Pro-McCain and Anti-Escalation Are Contradictory
[Cross-posted in my DKos and MyDD diaries.]
John McCain has been the most vocal candidate in the 2008 Presidential field in favor of Bush's escalation in Iraq.
Nevertheless, Senators who claim to oppose Bush's escalation have endorsed McCain's bid for the Presidency. Susan Collins of Maine is serving as one of McCain's state co-chairs, and it was just announced that John Warner of Virginia has endorsed McCain.
Obviously, when supporting a candidate, it is not a statement that you agree with 100% of that candidate's platform. It is foolish to think that any voter will agree with every single individual position a candidate holds.
However, Iraq is the number one issue for many voters and will be front-and-center in the 2008 election. Given that these candidates are campaigning to be Commander-in-Chief, their position on this issue is of paramount importance.
As such, I'd argue that a person, much less a U.S. Senator up for re-election in 2008, cannot reconcile being pro-McCain while claiming to be anti-escalation.
Therefore, it is contradictory of Senators who claim to oppose Bush's escalation in Iraq to endorse McCain for President as Susan Collins and John Warner have. It will be interesting to see how the issue impacts their potential re-election bids; and it will be interesting to see how John Sununu, Gordon Smith, and Norm Coleman approach the 2008 Presidential race.
Nevertheless, Senators who claim to oppose Bush's escalation have endorsed McCain's bid for the Presidency. Susan Collins of Maine is serving as one of McCain's state co-chairs, and it was just announced that John Warner of Virginia has endorsed McCain.
Obviously, when supporting a candidate, it is not a statement that you agree with 100% of that candidate's platform. It is foolish to think that any voter will agree with every single individual position a candidate holds.
However, Iraq is the number one issue for many voters and will be front-and-center in the 2008 election. Given that these candidates are campaigning to be Commander-in-Chief, their position on this issue is of paramount importance.
As such, I'd argue that a person, much less a U.S. Senator up for re-election in 2008, cannot reconcile being pro-McCain while claiming to be anti-escalation.
Therefore, it is contradictory of Senators who claim to oppose Bush's escalation in Iraq to endorse McCain for President as Susan Collins and John Warner have. It will be interesting to see how the issue impacts their potential re-election bids; and it will be interesting to see how John Sununu, Gordon Smith, and Norm Coleman approach the 2008 Presidential race.
posted by Senate2008Guru | 3:07 PM
7 Comments:
Wait, so you can't support somebody you disagree with? Worse than being idiotic, that's an outright dangerous line of reasoning. Warner and McCain have been in the Senate with each other for decades, and they share a rich history of friendship, as well as a bond of having served this country in war. To suggest that Warner is precluded from both following his convictions in opposing the war and supporting his long-time friend is asinine.
I'm literally speechless at the notion that you, a worthless hack with a blog, are in any position to tell a stateman like John Warner who he can and cannot support. There is absolutely no reason why Senator Warner should give a damn about what you find contradictory.
EDIT: Where I said Warner opposed the war, I meant opposes Bush's troop surge. A minor mistake.
Absolutely right about McCain and escalation.
If you want to know why John Sununu hasn't been voting the way Collins and Coleman have, it's because of his close ties to McCain. This is his Achilles' heel.
Great blog, btw.
Oh, and I'm Dean from Blue Hampshire. I haven't figured out yet how to change my username on Blogger (doodler is an earlier blog I had).
Dean - Thanks for reading.
va blogger - Seriously, did you even read the entirety of my post? I ask this because the very first line of your comment is "Wait, so you can't support somebody you disagree with?"
You might want to re-read the third paragraph of my post, which reads:
"Obviously, when supporting a candidate, it is not a statement that you agree with 100% of that candidate's platform. It is foolish to think that any voter will agree with every single individual position a candidate holds."
So, care to re-state your comment, va blogger?
If you're holding true to your preface, then the rest of your post doesn't matter.
I've yet to see a compelling reason why John Warner can't follow his convictions and oppose the surge, but also support the campaign of his long-time friend and national hero, John McCain.
va blogger - The rest of what is written doesn't matter? So you did choose not to read it then?
Here's the one-paragraph nutshell for va blogger, since his attention span seems pretty short:
Iraq is pretty much the #1 issue on voters' minds. McCain is the loudest pro-escalation voice in the Presidential race. To support McCain is essentially to support the escalation. (Like I said in the actual post, if you choose to actually read it, not every position will be shared by a candidate and his/her supporters - but Iraq is a biggie.) To support McCain but claim to oppose the escalation is contradictory and should raise eyebrows.
Yes, I read all of your original post. I responded to your original post, but you deflected it with your preface, which is completely the opposite of your point. Just because you can't get your argument straight doesn't mean I have a short attention span.
Your central assertion is that supporting McCain is supporting the escalation. This is both over-simplified and just plain wrong. Just because John Warner's convictions lead him to oppose the Iraq War doesn't mean that he can't respect the opinion of someone who disagrees with him. In fact, the fact that the two disagree with each other only strengthen's Warner's endorsement, since its proof that McCain attracts supporters for reasons other than his position on the issues (namely, his leadership and character), and it strengthens each man's position, since is shows that two experienced statesmen who are long-time friends can have divergent opinions on a serious issue.
Moreover, its extremely sad that you don't possess the ability to have respect for opinions that disagree with your own. And its even worse that, not only do you not expect esteemed Senators like John Warner to possess that ability, but you chastize them for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home