Outside the White House, few have been as supportive of the Bush policy in Iraq as John McCain. He helped sell the war before the invasion; he was an enthusiastic supporter of “staying the course” for several years; he heralded the so-called “surge” policy a year ago, and he’s now talking openly about leaving U.S. troops in Iraq for decades to come. McCain continues, as recently as last night, to mock anyone who’s even hinted at disagreement over the war.
It’s paradoxical, then, that Republicans who oppose the president’s Iraq policy most end up voting for the one candidate who’s done the least to oppose the policy.
Republican angst over the war in Iraq may be helping fuel John McCain’s rise as a top presidential contender, even though he has been the campaign’s highest profile supporter of the unpopular conflict, according to surveys in early voting states and interviews with GOP pollsters.
In states that have held GOP nominating contests so far, the Arizona senator has done better with people naming Iraq as the country’s top problem than with those who picked other issues, entrance and exit polls of voters show. He has also done better with GOP voters saying they disapprove of the Iraq war than with those saying they approve.
It’s a trend that’s been pretty consistent throughout January’s contests. The more he leads the cheers for the war, the more war critics support him in Republican primaries and caucuses.
Given the fact that McCain may be the Republican nominee in November, some Dems have suggested his support for the Bush policy may seriously undermine his chances. But these developments suggest otherwise. It’s worth asking why.
Steve Kornacki recently noted the confusing phenomenon in the New York Observer:
[H]ere’s the punchline: McCain’s resurgent campaign for the Republican nomination is, for now at least, being fueled by support from voters who say they are against the war — not the party base that supports it.
In New Hampshire, 21 percent of voters in the Republican primary told exit pollsters that they “somewhat disapprove” of the war. But 49 percent of those voters cast ballots for McCain — more than twice the total of any other candidate. Another 14 percent of the New Hampshire G.O.P. electorate said they “strongly disapprove” of the war. But McCain was their first choice as well, with 38 percent. (Ron Paul got 26.).
On the flip side, the 25 percent of G.O.P. voters in New Hampshire who said that they “strongly approve” of the war sided with Mitt Romney over McCain by an astounding 44 to 23 percent margin.
Since McCain only won New Hampshire by six points over Romney, it can be fairly said that he owes his victory — and his political revival and potentially his nomination — to what he might consider the pro-appeasement vote.
The same pattern was evident in this week’s Michigan primary, where McCain’s nine-point loss to Mitt Romney would have been much worse had war opponents not rallied behind the Arizona Senator.
The AP offers some possible explanations:
Republican pollsters say GOP voters unhappy over Iraq are generally displeased with how the Bush administration has conducted the conflict and don’t oppose the war itself. They say that with violence in Iraq declining in recent months, those Republicans see it as vindication for McCain’s longtime support for a continued strong U.S. military effort.
“He’s been foremost among Republican critics of the tactics in Iraq, though stalwart about the importance of winning,” said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate. “He’s getting votes from people who basically favor the war, as well as people who are critical of the effort we’ve made there.”
Lance Tarrance, a pollster and informal adviser to McCain, said reduced U.S. and civilian casualties in Iraq are helping McCain get “the best of both worlds” — support from Republicans who favor the war and from those who feel it has been mismanaged.
Others say the numbers showing McCain’s strength among GOP war critics reflect that many of his supporters are independents or have moderate views on many issues, which happen to include doubts about the war, and are not driven by misgivings about the conflict.
I have an alternate explanation: logic has nothing to do with it. Most of the voters participating in the Republican primaries may not realize McCain’s position(s) on Iraq, but they’ve been told by the media, repeatedly for years, that the senator is an expert on military matters. Kornacki pointed to the “thin to nonexistent grounding in the details of policy that most voters have,” which I think is quite right.
Dems have to appreciate these details that don’t make sense, because if they assume, “Anti-war voters will never support a pro-war cheerleader,” they’re making a costly mistake.