For a variety of reasons, it looks like the political world is far more interested in disputes surrounding Democratic presidential candidates, most notably Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s not too big a mystery — the Dems are better candidates, with more interesting arguments, and with broader questions about race and gender that the media likes to explore.
But let’s not forget that the increasingly two-man race for the Republican nomination is generating some noteworthy clashes as well. John McCain, for example, had vowed, repeatedly, to stay positive, and refrain from going negative against any of his GOP rivals. Apparently nervous about his standing, McCain threw that promise out the window over the weekend.
Senator John McCain stepped up his attacks on his Republican rival Mitt Romney on Saturday, accusing him of once wanting to withdraw from Iraq and likening him to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in his approach to the conflict.
In response, Mr. Romney lashed back, saying Mr. McCain was being “dishonest,” and demanded that he apologize.
Mr. McCain’s comments marked the second straight day of going on the offensive against Mr. Romney, and they came as polls showed the two men locked in a tight race in Florida, where the Republican primary will be held Tuesday. […]
“If we surrender and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos,” Mr. McCain said to reporters in Fort Myers on Saturday morning.
At a town-hall-style meeting later in Sun City Center, a retirement community, Mr. McCain reiterated his accusation. “My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal,” Mr. McCain said.
I’m hardly inclined to go to bat for a Republican presidential candidate, least of all Mitt Romney, but McCain’s attack not only violates his positive-campaigning pledge, it’s just flat wrong.
That McCain feels the need to lie about Romney’s record — usually, Romney can lie about his record quite well on his own — suggests a level of anxiety for the senator that’s almost surprising. If McCain’s in the lead, and he’s confident that he’ll win, why bother making up bogus attacks?
As for the facts, Time’s Michael Scherer notes why McCain’s attack is a “misleading low blow.” The NYT also does a little fact checking in its piece.
The charge appears to be misleading. The McCain campaign pointed to remarks Mr. Romney made last year in which he said he believed that President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq should have “a series of timetables and milestones” that they discussed among themselves but did not announce publicly.
But Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year.
As for the broader political context, the National Review’s Rich Lowry highlighted what he described as McCain’s “rank dishonesty.”
How will this play? If there’s one thing we know about late-breaking events in this primary season, it’s that it’s impossible to know how they’ll play. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it back-fires on McCain. The attack succeeded in the sense that it tipped the conversation back toward Iraq, but at a potential cost to McCain. His most important political asset is his political character, his reputation for truth-telling and honorable politics. This dishonest low-blow — if it continues to get attention in the closing hours — could chip away at that asset.
Tipping “the conversation” was almost certainly the point. The more the campaign focuses on the economy, the more lost McCain appears. So, he made up a bogus attack regarding Iraq, and sure enough, it shifted attention away from the economy — and towards McCain’s dishonesty.
For what it’s worth, Mike Huckabee is taking McCain’s side in this flap, despite the fact that McCain is objectively, demonstrably wrong. The former Arkansas governor might as well campaign while wearing a sandwich-board: “Dear John, please let me be your running mate. Love, Mike.”