McCain's Numbers Problem
Published April 26, 2008
As Vice President Dick Cheney would say, “So.”
Buried on page 7A, but above the fold, of Tuesday’s USA Today was a story that President George W. Bush has now achieved the lowest approval rating in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. As revelations go, this is pretty small stuff, probably fighting a losing battle for space in the mainstream consciousness with the news that Lindsay Lohan may have fallen off the wagon again.
After watching the John Adams mini-series that recently concluded on HBO, it seems not only fair but relevant to ask, is this what the Founding Fathers really had in mind when formulating the country? Certainly, the political dialogue of that day was often far more caustic than the worst of what we see today. And in context, the Founding Fathers probably could actually imagine a president whom 69% of the people believe was a failure. But that is more forgivable in context. The country was in its formative stages. That’s hardly a ready excuse these days.
In getting these kinds of numbers, Bush had to transcend party lines, something he was nearly unable and mostly unwilling to do during his disastrous two terms. Consider this analysis from that USA Today story: "Views of Bush divide sharply along party lines. Among Republicans, 66% approve and 32% approve. Disapproval is nearly universal — 91% — among Democrats. Of Independents, 23% approve, 72% disapprove of the job he’s doing."
If you’re John McCain’s strategist, or indeed if you’re John McCain, what is it exactly about these numbers that makes you want to align yourself with the Bush presidency? Undoubtedly, driving these numbers is the two-headed monster of a failing economy and a failing war in Iraq. Yet there is McCain, in lock-step with Bush, staying the course until someone can find a definition of victory that they’re comfortable with before bowing out. In the meantime, the bodies pile up and the economy slips ever deeper into the abyss.
McCain knows that to get elected, he must do more than pander to the radical right wing of the Republican party, which still is as queasy about him as many Democrats are about their two choices. He’s going to need some crossover help. But the numbers are the numbers and if he's going to avoid an electoral flame-out come November, walking arm-in-arm with Bush on Iraq, the economy, and everything else wouldn't seem to be the answer. It certainly won't move the needle much on those Democrats and independents driving the dissatisfaction with Bush or even on those one third of Republicans who are likewise unhappy.
Forget the theoretical polling that is taking place right now — Hillary Clinton vs. McCain, Barack Obama vs. McCain, etc. The Bush numbers tell McCain exactly how high a hill he must climb. Maybe that’s why, as The New York Times reported on Friday, McCain is starting to distance himself from Bush by openly and harshly criticizing Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. But that’s a layup. The litmus test is Iraq and on that McCain can’t see the forest for the trees.
- McCain's Numbers Problem
- Published: April 26, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: War and Terrorism, Politics: U.S., Politics: Policy, Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: Government, Politics: International, Politics: Local and Regional
- Writer: Gary D. Benz
- Gary D. Benz's BC Writer page
- Gary D. Benz's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
- RSS Feeds
- All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article- BC articles by Gary D. Benz
- Politics: War and Terrorism
- Politics: U.S.
- Politics: Policy
- Politics: Elections and Candidates
- Politics: Government
- Politics: International
- Politics: Local and Regional
- All Politics Articles
- All Opinion articles
- All BC articles
All BC Comments
Comments
The sport of politics and politics of sport suit you to a tee. I had that same conversation with a stranger in a gallery this evening--I said McCain will never win because nobody in America wants that war in Iraq.I don't see why McCain does'nt see that. Bush is arrogant and stupid enough to stay stuck---McCain is stuck without explanation. Appreciated this one, Gary.
Ruvy: I guess it depends on what your definition of "terribly small." Over 4000 U.S. soldiers have died thus far, thousands upon thousands have been injured. The estimates on the number of dead Iraqis vary, but it's somewhere around 100,000 from the figures I've seen.
Looks like McCain is volunteering to Reap The Whirlwind.
McCain's problem is that he can't win new supporters by just slightly changing his positions. He would have to alter his stances on Iraq, Iran, McCain-Feingold, Bush's tax-cuts-and-deficts, etc. by 180 degrees to attract the independents(and some Republicans) he needs.
And he really has no credibility on Iraq. Our military is not sustainable for the long haul there unless we have a draft and a war-tax to pay the cost. It is likely to both fail and bankrupt us otherwise. McCain hasn't--and can't--explain how we can be there for decades without sufficient troops, equipment and money.
"It may be naive, even pandering, when both Clinton and Obama talk about a quick troop withdrawal."
It's much more than that. It is them asking us to beleiev soemthing that they know that we know they will never do. The Decmoracts big win in 2006 was pretty much due to Iraq and all of the promises that were made about Iraq. yet the Dems ahve failed to deliver on anything that they promised.
Ruvy is correect in saying that Iraq is not Vietnam when considering mere casulaties. 59K American soldiers dead in Vietnam compared to around 3000-4000 in Iraq. However Derek is also correct in saying that nobodu in America supports the war in Iraq. This is exactly why we lost Vietnam. The American military did not lose a single military engagement with the enemy during Vietnam. Not one! It was our the loss of our will at home to win that did us in. THis is what's happenign with Iraq. No combatant in any war should expect to win if they are not prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice.
While the Iraq war may be an unpopular venture, there can ne denying, that based on events in the world over the last ten years, taht radical islamic terrorism is a global problem that must be confronted, wether in Iraq today or someone else tomorrow. Anyone who does not understand this very simple reality has no business being president of the USA or head of state of any other westernized nation.
"59K American soldiers dead in Vietnam compared to around 3000-4000 in Iraq."
- Archie/Bing
The implication being "only" 3000-4000, which of course has no meaning if someone never risks being one of the "3000-4000."
----------------------------
"No combatant in any war should expect to win if they are not prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice."
- Archie/Bing
Worthless rhetoric unless spoken from personal experience.
I say again: We cannot indefinitely meet our military obligations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe without 1) a draft and 2) a tax to pay for it all. It cannot be done, IMO, and to believe it can, flies in the face of evidence, military testimony, experience and logic.
Even Newt Gingrich believes we fell off a cliff in Iraq(but not McCain.)
So, unless an advocate for the war will also advocate and support what is necessary and fundamental to fight it, his opinion is worthless, a belief in what can never be.
I look forward to the crying from the left when they lose another presidential election...I just wonder who they'll blame it on this time...when Obama wins this nomination and the NORMAL people in this country see just how far out there he really is he won't stand a chance in the general election. McCain or no McCain...hell, Pat Paulsen has a better chance! Or even Joe Walsh!
The comment "McCain or no McCain" makes absolutely no sense, unless the writer knows something we don't.
And who are the "normal people"?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/76212)
One small quibble with this article;
Bodies piling up in Iraq?
Grieving is painful for any parent who has lost a child to war, or any spouse who is widowed due to war, or for any orphan who will no longer see his parent. I'm not minimizing any of this. Nor am I minimizing sacrifices that American soldiers make for their country in Iraq.
But this is no Vietnam.
The American economy is going over the edge, and the cliff comes closer daily due to continued involvement in the Middle East. And when it does tip over, it will be no fun for you all.
But considering what it could be, the butcher's bill for Iraq is terribly small.