The Big Reason McCain Will Lose in 2008

It is almost June and Democrats are still bickering over who should win the Democratic Presidential nomination. This seems to doom the success of the Democrats in November as McCain is able to focus on the general elections and campaign in swing states – wrong. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, which is looking like Obama, the Democratic candidate should be able to have a clear and easy path to the White House. Despite what some people have been saying, the reason for Democratic success has nothing to do with Iraq. Sure, the majority of Americans believe Bush failed in Iraq mostly by going in there in the first place. The problem is that we are there now and the question is not who could better wish away the fact that we sent troops in Iraq but rather who has the better plan on Iraq now that we are already there. Hillary Clinton can bash the Iraq War all she wants, but did she not originally support the Iraqi invasion? Did she not say that Iraq was a threat in 2003? Others look to Obama and point to the fact that he opposed the war from the start, but at this point, who honestly cares about what he would have done…we want to know what he will do now. I am not so naïve to believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq when we entered the country, but one thing we can be sure of is that they are there now. Thus, it seems clear that the United States must have at least a minimal military role in Iraq simply to quell the threats coming from Al Qaeda. In fact, Obama and Clinton do not seem to be opposed to having military bases in Iraq. Both Clinton and Obama have recently been silent in Iraq and while they may plan to bring all of the troops home as soon as possible, who is to say that this will happen on day one. There is a reason for the Democrats’ silence on Iraq. The troop surge has reduced violence in Iraq as casualties are going down. In the end, it is not Iraq, but rather the economy that will doom McCain’s chance of winning the general election of November 2008.

The economy has been very poor in the past few months as the US dollar is getting weaker and weaker. While in actuality the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy may be partially responsible for a dim economy the public is going to primarily look to one person…the President. With the poor economy, George W. Bush is not only tarnishing his own image before he leaves office, but the whole image of the Republican economy. Come November, many people will see John McCain as a fiscal conservative not much different from Bush who has let the economy get to where it is. When your Party’s President is in office you will have to pay the price of his unpopularity. While McCain is seen as a maverick in the eyes of many he is still a Republican who has been endorsed by Bush. Many likely voters have been hit in some way shape or form by the poor economy and their attitudes will be reflected in the polling booths in November. McCain better keep his fingers crossed that the economy has a massive turnaround if he wants to take the White House.

Anne Coulter Unfair on McCain

An edited version was published in the February 18, 2008 issue of the The Heights.

Politically, I am a registered Democrat but I consider myself to be very moderate. In fact, all of my more liberal friends would consider me to be crazy “right wing” (although I beg to differ). I am someone who does his best to keep up-to-date with politics especially now with the presidential primaries. Today, I would like to comment on something that really hit me hard.
Recently, Anne Coulter, a very conservative columnist, made several unreasonable shots at John McCain. I never particularly liked Anne Coulter, but nothing made me loathe her as much as Thursday’s interview with Fox News claiming that if it is a Clinton-McCain battle, she would not only vote but campaign for Hillary Clinton because McCain is too left-wing. Now it is one thing to support someone that I dislike or even flip-flop, but it is another to lie and make unreasonable attacks on someone. I agree with her that McCain is more left on immigration and detainee rights than your typical neoconservative, but Coulter goes so far as to say that McCain pushes a very liberal agenda on foreign policy particularly the war in Iraq. Far crazier, she says that if Hillary is elected she will have a substantially more conservative foreign policy than McCain. Her basis for this is that McCain was against the Rumsfeld plan on Iraq which most people would now agree was an awful way to approach Iraq. The Rumsfeld plan put troops on the ground that were incredibly under-resourced (and by now virtually everyone but Anne Coulter and a few others would agree that the Rumsfeld plan was an utter disaster). Coulter says that because Hillary did not directly speak out against the Rumsfeld plan as McCain did, Hillary must necessarily be for it. Additionally, she points to Hillary’s original approval for the War in Iraq to indicate she still supports the war. The problem I have is that Coulter has neglected way too many cold hard facts. One of the few clear plans Hillary has provided for America if elected President is this 100 Days plan where she plans to have all troops withdrawn within the first year of her presidency. This stands in stark contract with McCain’s support of the troop surge. Coulter claims that McCain’s support for the surge is a ruse, and she argues McCain only claims to support the surge because he needs the Republican nomination. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. McCain has been in favor of a comprehensive troop surge from the start, in fact, the reason he disapproved of the Rumsfeld plan and criticized the War on Iraq was because of the incredible mismanagement in terms of going in with too few troops who were left to die. Coulter claims that even if McCain is genuine about his support of the troop surge he has no right to claim that he is the only Republican who ran for the nomination to support the surge. Again, Coulter misrepresents what McCain has been claiming. McCain rightly states that he is the only Republican (of the nominees) to oppose the Rumsfeld plan in favor of a troop surge. While other nominees now favor a troop surge, NONE of them originally opposed the Rumsfeld plan.
One more point she made that is worth mentioning is that Coulter chastised McCain for opposing Bush’s tax cuts. She thinks that because he opposed those tax cuts he obviously opposes all tax cuts. Coulter again misses the boat by several nautical miles. McCain soundly claims that he opposed Bush’s original tax cuts because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. Additionally he argues that there were riders on the plan that would be devastating for an already weak economy. Most importantly, however, Bush’s tax cuts were not permanent, which was troubling for McCain. McCain continues to say that he is in favor of permanent tax cuts that are accompanied by spending cuts. Since Bush’s tax cuts were neither permanent nor mandated cuts in spending, it does not seem too hard to understand why McCain voted against Bush’s plan. This is something Coulter conveniently ignores.
It made me sick when I heard her mischaracterize issues, and I sure hope that people do not take her seriously. Congratulations Anne Coulter, if you had not done so before, you just lost all your credibility as a legitimate political columnist.

Please forward any comments to maerowit@bc.edu