesn't have a very firm grip on potential candidates at this point. You have a few people out there with their fingers in the air trying to figure out what to tell the people so enough of them will put them into power again.

Whomever hits the right chord will get to call the shots. The Repubs are so weak and lacking of principle and willpower right now... any spineless moderate promising massive giveaways will probably get the nod.

1/23/2007 11:04:09 AM

Some people think that McCain talked about the Surge so that he could say, "look we would have won if they had listened to me." and that Bush is just giving him one last Fuck you, by actually trying it.

1/23/2007 11:14:47 AM

haha, that's probably actually just as likely

1/23/2007 11:45:20 AM

A few things:
1. I haven't seen much proof that the Republican base isn't supporting the President on this, so unless the surge goes horribly wrong (which, you know, isn't outside the realm of possibility), I'm not sure McCain is losing ground in the primary.

2. Point #1 is exacerbated by the fact that, save Brownback, no GOP presidential contender has expressed opposition to the surge.

3. Only John Edwards has really tried to tie the anchor of Iraq around McCain. He's started calling it "the McCain doctrine," counting on th idea that, as you mentioned, it'll be a liability for McCain.

1/23/2007 12:04:29 PM

Quote :

"(which, you know, isn't outside the realm of possibility)"

As it's currently implemented, it's well within the realm of possibility. It would require a much bigger surge, or a shift to more draconian tactics to change the course of the war now.

1/23/2007 12:14:47 PM

^Edwards did coin it (brilliant political move on his part), but it has already begun to enter the mainstream vernacular. I've already heard the term used on the 24 hour news networks in normal conversation, even on FoxNews. I believe the surge was referred to as the McCain Doctrine on Meet the Press Sunday. Whether most voters attach the plan to McCain consciously or subconsciously stands to be seen.

1/23/2007 12:16:13 PM

In a poll in North Carolina done by Civitas only 11% of the state supports sending more troops. This is pretty big considering Civitas is a very conservative think tank.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244584,00.html Fox has a disheartening (if you are the president) nationwide poll from 5 days ago.

1/23/2007 12:25:57 PM

^^^^ that's pretty much what i was getting at

1/23/2007 12:27:16 PM