One gets the distinct impression that these guys are not familiar with the phrase, “Never let ’em see you sweat.” Republicans are not only concerned about John McCain having said — more than once — that he’s willing to maintain a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, they’re apparently in a near panic about it.
Josh Marshall notes the latest in a series of press releases from the National Republican Congressional Committee:
Despite Being Widely Discredited, Democrats Level False “100 Years” Accusation at Senator John McCain in Desperate Election Year Ploy
Washington — Today, Chairman Tom Cole made the following statement in regards to the dissemination of talking points issued by the House Democratic Caucus in advance of Gen. Petraeus’ report before Congress, which included a statement falsely accusing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of “promising” 100 years of war in Iraq:
“With a long and protracted primary battle brewing in the presidential contest, Democrats are justifiably worried that a John McCain candidacy could hurt their chances from the top of the ticket on down. Unfortunately for the American people, when the facts don’t meet the political goals of some Democratic leaders in the House, they resort to desperate tactics such as undermining the testimony of a widely regarded military General or distorting the words of the Republican presidential nominee.”
Given the intensity of the GOP response to this flap, it doesn’t look like it’s Democrats who are “worried” and “desperate.”
There’s no great mystery here. McCain’s (repeated) willingness to maintain a century-long presence in Iraq has become the single biggest mess for his campaign that Republicans can’t explain away. It doesn’t need to be distorted; it’s damaging enough on its own.
First, it’s politically tone-deaf. As Josh explained, “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.
Nevertheless, what we’re seeing unfold is 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.
Hopefully, Dems will a) ignore the push-back; and b) keep poking the sore spot. Indeed, by hyperventilating, McCain and his allies are telegraphing which attack hurts the most.
Republicans insist that McCain’s words have been “distorted.” In some instances, that may be true. But what they probably fear the most is taking McCain’s comments on Iraq at face value. They don’t need embellishment — they’re devastating all on their own.