Hmph
There's a good deal of hand-wringing in the media today (this is representative) about seemingly inexplicable poll outcomes in Michigan: John McCain drew strong support from those voters in Michigan dissatisfied with the Iraq War. Commentators are smugly chalking this one up to idiot Midwesterners who aren't playing with a full deck.
I think there's a better explanation that gives more credit to the average Michigander's instincts. First of all, the war is an accomplished fact. We can argue until we're blue in the face that it was illegitimate, that we went for the wrong reasons, that Bush snookered us, etc. None of this is germane. This isn't some game, where you throw the outcomes out for breaching the rules. We're stuck there and we have to face the consequences of our actions. Running like hell isn't much of an option; logistics alone leave us in Iraq for at least another eighteen months from the day we start withdrawing. During that time, of course, those troops who remain will face an escalating level of danger, as will anyone unlucky enough to throw their lot in with us Yanks. It's helicopters-on-the-Saigon-rooftop Round II. Politicians know this, which is why anyone pledging immediate withdrawal is really just currying favor with the anti-war crowd. Immediate means well into the middle of their next term, and it'll be really, really violent, with possible spillover to neighboring territories (which, in turn, might require additional deployments).
McCain has not promised withdrawal. If anything, he's far more hawkish than Bush, and always has been. He obviously believes the war is necessary, and has refused to trim sail and adopt more popular positions. On the other hand, there's credibility to McCain's hawkishness that's lacking with most decision-makers these days. McCain's father and grandfather were both admirals; McCain himself served in Vietnam, spent several years as POW, and endured torture at the hands of his captors. At least one of McCain's sons is, I believe, on active duty in the Middle East. McCain knows what it means to send our young men and women to die in a foreign country; in the eyes of many voters this gives him credibility. I've talked to numerous anti-war Democrats in this state who agree with this analysis and trust McCain more than any other Republican to prosecute the war in a responsible manner (though they would still prefer a Democrat in office). There's also, of course, the contingent who believes the prosecution of the war has been lamentable, and for the same reasons above think McCain would do a better job.
There are two complicating factors specific to Michigan's primary; the absence of Obama and Edwards from the ballot, and the fact that Michigan liberals really loathe Romney. This isn't just normal loathing, this is you're-not-from-here-regardless-of-what-you-claim and your-father-would-be-ashamed-of-you loathing. George Romney, and his equally well-liked successor Bill Milliken were moderate Republicans. Taken together, many voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat voted for McCain because they see him as honest, at least for a politician, and because he had the best chance of beating Romney. I don't think this is particularly hard to grasp, but the Internet politicos are in a tizzy.
I think there's a better explanation that gives more credit to the average Michigander's instincts. First of all, the war is an accomplished fact. We can argue until we're blue in the face that it was illegitimate, that we went for the wrong reasons, that Bush snookered us, etc. None of this is germane. This isn't some game, where you throw the outcomes out for breaching the rules. We're stuck there and we have to face the consequences of our actions. Running like hell isn't much of an option; logistics alone leave us in Iraq for at least another eighteen months from the day we start withdrawing. During that time, of course, those troops who remain will face an escalating level of danger, as will anyone unlucky enough to throw their lot in with us Yanks. It's helicopters-on-the-Saigon-rooftop Round II. Politicians know this, which is why anyone pledging immediate withdrawal is really just currying favor with the anti-war crowd. Immediate means well into the middle of their next term, and it'll be really, really violent, with possible spillover to neighboring territories (which, in turn, might require additional deployments).
McCain has not promised withdrawal. If anything, he's far more hawkish than Bush, and always has been. He obviously believes the war is necessary, and has refused to trim sail and adopt more popular positions. On the other hand, there's credibility to McCain's hawkishness that's lacking with most decision-makers these days. McCain's father and grandfather were both admirals; McCain himself served in Vietnam, spent several years as POW, and endured torture at the hands of his captors. At least one of McCain's sons is, I believe, on active duty in the Middle East. McCain knows what it means to send our young men and women to die in a foreign country; in the eyes of many voters this gives him credibility. I've talked to numerous anti-war Democrats in this state who agree with this analysis and trust McCain more than any other Republican to prosecute the war in a responsible manner (though they would still prefer a Democrat in office). There's also, of course, the contingent who believes the prosecution of the war has been lamentable, and for the same reasons above think McCain would do a better job.
There are two complicating factors specific to Michigan's primary; the absence of Obama and Edwards from the ballot, and the fact that Michigan liberals really loathe Romney. This isn't just normal loathing, this is you're-not-from-here-regardless-of-what-you-claim and your-father-would-be-ashamed-of-you loathing. George Romney, and his equally well-liked successor Bill Milliken were moderate Republicans. Taken together, many voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat voted for McCain because they see him as honest, at least for a politician, and because he had the best chance of beating Romney. I don't think this is particularly hard to grasp, but the Internet politicos are in a tizzy.