Romney's Timetable Triangulation

After hearing endlessly from all corners about how McCain was lying about what Romney had said about timetables and that McCain was somehow going "below the belt" on Iraq, it's nice to see someone put the record straight.

From Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard:

Did Romney say he would, like Bush, veto anything with a timetable? Or does the rest of his answer suggest that he's for the timetables as long as they're private? Again, it's debatable.

But to go as far as CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, who claimed that McCain is "lying" about what Romney said, is a stretch. At the time Romney made the comments, many observers, including several reporters, took him to mean exactly what McCain is imputing to him now. If the Romney campaign protested that interpretation, their objections did now show up in any of the follow-up reporting on his comments.

McCain has long believed that Romney hedged on the surge and the war in Iraq. At a debate in Durham, New Hampshire, on September 5, Romney answered a question about the surge by saying, "the surge is apparently working." McCain pounced a moment later. "No, not apparently. It's working." It was one of McCain's strongest debate performances and he points to it as a "seminal" moment in the remarkable turnaround of his campaign.

UPDATE: Also, there's this from Byron York:

I think it's indisputable that, at the time, McCain's Republican rivals supported the surge but were also happy that it was McCain who was all the way out on the limb. Last February, someone in the Romney camp told me that yes, Romney supported the surge, but that "McCain owns the surge."

UPDATE: looks like some of Mitt's supporters are still thinking in these terms: Well if the surge continues to do well, Mitt can take the credit, but if it goes sour, Mitt won't shoulder the blame!

Reality Check - If IRAQ somehow gets WORSE with the current strategy in place, there is NO WAY *ANY* Republican (sans Ron Paul) would be able to win in November.

And if voters want an "outsider" in a Clinton v. Romney race, they are likely to go with Mike Bloomberg - who will see an opportunity to appeal to the broad center in such a polarizing contest.

New Hampshire Exit Polls Demonstrate McCain's Broadbased Appeal

I spent this summer working at a camp in New Hampshire. I saw a lot of signs for Mitt, for Rudy, for Obama. But I wasn't seeing any for John McCain. I didn't quite get it. Over the course of the summer, McCain's poll numbers were cut in half both here and nationally. I'm still not sure why it took so long for New Hampshire Republicans and independents to come back to the maverick they embraced in 2000. But in the last month and a half, New Hampshire came back to him.

Part of it was the success of the strategy McCain had long advocated in Iraq. Part of it was the endorsements by newspapers to the right and left. And a large part of it was McCain's interaction with people, his candidness and his character, his willingness to engage those who disagree with him.

CNN's exit poll numbers show McCain's broadbased appeal. He won absolute majorities of those who look most for experience and most for honesty in a candidate. He won among both men and women. He won among those who are married and those who are single. He won those with college degrees and those without. He won among the most pro-life and the most pro-choice. He won those who cited their top issue as Iraq, terrorism, and the economy. He won among those who attend church weekly, monthly and those who never do. He tied Huckabee for evangelicals and Mitt Romney for Catholics. He won every income bracket except those making over 150K.

John McCain said he no longer owns a gun, but he won 42 percent of those here who do. This septuagenarian won over not only young people, but also those in every age group except his own. This staunch defender of the troop surge in Iraq won not only among those who were strongly against the Iraq War, but even among those who had at least a somewhat favorable view of Ron Paul.

While Romney bills himself as the candidate as change, John McCain won voters who are most anxious for that change. While Romney is running for CEO-in-chief, John McCain won among those most worried about the economy. With the GOP overseeing seven years of a rapidly rising national debt, McCain is the one trusted to stop it. And with Bush-Cheney unpopular among people across the political spectrum, McCain won those dissatisfied with the current administration.

With the large number of moderates and independents who voted in the New Hampshire GOP Primary, it may well be the case that these results are not consistent with the views of card-carrying Republican voters in other parts of the country. What it does demonstrate is that John McCain stands the best chance to win against the Democrats, especially in a swing state like New Hampshire.

Biden on McCain in 2004 - "John's right" about Iraq

Back in May of 2004, Biden and McCain were together on Meet the Press.

On mistakes made in Iraq -

McCain:

. . . One was the lack of sufficient troops there which allowed the looting to take place, which established kind of a lawless environment. I think any law enforcement person would tell you that the environment is a very important aspect of it. The fact that we island-hopped and left certain areas of towns and cities around Baghdad as well as in the Sunni Triangle alone. I think it's because we probably didn't make sufficient plans to turn over the government as quickly as possible and a level of expectation that probably was unrealistic, which led to a certain amount of disappointment, but a lot of it had to do with lack of sufficient troop strength at the time that "combat phase" was over.

So yes, it's true McCain has been vocal and consistent about this all along, even while he supported Bush for reelection.

Biden's response:

. . . Number two, too little power. John's right. Imagine if we had not treated the French--excuse me, the Turks with such disdain, that 4th ID would have come down from the north through the Sunni Triangle, there may not be a Sunni Triangle. As John pointed out, too few troops, looting, 850,000 tons of weapons left open, not able to guard them and then we went with too little legitimacy. . .

On how to turn things around in Iraq-

McCain: I believe that we have to make sure that we stick to the June 30 date. I believe we should accelerate the date of the elections. I think that many parts of the country, including in Baghdad, that we could have these elections. They may be flawed but the quicker we turn the government of the Iraqi people over to the Iraqi people, the more it will be then the insurgents verses the Iraqi government rather than the insurgents against us. And I would accelerate the timetable for the elections and I would certainly enter into the status of forces agreement so that we would know exactly the relationship between the U.S. military and new Iraqi government.

Russert: Senator Biden?

Biden: About the same as John. I would make this about the Iraqi people, not about us. Look, it's real simple. Why are we there? We're there now to make sure the Iraqis end up with a government. What kind of government? One that's secure, its own borders, is representative, is not a threat to its neighbors and does not have weapons of mass destruction. How do you get there? You get there by an election.

An election is going to take place, hopefully in November or December of 2005. What do you need to do that? You need more security and more legitimacy. . .

So back in 2004, Joe Biden recognized that security was a precondition for representative government in Iraq. The Democrats today have little patience for an increased troop presence that aims at precisely that. But back in 2004, there was much more acceptance among Democrats for the strategy that McCain then advocated, that is now working to reduce violence. So much so that many Democrats were excited about the prospect of a Kerry-McCain ticket. There is a lot of nonsense floating around about how McCain flirted with the idea of being the Dem's #2. The flirting was in fact from entirely the other direction, from the Democrats and MSM types like Russert. McCain gave his full support to Bush's reelection. I've long been an admirer of McCain, and my decision to vote for Bush's reelection in 2004 was greatly influenced by McCain's support. I imagine that I am hardly the only one for whom this was the case. Those who seem perpetually angry at McCain's supposed disloyalty to the GOP should consider that had McCain's endorsement was the one that mattered in 2004, and it mattered all the more because he was considered so highly by many moderates and independents. Had McCain been less enthusiastic in his support of the President, I was fully ready to write-in "John McCain" come the first Tuesday in November.

I wish Joe Biden well in Iowa. He seems like a pretty decent guy who has seen rough times in his personal life. He didn't vote to cut off funding for the troops, isn't in complete lock-step with the abortion lobby, and has more foreign policy experience than the three Dem front-runners combined. Contra Coulter, if Democrats had any brains they'd probably vote for Biden. And Biden's words of praise for McCain are just as true as they were back in 2004 ( sans the "vice"):

I think John McCain would be a great candidate for vice president. I mean it. I know John doesn't like me saying it, but the truth of the matter is, it is. We need to heal the red and the blue here, man, the red states and the blue states. And John McCain is a loyal Republican. God, he drives me crazy how loyal he is as a Republican as much of a friend as he is. We disagree on a lot of things, but I'll tell you, the fact of the matter is that we've got to bring together the red and the blue here. . . I'm counting on him being a more loyal American than he is a loyal Republican. And, John, I'm not so sure you're so happy about the Senate. I'd like to see you president instead of the guy we have now. . .