McCain’s brain: The Pensito Review brain trust was standing around our virtual water cooler yesterday, scratching our heads over Sen. John McCain’s siding with George Bush on the surge deal in Iraq. Not to mention some of McCain’s recent appointments to his exploratory committee and his tactics on dealing with Mitt Romney’s campaign. Thank goodness every Friday the National Journal polls D.C. insiders on the hot topics of the day and then shares what movers and shakers in both parties have to say about a topics — or we’d still be scratching our heads.
This week’s National Journal poll of political insiders asked participants whether they thought McCain’s support of the surge would be advantageous to his presidential bid. Of the 77 Democrats tested, 82 percent said no — that it would hinder his chances.
“Once the Republican candidate that Democrats were fearful of, [he] has changed dramatically,” one Democratic insider said. Another pontificated, “It will help him in the primary, but just kill him in the general.”
GOP insiders were fairly split, 48 percent to 43 percent, in favor of McCain’s stance helping his chances. The respondents who said McCain’s support would hurt him offered sentiments similar to the Democrats’, including one who said: “It’s hard to run as a maverick when you are supporting the status quo.”
Insiders were also posed a question on a top-tier Democrat who hopes to return to the White House in 2008. Asked whether it would be a good move for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to denounce her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, seven in 10 Republicans said no. Like the Republicans were on McCain, Democrats were split, 56 percent to 44 percent, with the majority saying that Clinton should come forth and say her vote was a mistake.
A Democrat who might like her to do so explained, “One moment of candor, authenticity, real emotion would be a plus.” Another called the vote “the dividing line between her and the Democratic nomination.” On the other end of the calculation, one said, “She’s in a box on this one, but changing now might do more damage as it would appear just too politically expedient.”
Republicans on the “no” side agreed, saying that she’d be viewed as a flip-flopper if she changed her position, and that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama have already earned their chits in the field as anti-war Democrats. But as one Republican voting “yes” put it, “She looks incapable of admitting mistakes if this continues.”
What do you think? Leave a comment.
I’ve never understood what is wrong with saying, “We were lied to, and since my vote was based on false information, it was wrong.”
You can tell this is an insider poll of insiders because they’re questioning the Dems’ votes on the war and ignoring the true outrage.
Question ought to be: “Should the president admit he took the country to war based on lies? And how soon after making the admission should he resign.”