In the Arena

The Republican Debate

I don’t think it was a very good night for McCain. His attack on Romney for supporting “timetables” to end the war is the same sort of political crap as Bill and Hillary Clinton’s attempt to make it seem as if Barack Obama liked Reagan’s ideas better than the Democratic Party’s–it a political word game, and meaningless. The fact is that Romney is right: secret and not-so-secret timetables exist for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. General Petraeus has one; the Pentagon has another–faster–one. There is a debate going on as to which timetable will be followed. (As I noted in an earlier post, President Bush is now hinting that he’s in favor of a slower timetable.)
Why would McCain stoop to this? Because he senses a greater truth: that back in the days before the level of violence was reduced in Iraq, Romney was wriggling around, trying to seem “strong” on defense, but looking for ways to keep his options open, just in case the surge failed militarily. I have no doubt that in McCain’s mind, the difference between him and Romney is that he stood firm on Iraq and Romney (and everyone else) was wavering.

At least once a debate, McCain says that he “staked my career” on the war in Iraq. He did it again tonight. But that isn’t quite true: there is no great price to pay in the Republican Party for being a hawk. McCain did–courageously–stake his career on another issue that is anathema to the Republican Party base: immigration. So it was interesting that McCain totally ducked the question of whether he would vote for his own comprehensive immigration bill in tonight’s debate. Not much straight talk there.

Finally, McCain is right on the most basic point: Romney doesn’t have much standing to complain about skeevy politics, given the gazillion dollars he has spent on negative ads. In fact, there’s a certain pleasure to be had in watching Romney swallow a stiff dose of his own medicine.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    William B. Plowman / NBC

    Why Can’t President Obama Get Surrogates You Can Believe In?

    It’s one of the great unexplained frustrations of the Obama presidency: Perhaps the most telegenic political leader of his generation has not been able to recruit a bench of top-flight, telegenic spinmeisters–called “surrogates” in the business–to fight his battles on cable and network television.

    His top two economic spokespeople during the great decline of 2009–Larry Summers and Tim Geithner–had minds that chafed at the remedial logic of televised debate and voices that mumbled through talking points. His most able economic debater, Austan Goolsbee, had some success but then gave up the White House to return to Chicago and the academy. His top political spokesmen–Robert Gibbs, David Axelrod and David Plouffe–deliver a punch as hard as anyone, but for the same reason rarely elevated the President’s case beyond the ring. His Vice President, Joe Biden, hits his marks, but only when he is on message. The DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, struggles to transcend her Congressional roots. And Bill Daley, the President’s erstwhile chief of staff who was hired in large part because of his surrogate chops, faded from the scene after few unremarkable Sunday show appearances.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Obama’s Health Care Box

    Alec MacGillis of the NewRepublic has been doing some fine campaign reporting this year and here he offers a smart look at what may be the most important state of all in November–Ohio. The most striking part of the piece for me, one that illuminates an essential conundrum for Barack Obama, occurs when MacGillis goes door to door with a labor-affiliated political organizer in a white working-class neighborhood in Columbus:

blog comments powered by Disqus