With Sen. John McCain as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, anticipate the war in Iraq making a comeback as a major campaign topic.
It's already begun, with antiwar groups planning a protest outside of McCain's campaign event this weekend in Connecticut. The groups, who for the last two years have kept reporters' e-mail boxes flooded with shots at President Bush, now are aiming those barbs at McCain, attacking him for his defense of the surge.
The Connecticut location for the protest shouldn't be surprising. McCain will be campaigning with Sen. Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat who was ousted in the 2006 Senate primary by antiwar voters in Connecticut, forcing him to run for and win re-election as an independent.
McCain was a vocal defender of the surge throughout. But because of the press attention that goes with a campaign, if McCain is the nominee, does he become the chief defender of the strategy, surpassing even Bush? And how will that work, with the president taking second billing on the chief legacy issue of his tenure?
— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (4)
McCain is one of many Republicans out there who fought for the surge and now we're seeing the benefits of that position, which is substantial progress in Iraq. However, the upcoming presidential election could become a referendum on the war itself. Both Clinton and Obama said they want to pull the troops out as soon as possible if they are elected, so there will be a clear distinction between them and the Republican candidate this fall, especially if it's McCain. My hunch is that this is going to be the central issue in the campaign, even greater than the economy itslef. If that is the case, then I think the Republicans will win, just like Nixon beat McGovern over the war in Vietnam in 1972. Americans hate to fail and they hate to lose, which is why the Republican candidate (whether it's McCain or Romney) will win. If America didn't vote to lose in Vietnam in the 1972 election, it is not going to vote to lose in Iraq in 2008.
Posted by Libertyship46 | February 1, 2008 4:36 PM
Anti-war groups. They are always with us. A refusal to defend their own country's interests always make them unpopular and untrustworthy. The best approach is to ignore them unless they interfere with freedom of speech and assembly.
Posted by Edward A. Ryan III | February 2, 2008 7:47 AM
In years past although I've always been a registered independent but voted democratic. This year, after seeing that party so emotionally, politically, and financially invested in a defeat that honestly wish for regardless of the implications, I can no longer vote for them. I will, in my own small way, punish them with my vote come November.
Posted by Brian Ludwig | February 3, 2008 10:43 PM
The return of the invasion of Iraq as a major campaign topic would be a hopeful signal that we are still politically conscious in the United States.
McCain defends the indefensible and will pay on election day. Were Bush democracy to completely sweep the Iraq countryside tonight, the price paid, in financial (we are broke) and human terms, was long ago unacceptable. This is the natural outcome of an invasion that had no rational foundation.
Posted by David Miller | February 12, 2008 4:50 PM