At RCP, Steven Warshawsky argues that John McCain must change his position on Iraq because it is… unpopular! Polls say so:
A Rasmussen Reports poll from January 29, 2008, reported that 59% of Americans want U.S. troops to be brought home from Iraq immediately or within one year, while only 35% want U.S. troops to remain in Iraq “until the mission is complete.” According to this poll, not only do 80% of Democrats favor withdrawal within a year, so do 38% of Republicans.
Similarly, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll from January 18-22, 2008, reported that 63% of registered voters think the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq right away or within the next year, including 90% of Democrats, 66% of independents, and 32% of Republicans.
***
While only a minority of Americans want the U.S. to pull out of Iraq “immediately,” most Americans are eager for a reasonable plan to end our occupation of Iraq in the foreseeable future. This means in the next year or two, not a decade or more from now. The prospect, which John McCain currently endorses, that significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for years to come, is simply unacceptable to most Americans — including, I reiterate, large numbers of Republicans, without whose support McCain cannot win in November.
 Incidentally, the Rasmussen poll has 24% wanting “immediate” withdrawal.
What Warshawsky does not consider is that 54% of Americans wanted the US out of Iraq by the end of 2007 (21% immediately) in a CNN poll taken in December 2006. or that 58% of Americans wanted the US out of Iraq within a year (20% immediately) in March 2007, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll.
So the question that should occur to Warshawsky is whether those numbers should be read literally, given that they have stayed basically static for over a year. I have addressed this same type of argument before, in the context of a two-year time frame, including the danger of confusing what poll respondents say they want with what they expect.
Moreover, if Warshawsky cares about what voters say they want, he should consider that what they want is a candidate who says what he believes, with changes in foreign policy ranking well down the list.
For McCain to flip-flop on one of his signature issues, let alone one of the few that keeps many conservatives inclined to vote for him, would be a colossal political blunder.
Warshawsky seems to advocate it because a review of his past work suggests he is disenchanted with the Bush Doctrine of promoting democracy in the Middle East, largely because he believes Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and that:
The truth is, to date, we have not made any effort to destroy the forces of militant Islam. We have only engaged in limited conventional actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and (supposedly) covert ops worldwide. That’s it. We haven’t mobilized the American people for war. We haven’t destroyed Iran and Syria. We haven’t closed radical mosques or shut down the jihadist propaganda networks. We haven’t conducted targeted assassinations of jihadi leaders across the globe. We haven’t made it clear to the terrorists and their supporters that they cannot win and that they will die.
This is essentially the first of three ways people tend to see the war. It also happens to be one which, as Warshawsky must surely have observed, has no support in mainstream politics. His argument ultimately is that a winning platform would be that the US should withdraw from Iraq in favor of destroying Iran and Syria.ÂÂ
Warshawsky wants to look very selectively at poll numbers, but certainly would not want to see what the poll numbers for his platform would look like.
If McCain changed course on the war, he could easily win the Democratic nomination. Which would make my vote for “sauteed rainbow trout and a side of asparagus” that much more likely to count on the GOP side.
Wait, the Republican candidate should change his stance on something only 35% of Republicans disagree with?
I think Warshawsky is confused about the two party system.
Given the virtual news blackout on the progress being made the poll numbers are not surprising. They will quickly change if the public is exposed to an extensive debate on the issue in a national election campaign.
I am beginning to think that he should do so. Why not? People know the Dems are lying to them, and accept it, because it makes them feel better. Why shouldn’t McCain simply do what the Dems do, and take that issue off the table?
You know what? Fuck it. Make that trout pan fried, and replace the side of asparagus with some cheddar potatoes.
BECAUSE OF THE AUDACITY TO HOPE!
Warshawsky makes me mad cause he’s not aware that what he’s suggesting is dishonorable. He needs to go away.
I want to WIN by this time next year, so we can draw down.
Is that so hard to figure out?
I kinda doubt that they’d be cheerleading majoritarian changes of heart if the majority wanted prayer at school sporting events, or no condom lessons for 5th graders, or being notified if one’s daughter was seeking an abortion.
You know what? Fuck it. Make that trout pan fried, and replace the side of asparagus with some cheddar potatoes.
Also, we all know that Sauteed is French for “Pan Fried In Butter”
…59% of Americans want U.S. troops to be brought home from Iraq immediately or within one year, while only 35% want U.S. troops to remain in Iraq “until the mission is complete.â€Â
I will acknowledge these polls when they also tell what percentage of respondents could find Iraq on a map or define the completion of the mission.
McCain was supporting the surge when not many dared to say much against Bush/Rumsfeld tactics.
Changing his position now will be political suicide. Warshavski is an idiot…
You know, he’s right. We need to destroy Iran and Syria right away.
…when not many dared to say much against Bush/Rumsfeld tactics.
When exactly was that? I think I must have blinked and missed it.
The polls are what the polls are. I am far from sure whether the basic numbers would change if the public was more informed. My theory is that most people justified the invasion on the WMD argument, soured when stockpiles were not found, and will stay soured.
The problem expressed in the initial post (aside from Warshawsky not being upfront about his premises) is that so many people read polls as though the answers are literal.
The fact that the numbers for the questions asked are basically static demonstrates a general attitude, not a specific one.
Given a choice between: (a) cut-and-run; (b) endless war; and (c) get out, but not right away, people pick (c). Whether choice (c) is 6 months, 1 year, two years, three years, etc. is quite irrelevant, as proven by the fact that the cut-and-run number hardly ever moves, year after year.
There is also the want/expect problem. Do I want to be (virtually) out of Iraq in a year? Yes — if we have won. Polls that compare “want” to “expect” show that people’s expectations regarding Iraq are more realistic.
exactly, I read the excerpt thinking, “and I want a pony” okay, not really, but it’s just as realistic.
When exactly was that? I think I must have blinked and missed it.
9/12/2001
Oh, wait. Bush was criticized then for not running in a panic from that 1st grade classroom he was reading in.
Never mind.
I think we should be there in Iraq for a long time cause they are our new friends and there’s a lot of fun things we can do together in the Middle East like capitalism and democracy and undermining totalitarian states and stuff. Liberals are no fun is the problem.
I can’t be completely certain, Sgt Ted, but I think asparagus is French for “peeled mice in heavy cream.” I could be wrong, though; my Spanish is way better than my French.
Warshawsky seems to be making some fairly large assumptions that I’m not sure are completely supportable, at least not without access to what I would think would be classified information. I don’t understand why he thinks killing crap-loads of terrorists in Iraq and/or Afghanistan doesn’t show them that, sure enough, we’re willing to kill them.
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my arguments.
I would make a few observations. First, it is demonstrably untrue that changing or modifying one’s positions is *automatically* bad politics. After all, McCain has been singing a different tune re “securing the borders” for many months — and this, apparently, is persuading some number of conservatives that he is “better” on immigration than they feared. he is also singing a different tune on the Bush tax cuts issue. This is making him a stronger candidate.
As for Iraq, only a strong hawk like McCain could credibly suggest a “new” appraoch in the Iraq War without being subjected to harsh “cut and run” criticism. I remain convinced that a majority of voters would be favorably disposed towards McCain if he articulated some “new” approach on Iraq.
Second, recall that the Republican Party got beaten badly in the 2006 midterm elections. McCain has stated that he believes this was due to excessive government spending by a Republican Congress. I disagree. The polls — admittedly, they’re not always worth very much — indicated that it was the Iraq War, above all else, that led to this massive repudiation of the Republicans. So why would you believe that we’re not heading for the same result in 2008?
IMO we definitely need a Republican in the White House in the coming years. The politically prudent course would be for McCain to try to assuage the voters’ concerns about Iraq — and yes, I do not support the current strategy — so as to improve the odds that he, not Clinton or Obama, is elected president.
Telling voters that he believes American troops should remain in Iraq for 100 years (or whatever) is simply foolish politics. The country, sooner than later, is going to demand that we leave Iraq. I would prefer that this be handled by a Republican administration, not a Democratic one.
Whatever. Douche.
Telling voters that he believes American troops should remain in Iraq for 100 years (or whatever) is simply foolish politics.
How long have American troops been stationed in North Korea? Japan? Germany? the Philippines? This country, sooner or later, is going to look at our troops in Iraq the same way they do anywhere else. All they need is people to keep reminding them how things work, not screeching about changiness and “new” approaches because it may be politically expedient in the short term. Treating foreign policy as some silly ass sweeps week marketing campaign every four years is what got us into this fucking mess.
Actually, I appreciate Warshawsky’s response.
First, as I have documented in prior posts, McCain has been able to “change” (but not really) his stance on immigration because most people do not follow politics closely enough to know what his original stance was. As for taxes, McCain is taking a variation on the Bush41 “no tax increases” route. And both are more conservative/GOP type positions. In contrast, McCain’s position on Iraq has been quite vocal and he would be moving to a more Democratic position. Maybe only Nixon could go to China, but Nixon was not dumb enough to campaign on it.
Second, I would partially agree that Iraq was one of several factors working against the GOP in 2006. So why would 2008 be different? Because it’s not an off-year election (which was an average, not massive, repudiation by historical standards for the 6th year of a presidency). Because people are seeing improvement in Iraq that was not present in 2006. Because McCain — according to those same ol’ polls — is seen as a break with Bush (and is why the Dems are desperately trying to rebrand him as Bush III). Because — according to those same ol’ polls — one of McCain’s main strengths is his image as a straight talker. The list goes on and on.
Warshawsky is left echoing a distortion of McCain’s “100 years” comments that even the liberal media rejects. Which brings us to what is missing from Warshawsky’s response — the absence of any dispute with how I have described his underlying position, e.g., his desire to destroy Iran and Syria instead, and its detachment from the realities of American politics today.
No. There’s a fundamental lie premising Warshawsky’s piece. That “‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in the Middle East” is divisible from the “preeminent national security threat of our time.” There are some truths we hold to be self-evident, shithead.
the Republican Party got beaten badly in the 2006 midterm elections. McCain has stated that he believes this was due to excessive government spending by a Republican Congress. I disagree. The polls  admittedly, they’re not always worth very much  indicated that it was the Iraq War
I could see why a democrat would think that, the Iraq war motivated a large dem turnout. That’s not why they won though. The conservatives stayed home because the elected republicans blew (I’m tempted to end the sentence there) their chance to advance the conservative agenda despite being given all three branches of government. In everything from out of control spending, opening Anwar to oil drilling, fixing social security, securing the borders, scandals with pages, fighting the global warming nuts, and on and on, the republican performance was pitiful. The war in Iraq was only an issue as far as whether it was persecuted hard enough, and the fact that they were piss poor advocates for what we were trying to do.
It’s always fun when a liberal gives the republicans advice on how to do better though. We appreciate the changiness of it.
As for Iraq, only a strong hawk like McCain could credibly suggest a “new†appraoch in the Iraq War without being subjected to harsh “cut and run†criticism.
No one can credibly suggest that altering one of the critical elements of a policy which has produced a perfect record in regards to its primary intent of preventing more 9/11-like attacks upon America, by moving this element back toward the previous policy whose record was an o-fer=zero, is rational. Such a change – swoon, swoon – not even “new”.
I don’t think McCain wants to commit political suicide, much less actual suicide.
Rasmussen has new numbers this month.
Then again, LA Times/Bloomburg is also different (January 20)
All Registered Voters: Withdraw now 20%, Withdraw in 12 months 43%, Stay as long as it takes 31%, unsure 6%
Republicans: Withdraw now 8%, Withdraw in 12 months 24%, Stay as long as it takes 61%, unsure 7%
Democratics: Withdraw now 32%, Withdraw in 12 months 58%, Stay as long as it takes 8, unsure 2%
Independents: Withdraw now 19%, Withdraw in 12 months 47%, Stay as long as it takes 26%, unsure 8%
Relying on polls is to rest upon a broken staff, Rasmussen doubly so.
CBS/NYTimes says that 37% beleive that things are going well in Iraq, though 65% disapprove. At the same time, only 30% beleive things are going well in Afghanistan yet 56% approve. That squeres? Or is it more likely that the poll is poorly formlated or administered? Or maybe “the people” really are that fickle (heck a TV ad can sway the outcome of an election, which I find mind-blowing). Even still, maybe a significant number of people just can’t get their arms around these questions–maybe there’s something wrong with people who will talk to pollsters in the first place.
Other things to consider: 57% of americans polled by ABC/WaPo in January said abortion should be legal, but that thsn’t kept Republicans from winning elections with pro-life in the platforms.
Gallup in November found 66% who thought the it was the government’s responsibility to ensure thet Americans have healthcare, but 48% said they favored maintaining the current healthcare system.
There should be another box on these polls you can check for “I have utterly no idea what you’re talking about; please, God, don’t ask for my input.”
Is he? I haven’t listened to anything McCain has said about anything for many, many years. I’ll take your word for it.
Only among those who haven’t learned not to listen to him.
I remain mystified how someone who speaks with forked tongue gets to call himself “Straight Talk.”
I’m going to take issue, as I always do, with the bolded part of this statement. I’m conceding everything else, but I really think this one item needs to keep being dealt with.
House Republicans were far more hawkish about border security than Bush. Turning them out of the congressional majority was a mind-bogglingly stupid and counter-productive act, if border security was the primary issue.
That said, I do notice that amnesty hasn’t gotten anywhere since the 2006 election, so maybe it all worked out for the good.
Which kind of strengthens the argument for not electing McCain in 2008…
I can’t get my head around how someone called a “maverick” because he constantly goes against his own party can become the leader of the party.
House Republicans were far more hawkish about border security than Bush.
I understand where your coming from McGehee, but I prefaced that with being given all three branches of government.
The discouragement republicans felt in light of that is (IMHO) what kept them home.
Steven, thank you for responding here, but that simply is not the case[1].
If the polls said what you (and Kos) claim they did, we would all be saying “President Cheney” and the troopships would be loading even as we speak. The polls lie, because they don’t ask the next question. There were, and still are, a fair number of people who think we either ought to bomb the wrapheads back to the Stone Age or give up on the whole effort, and the poll questions as stated make no distinction between that attitude and the “beg forgiveness and run like the wind” proposal. There is a distinction, and it is an important one.
The Democrats who replaced Republicans to swing the Congress overwhelmingly did so on “do nothing”, “culture of corruption”, “time for a change”, and similar campaign themes, partly because they were running in conservative-leaning districts (else those areas would not have had Republican reps in the first place) and partly to allow disgusted Republicans to sit it out with reasonably clear consciences. The Iraq War was notably missing from the platforms and speeches — and this is the source of the nutroots’ anger: Pelosi and Reid have not been able to advance their impeach-and-run agenda one inch, and their efforts to do so have left them unattentive on other issues, handing Bush some real gains. That’s because those freshmen Congresscritters have been getting cards and letters and phone calls and emails and personal visits from their constituents, carrying the unmistakable message that that’s not what they (the constituents) voted for. As a result, the Democrats’ support is a mile wide and a millimeter deep, and when they try to lean on it they fall on their faces.
It’s all very well to keep the nutroots riled up by echoing the “2006 was all about Iraq” bullshit. People who are that angry aren’t thinking clearly, and that makes it possible to run rings around them. But in the privacy of our own discourse we ought to admit at least the appearance of reality to our thoughts.
Regards,
Ric
[1]Ain’t I swave ternight? You’re at least tentatively a friend. Anybody else would’ve got “Bullshit!”
lee,
FWIW, Warshawsky is clearly not a liberal. Not many of them have the destruction of Iran & Syria on their agenda. He’s pretty much in the camp of wanting a religious crusade against Islam.
RTO,
The polling in general — including the ones you cited — has been pretty much where they are now for years, with Indpenednents matching the overall numbers. Take the middle choice. Always. It reflects the general sense that they want to be done in tension with the realization we can’t leave yet.
The difference between the Afghanistan/Iraq numbers is (imho) pretty simple also — most approve of Afghanistan, regardless of conditions, because of 9/11, while most disapprove of Iraq, regardless of conditions, because big piles of WMDs were not found. Iraq was never going to have the approval Afghanistan does, even if WMDs had been found, because libs would have stuck by their position that it was wrong from the start.
everyone,
Note that 57% were opposed to US involvement in Vietnam in 1972. How did that work out for McGovern?
Most approve of Afghanistan beacuse they’ve been told it’s okay (I’m letting my inner cynic out tonight) just like they’ve been told Iraq is bad. And if the leftists get their wish and with draw from teh bad, Afghanistan will become the new bad–it’s trending that way already.
If we abandon the Iraqis, we’ll abandon the Afghans in less than 18 months. Not least because, long before the terrorists in Iraq follow us to teh US, they’ll go where it’s easier to get as us–Afghanistan, and in 6 months violence levels in Helmand will look like Anbar in early ’06, making the work of the “nothing worth war” crowd that much easier.
…and to tie one of my earlier points to Ric usual excellent point, the freshmen House Dems are not thrilled at all about having to run on a ticket with either Hillary or Obama. Past polls showed either shaving about 6% off their margins.
And Warshawsky thinks it’s okay to abandon the principle in persuit of a contest.
Warm up that big old “NULL and VOID” stamp to clearly mark 4000 personnel jackets and invalidate the sacrifices of those of us who didn’t have to give all.
Unless he’s really advocating, “tell ’em what they want to hear and we’ll do what we want after we win.” Because that’d be SOOOO much better.
RTO,
I don’t doubt the Left would try to abandon Afghanistan if they succeeded in surrendering in Iraq. But there has always been more public support for Afghanistan than Iraq, which is what I think those poll numbers reflect. Again, polls can tell you general things, but often are over-read on the specifics.
No, Warshawsky is pretty much against the doctrine of trying to spread democracy because he thinks Muslims can’t handle it. Withdraw and bomb is pretty much his thinking (albeit oversimplified).
Warshawsky is clearly not a liberal
Oh…OK.
I guess I was thrown by his desire to withdraw from Iraq, and didn’t think he was serious about destroying Iran/Syria.
It seems to me if you’re concerned about Iran/Syria, having 150,000 troops in Iraq might be a good thing, being right smack dab between the two.
Also, his easy acceptance of the concept of flipping positions, and that telling the voters the truth(he believes American troops should remain in Iraq for 100 years) is foolish politics made my progg radar squawk.
Anyway, I admit I didn’t read the links, and only responded to what you wrote. I’m going to put on my pointy hat and sulk in the corner now.