Hanging ‘100 years’ around McCain’s neck

The McCain campaign doesn’t seem especially concerned about Democratic attacks that he’s running to give the nation a third Bush term. He doesn’t seem to care when people highlight his age. He shrugs off questions about his reputation as a hothead with a nasty temperament who flies off the handle on a regular basis. He couldn’t care less when he’s caught flip-flopping, abandoning long-held principles, or getting confused about the basics of public policy.

But bring up his line about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years, and McCain goes completely apoplectic. It seems to be the one point of criticism that McCain and his campaign fear most.

Fortunately, thanks to the Republicans’ coordinated freak-out, the Democratic National Committee knew precisely where to poke McCain.

As Nico Pitney noted, the McCain campaign has “sent out no less than 13 emails decrying the use of the “100 years” line by his political opponents.” But there’s nothing in the DNC ad that’s false — while some, at times, have falsely suggested that McCain has vowed to keep the war going for 100 years, this commercial just uses the senator’s own words.

In a press release unveiling the ad, DNC Chairman Howard Dean carefully worded his attack to make sure it’s absolutely factual: “What John McCain doesn’t understand is that the American people aren’t fine with being in Iraq for 100 years in any capacity. The American people want a President who will responsibly end the war, not more of the same failed policy in Iraq that continues to cost $12 billion a month. They want a President who will invest that money here at home to create jobs and ensure our kids have health care. The more voters learn about John McCain, we’re confident they will recognize that he is the wrong choice for America’s future.”

Sounds good to me.

There’s no great mystery here. First, McCain’s comment was politically tone-deaf (every time he said it). As Josh Marshall explained a couple of weeks ago, “No one wants to be in Iraq 100 years from now, even if McCain stipulates to the fantasy that Iraqis will be happy having us occupy their country forever and that the place will become like Finland. And none of our soldiers will ever get killed there and it won’t cost any money. If that’s the explanation for why we shouldn’t be concerned that he’s happy to stay in Iraq for a century, that just tells people that McCain is living in a fantasy world.”

Second, it’s an awful policy prescription. As Joe Klein recently noted, “The problem with John McCain’s 100 years in Iraq formulation isn’t that he’s calling for 95 more years of combat — he isn’t — but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is — and has always been — volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.

And third, McCain has flip-flopped more than once on whether he actually thinks his own idea is any good.

There’s simply no reason for Democrats to feel even the slightest bit hesitant about using this. Even in its full context, McCain has said, on multiple occasions, that he’s comfortable leaving U.S. troops in Iraq for a century or more. The only way that’s even possible is to establish permanent bases, which are opposed by both Iraqis and Americans, and which fuel anti-American violence. He said it, he meant it, and Democrats would be insane not to tell voters about it.

And yet, McCain and Republicans have, for several weeks, launched a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts.

As such, I’m delighted the DNC is ignoring the push-back and poking the sore spot.

1. The ad should run in every market around the clock or as close to that as is financially possible.

2. When St. John finally gets into a debate with the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, he should be asked if he meant that we should occupy Iraq for 100 years and if he didn’t mean that, why did he say it? How long does he believe our troops should stay in Iraq? If it’s until “victory” is achieved, EXACTLY what will that victory look like and how, since even the generals say there’s no military solution, will American troops bring that about? Is he in favor of permanent bases? If so, why? If not, why not?

3. St. John should also be asked to explain, in detail, the exact nature of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq and why it’s important for American troops to be in the middle of a religious war that’s gone on for 1000 years. In another ad, perhaps a clip of St. John mixing up Sunni and Shia would be effective.

4. In short, McCain is a flip-flopping moron when it comes to Iraq policy and it’s not just 100 years comment that will illustrate it to the voters. We need to hit him as hard on this as the Republicans are hitting Obama on Reverend Wright and his bowling score — because, guess what? Iraq actually matters!

  • When it comes right down to it, there really isn’t a great deal of difference between the philosophy behind a “100-year Fiefdom” in Iraq—–and that of the Tausent Yahren Reich” boasted about by another particular short-tempered individual from 70 years ago. All McPhony needs is the Chaplinesque mustache—but my 10-year-old gave that to Hillary earlier in the week….

  • Bravo to Howard Dean and the DNC! Makes me think . . . had Dean been our nominee in 2004, we still may not have won, but we at least would have fought hard to the finish, rather than standing by idly while the GOP allies swiftboated us.

    It’s good to know that, even as our presidential candidates get embroiled in the idiotic trivialities that the press throws at them, the DNC is still behind the scenes, doing its job. I’ll take Howard Dean’s DNC over Terry McAuliffe’s any day! (And somewhere, the late, great Maynard H. Jackson is smiling!)

  • What’s so disingenuous about this ad is that McCain did not say he would stay in Iraq 100 years. He said he’d stay in Iraq 100 years after we win, and he’s the only candidate willing to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to win, even if it takes 100 years.

  • And beyond McBush flipping out over it so does the CORPORATE/REPIGLICAN/CRIMINAL MEDIA ………..doing all they can to defend their Corporate Boy so that a government BY AND FOR THE FEW, GREED, CAN BE SUSTAINED. All these millionaire ‘pundit pimps’ and ‘reporters’ care about is their own status as the ‘media elite’ who have been made that way via the ‘faustian deals’ they have made to get there. So creatures like Charles Gibson’s main focus during that ‘mugging’ of Obama during that ‘debate’ was his own capital gains interest … how much he would be taxed. So all of these corporate pimps have and will come to McBush’s defense at every turn. What is the difference between them and the mafia really ? They create they corporate / media narratives that have no relationship at all to average people living their lives of hardship .. zero. These narratives are all designed to take down any democrat, whoever they are, who threatens they status as the ‘ media/ corporate elite’ …

  • It is important that the media referee the things politicians say to be sure they don’t suggest anything misleading to the public. If the Republicans ever did anything like that, you can be sure we’d go just as hard on them.

  • The only things Repiglicans are hard on . . have hard on’s for…. are other men in the men’s room … just ask Chrissy Matthews ….

  • …while some, at times, have falsely suggested that McCain has vowed to keep the war going for 100 years…

    It’s true that McCain never said he wants to keep fighting for 100 years, but that is the logical implication of what he’s saying. That is, the reason there is fighting in Iraq is because Iraqis want Americans to leave. If Americans never leave, Iraqis will never quit fighting. The proposition of Americans remaining peacefully in Iraq is a paradox.

    I’m sure Finland would feel the same way.

  • You just Bounce around the wingnutosphere for a while and you can tell that the “100 Years” comment has wingnuts tied in knots.

    Take a tour of RedState and you can tell. After it was these guys that tried to cover for McCain by comparing military bases in Georgia 100 years after the civil war to having military bases in Mesopotamia.

  • The 100 years quote, plus McCain singing “Bomb Iran” (tio the tune of Barbara Ann) and a picture of Bush and McCain hugging, plus a gentle reminder of who put us in an economic mess, with the exception of a possibility of widespread vote fraud (like Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004) whoever the Democratic nominee is just be able to walk backwards in to a landslide victory.

  • “The American people want a President who will responsibly end the war,……. ” Hmmm….How about a President who voted AGAINST going to war in the first place??Wasn’t that a pretty responsible choice,showing exceptional judgment? Wouldn’t it follow that an equally responsible choice would be likely as to how to RESPONSIBLY extricate ourselves,also?

  • 1. The ad should run in every market around the clock or as close to that as is financially possible. — dalloway, @1

    It’s the qualifier — “as is financially possible” — which is the nub of the problem. I don’t think I’m the only one who is refusing to send money to DNC *because we do not have a nominee*. I did send them some but refused Dean’s try at a second dip and sent a letter instead, explaining just why.

    DNC has an obligation to support the Dem presidential nominee. For the moment, since we don’t have one, all they can do is chip away at the opponent, with generic ads. That’s fine; I have no problem with that part. But the time will come, when they will have to support the nominee in other, more candidate-specific, ways — promoting ours, rather than taking theirs down a peg or two. If that nominee is Hillary — who, at this point, could get that nomination only through chicanery — then I have better ways of spending my cash than sending it to DNC. # months ago, I would not have minded too much (though, even then, would have been predisposed against her a bit); now, it’s totally unacceptable.

    Dean can’t force either candidate to do what they don’t want to do. But there’s no reason why he shouldn’t pressure them to. And, hopefully, my letter will serve as one piece of ammo to reinforce his arguments. I do realize my $25 or 50 is nowhere near the amount the fat cats can contribute as a pressure point for the opposite outcome and that they’ve already threatened to do exactly what I’m doing. But, hey… In the long run, a fat cat still has only one vote, same as a skinny FM K9, so, why not let Dean know I, too, exist?

  • #5___I don’t know if you ever saw the movie called Network. Written by Paddy Chayefsky,a first rate American writer. Won multiple Academy Awards,back in the early ’70’s. Beg,borrow,or steal a copy. This story,although fiction at the time, is a blueprint for how corporate controlled media (have) would dissolve the fabric of democracy -a precursor to exactly what has happened with the likes of Fox ,and ,the unholy trinity of religion,politics,and media mass propanda. This movie spawned the character Howard Beale,who implored America to throw upon their windows and yell out,” I’m mad as hell,and I’m not gonna take it anymore!!”—–Biitter Mr. Beale,……………where are you now???

  • all they really need to do is get the election close enough to steal and provide the memes and distractions to cover it up – a growing number of Americans thinking that the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections were stolen, not to mention the US Attorney purge, the Justice Department’s gaming the system from the inside, illegal redistricting, illegal phone jamming, voter ID laws that serve to suppress likely Democratic voters and FEC Commissioners who have a history of illegal partisan voter suppression.

    There is ample evidence that republicans are working to steal 2008 – and that is before you even get to the hanging chads”, questionable SCOTUS decisions and Diebold hacking.

  • If the dim-Dems can’t win this one over a hot-tempered, flip-flopping- over-aged, economic ignoramous just by playing his own words back to him, and reminding the American sheeple which party it is that got us into our deep and worsening mess, then it’s all over but the funeral.

    Of course the dim-Dems are much better at fighting with each other than with the real enemy. This ad, and many more like it, should be saturating the airwaves, the net, and every other form of media. If it were I might even be willing to chip in. But that’s only me.

  • Well, well, well (3 holes in the ground)… An interesting development here:
    http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/25/obama-democratic-party-close-to-fundraising-deal/

    Obama’s campaign has money (and to spare); if he decides it’s safe enough for him to share it with DNC for the good of the party and an early start on general elections, I have no problem with that; I trust his judgment. Plus, I have been thinking for a while that he has more than he needs for the primaries and wondered how he was going to spend the surplus, since I don’t think he he can carry it over towards the general.

    But, I’m not going to change my own attitude towards DNC’s fundraising problems *just yet*. According to the article, Dean is in deliberations for a similar fundraising-sharing agreement with Clinton and I’ll wait to see what her response will be. She seems to be in a bind — damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    If she doesn’t agree to a mirror deal… It’ll be used against her as one more proof that she doesn’t care about the lot of the party but is focused, exclusively, on her own, personal needs — “after me the deluge” and, if not me, be damned to you all — sort of thinking.

    OTOH, if she *does* agree… What does she have to offer, other than a debt-sharing plan? Even if her claim of having raised 10mil in the first 24 hrs post-PA is true, it’s still not enough to retire all of her campaign’s debts (to others; the self-loan of 5mil isn’t even being talked about any more). On top of which, it looks to be a one-time effort, a bit like the Paulists’ rebellion a few months back (there’s also news on TPM — hidden in the comments somewhere — that a Hillraiser is about to defect to Obama, come Monday). So, if she were to agree, it would be interpreted as an eagerness to share in DNC’s windfalls. I’m beginning to agree with my husband once again: “poor woman, can’t win for losing”…

  • Libra_ If Shrillary believes in herself so much,why doesn’t she loan HERSELF the money? Is there a rule against that? Wouldn’t that be putting her considerable personal wealth where her political rhetoric mouth is ? Wouldn’t that prove she’s representing the party instead of representing herself? $109 million income and she expects poor folks working at WalMart (especially women) to underwrite this exercise in personal ,political ego?Thanks in advance for any feedback.

  • McBush has said a bunch of dumb things and the MSM seems to be ignoring them.

    About time SOMEONE called him on it.

  • The press is calling McCain on his use of his rich wife’s private jet, too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
    April 27, 2008
    McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost
    By BARRY MEIER and MARGOT WILLIAMS
    Given Senator John McCain’s signature stance on campaign finance reform, it was not surprising that he backed legislation last year requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets. The law, which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares, was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field.
    But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain’s cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain, according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.

  • “…No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts…”

    The only way that is possible is because you allow it to be by buying into it with a predictable reaction. Hitting McCain where it really hurts just means touching him anywhere. He’s pathetic as a presidential candidate and so far has just been ignored. He’s not a hero or a maverick or a straight talker or shooter. He’s next to senile as a nominee but he was the least embarrassing candidate republicans had to put out there. Never act like he’s a serious threat to be president. In fact, one should just laugh at the suggestion. McCain’s insane and only money has kept him in the game this long…my friends. Geez, what a phony. More wars McCain who doesn’t have a clue about the economy…what a joke.

  • Renell, @19

    She already *has* lent herself 5 mil and that debt is in addition to the 10mil+ she had at the end of the first quarter. Apparently, she’s also buried it deeper in her 1st quarter fundraising report, so as to make it less obvious; that’s what I meant when I said (@18) that it wasn’t being talked about much anymore (MSM’s wimping out on reporting being a given). I guess it’s still a debt but, if she defaults on that one, no bailiff is gonna come after her and her household linens.

    Why she wants money from women who work their third part-time job at Walmart? Because it allows her to claim that her support is as broad as Obama’s, if in a different sector of the voting public. But I don’t think she’s getting all that much money from them; I shop at WalMart fairly regularly (at least once a month) and talk with “the help” there (as I do at all my other regular shopping stops); those people really are at the end of their tether and it’s “pox on *all* your houses” for most of them. Most of them won’t even go and vote in November, unless they happen to be laid off all their jobs and have the time to do it.

    Quite frankly, I’ll be *very* interested in seeing her 2nd quarter fundraising reports because I can’t figure out who might have contributed that kind of money. Her core supporters (fat cats) have maxed out a long time ago and the poor ones, even if they will vote for her, are not likely to commit more than I do to Obama (ie $25-50, *max*), simply because they cannot afford it. Yet, her 24hr-after-PA take was supposed to be netting in the $200 range per person, mostly from new donors… *Just below* the limit at which individual contributions have to be reported.

    re 109mil income… While I share your frustration at the obscenity of the sheer size of it, it is a one time deal rather than a regular, yearly, event; it’s, also, still “small potatoes”, compared to some, who have worked much less to achieve it. And while I’d love to see *everyone* (politicians especially) donate their “surplus” (income over 200-250K, depending on location, but including *all* sources of it) to community needs, it’s not gonna happen, so — with barely a grumble 🙂 — I’ll settle on progressive taxation.

    I don’t, BTW, see any correlation between such personal loan or donation to the campaign and a proof of party-loyalty. If anything, I see it as the opposite — the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of self-gratification (that’s how I saw Mitt’s self-loans also).

  • N Wells, @23,

    It is — or will/would be – if Dean falls for it. I’m hoping that this trying to strike a deal with Clinton, similar to the one he has with Obama, is just his way of treating everyone equally, with no prejudice, for appearances sake.

    Like I said above, I think she’d be damned either way — whether she agreed to it or not — and, if she had, she has nothing but debts to offer as her share. Additionally, there’s very little love lost between Dean and Hillary’s Quorn-pack (aka DLC). So, I’m keeping my fingers crossed, uncrossing them only long enough to tell him that he’s not getting a red cent from me until she’s out of the hunt.

    I meant to — and forgot — suggest a fascinating word and concept to Renell, when I posted @24, but it will work here also. The word is “trismus” and it seems to describe, fairly well, what has happened to Hillary: she’s no longer able to open her jaws and let the prize drop, but rather than be faulted for it, she should be pitied; it’s a condition which, ultimately, leads to a painful death.

  • A 100 year war – it would be fine for McCain so I guess Howard Dean should asked the question, “where will the troops come from?”.

    I mean really, McCain would have to start a military draft, because stop loss doesn’t cut it, NOT for as long as McCain wants war in Iraq, even if it’s just for another 5 years. A vote for McCain would be a vote for the military draft LITERALLY. A vote for John McCain would be a signal that the people of the US WANTED a long term war, wanted a military draft. McCain is running on “NOT losing the war” as his top campaign issue and that’s long-term no matter how you stack it.

  • Maybe the Dems should point out that the current “voluntary” military forces won’t make that hundred mark. And with recruitment kinda failing, to last a hundred years implies — the draft!! Gasp!

  • I agree with the ad, but Dems: take all argument away from McCain and make it clear that he would have us stay indefinitely under peaceful conditions. Even this shows fundamental understanding of the middle east so shocking that it is impossible to think of McCain as the “foreign policy candidate”. How utterly naive to think that U.S. troops could reside peacefully in Iraq under any conditions.

  • Comments are closed.