washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Month: June 2016

Trump’s First Road Trip as GOP Leader Deepens Brexit Mess

Anyone who has been wondering about Donald Trump’s capacity for statesmanship and global economic leadership will find an instructive read this morning at HuffPo, Lee Moran’s “Angry Scots Troll Donald Trump Over Brexit Gaffe: The Donald got his facts wrong. Again.”

In his first international trip as the leader of the Republican party, Trump demonstrated remarkable insensitivity to, as well as ignorance of the serious concerns of Scots and Brits about their economic future. Trump’s Scottish debacle was a consequence of his poor timing and judgement in re-opening the Trump Turnberry Golf Resort, while the Scots voted on European Union membership.

If you thought that the leader of the GOP would at least be well-informed enough to know how Scots voted on the issue, you would be very wrong. Trump tweeted “Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!” It was not well-received. As Moran writes,

Trump also faced a backlash after tweeting that people in Scotland were “going wild” following the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union…Many Scots are angry at his tweet because most actually voted to remain inside the EU.

…All 32 council areas and a total 62 percent of Scots backed the UK to remain in the EU, according to the BBC. It was in contrast to the U.K. as a whole, which voted 52 percent to 48 percent for “leave.”

Dozens of Twitter users branded Trump a “moron,” “weapons-grade plum” and “idiot” — including British pop star Lily Allen, TV presenter Sue Perkins and comedian Peter Serafinowicz.

Add to all of that the callousness of opening a luxury golf resort designed to serve as a playground for the wealthy at a time when millions of working people in the UK are concerned about their economic security as their country prepares to leave the European Union. Not exactly the signature of a serious world leader. Oh well, at least they’ll have a fancy golf resort for the elites.

The last thing the UK and Europe need at this political moment is a visit from the world’s most famous immigrant-basher. The UK’s outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron described Trump’s Muslim-bashing as “divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong” and Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said his comments were “repugnant and offensive.”

There is a fair amount of media hand-wringing about the Brexit vote and the possibility that it may mean working people in the developing countries are leaning more favoraby toward immigration restrictions and trade protectionism, which Trump has supported. It will take some better polling to verify any such trends, and Clinton has the time to tweak her message accordingly.

What is clear is that Trump has once again damaged his credibility with ill-considered comments. No doubt many Europeans are this morning experiencing enhanced appreciation for the prospect of Hillary Clinton’s leadership — instead of the disastrous alternative.


California Democrats Adopt Unity Reform Resolution

Most Democrats are aware that Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been pushing for certain changes in the presidential nominating process. Unfortunately, they are so tied up in that campaign’s claim that the system is “rigged” against its own candidate that perceptions of the proposals depend on which camp one is in. But last weekend in California we saw what could be the beginning of a unity push for reforms. I wrote about it at New York earlier this week:

[Sanders’] “reform” agenda is a bit self-serving, aimed as it is at features of the nominating process that hurt Sanders’s prospects and helped Clinton’s. Most notably, while complaining that superdelegates and closed primaries reduce the influence of actual voters, Sanders and his supporters have been largely mute on the most anti-democratic device of them all, the use of caucuses rather than primaries.

Now that the identity of the Democratic presidential nominee is no longer in question, it should be possible for supporters of both Sanders and Clinton to consider reforms without this kind of candidacy-driven tunnel vision. That’s exactly what happened this last weekend at an executive-board meeting of the California Democratic Party:

The California Democratic Party on Sunday called for a broad overhaul of how the party nominates its presidential candidates, including the elimination of caucuses and most super-delegates.

The resolution urging the Democratic National Committee to change the nominating rules for the 2020 contest has no official power, but is a symbolic statement from the largest state Democratic party in the nation.

Many of the changes were sought by supporters of Bernie Sanders, but Hillary Clinton backers also endorsed the effort, resulting in the resolution being unanimously approved at the state party’s executive board meeting on Sunday.

The resolution specifically called for limiting superdelegates to the membership of the DNC and then binding them to actual primary results. It also called for an upending of the traditional calendar rules that have given four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — disproportionate influence. If achieved at or after the convention (Democrats tend to defer nomination-process reforms to postelection “commissions”), these changes would represent the largest reforms in the process since the 1980s.

This reform effort represents what is often called “logrolling” in a legislative context, and it can provide powerful impetus to the achievement of big compromises when it encompasses multiple objectives of multiple interests. Partly because of California’s reputation as a trendsetter, and partly because it no longer affects the outcome of the nomination race, it’s entirely possible this combo platter of reforms could gain momentum as the convention approaches, to the probable horror of some governors and members of Congress and a lot of Iowans.

Indeed, another compromise is readily available on the remaining bone of contention over the nomination process between Sanders and Clinton supporters: open versus closed primaries.

Virtually all Democrats favor liberal voter-registration rules. The national party could support closed primaries only in those states that adopted same-day registration and reregistration opportunities. Thus the primaries would be open only to Democrats, but it would be easy for voters to become Democrats after they’ve formed the intention of participating in a Democratic contest. One of the states that provides for same-day registration right now is Iowa. Maybe it could be officially named “the Iowa reform” to mitigate the agony and grief of Iowans if their first-in-the-nation caucus is delegitimized.

That was a joke. But the possibility of joining the passions of both presidential campaigns to a unity agenda of reforms is quite serious.


June 23: California Democrats Adopt Unity Reform Resolution

Most Democrats are aware that Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been pushing for certain changes in the presidential nominating process. Unfortunately, they are so tied up in that campaign’s claim that the system is “rigged” against its own candidate that perceptions of the proposals depend on which camp one is in. But last weekend in California we saw what could be the beginning of a unity push for reforms. I wrote about it at New York earlier this week:

[Sanders’] “reform” agenda is a bit self-serving, aimed as it is at features of the nominating process that hurt Sanders’s prospects and helped Clinton’s. Most notably, while complaining that superdelegates and closed primaries reduce the influence of actual voters, Sanders and his supporters have been largely mute on the most anti-democratic device of them all, the use of caucuses rather than primaries.

Now that the identity of the Democratic presidential nominee is no longer in question, it should be possible for supporters of both Sanders and Clinton to consider reforms without this kind of candidacy-driven tunnel vision. That’s exactly what happened this last weekend at an executive-board meeting of the California Democratic Party:

The California Democratic Party on Sunday called for a broad overhaul of how the party nominates its presidential candidates, including the elimination of caucuses and most super-delegates.

The resolution urging the Democratic National Committee to change the nominating rules for the 2020 contest has no official power, but is a symbolic statement from the largest state Democratic party in the nation.

Many of the changes were sought by supporters of Bernie Sanders, but Hillary Clinton backers also endorsed the effort, resulting in the resolution being unanimously approved at the state party’s executive board meeting on Sunday.

The resolution specifically called for limiting superdelegates to the membership of the DNC and then binding them to actual primary results. It also called for an upending of the traditional calendar rules that have given four states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — disproportionate influence. If achieved at or after the convention (Democrats tend to defer nomination-process reforms to postelection “commissions”), these changes would represent the largest reforms in the process since the 1980s.

This reform effort represents what is often called “logrolling” in a legislative context, and it can provide powerful impetus to the achievement of big compromises when it encompasses multiple objectives of multiple interests. Partly because of California’s reputation as a trendsetter, and partly because it no longer affects the outcome of the nomination race, it’s entirely possible this combo platter of reforms could gain momentum as the convention approaches, to the probable horror of some governors and members of Congress and a lot of Iowans.

Indeed, another compromise is readily available on the remaining bone of contention over the nomination process between Sanders and Clinton supporters: open versus closed primaries.

Virtually all Democrats favor liberal voter-registration rules. The national party could support closed primaries only in those states that adopted same-day registration and reregistration opportunities. Thus the primaries would be open only to Democrats, but it would be easy for voters to become Democrats after they’ve formed the intention of participating in a Democratic contest. One of the states that provides for same-day registration right now is Iowa. Maybe it could be officially named “the Iowa reform” to mitigate the agony and grief of Iowans if their first-in-the-nation caucus is delegitimized.

That was a joke. But the possibility of joining the passions of both presidential campaigns to a unity agenda of reforms is quite serious.


Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research: Latinas on Trump, Policies, and Voting in 2016

Findings from a National Survey of Hispanic Women

A recent poll of Latina voters commissioned by American Women, Voto Latino Action Network and iAmerica Action[1] highlights the important role of Hispanic women in this year’s presidential elections.
These women are strongly positive toward Hillary Clinton and Democrats; meanwhile, they view Donald Trump very hostilely, not surprising in the wake of his incendiary rhetoric on immigration.

Latinas face a great deal of stress around money and family, with a diverse set of concerns that covers not only economic challenges but also family and balancing their responsibilities at work and at home. Latinas, and particularly millennial Latinas, are more likely to report earning less than $15 an hour. They want to support candidates whose policy agenda will allow them to achieve a bright future, including equal pay, college affordability, paid sick days and family leave, affordable childcare, and reproductive rights.

Moreover, Latinas express more enthusiasm for voting in the 2016 elections than in the 2014 mid-term elections, driven by very polarized feelings about the political parties and candidates.

The following are key findings from a national telephone survey of 400 Latina registered voters conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The survey was run in parallel with an online survey of 800 registered voters nationally.

84% of Latinas View Trump Negatively
These women come to this election with very polarized feelings toward the political parties and candidates at the top of the ticket. Latinas express strong favorable feelings for the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton alike, while white men and women view them negatively. At the same time, Latinas hold a negative view of the Republican Party generally, but reserve their harshest sentiments for the presumptive Republican nominee. An overwhelming 84 percent of Latinas view Trump negatively.
Latinas Clinton.png
Latinas show intense support for pay equality, college affordability, and reproductive health policies
Given the concerns facing Latinas and their hope for the future, it is not surprising that they strongly favor candidates who advocate for college affordability, pay equality, and paid sick and paid family leave in the workplace. The intensity of support is notable here, with nearly 8 out of 10 Latinas who say they would be “much more likely” to support a candidate for elected office who took these positions.
Latinas Pay.pngLatinas also strongly support policies to protect women’s reproductive health, with large majorities more likely to vote for a candidate who will protect women’s access to birth control and abortion. This includes 69 percent of Latinas under the age of 50 and 54 percent of older Latinas. Likewise, half of Latinas say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports defunding Planned Parenthood and passing a ban on abortion.

Overwhelming support for immigration reform policies among Latinas
Not surprisingly, strong majorities of Latinas favor policies that would provide not only allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and gain legal resident status, but also provide a path to citizenship. Two-thirds of Latinas strongly favor a path to citizenship, with more than nine out of ten (92 percent) favoring the policy overall. Just 13 percent of Latinas support building a fence along the border with Mexico; 83 percent oppose the plan.
Latinas Immigration.png
Latinas express strong intention to vote in 2016
Latinas have an opportunity to be a key bloc in this year’s elections. In this survey, 59 percent of Latinas report voting in 2014; now, nearly 81 percent say they are “almost certain” to vote in 2016.
Latinas Voting.png
Read more at GQR here.


Political Strategy Notes

Speaker Paul Ryan adjourned the House, but the Democrats conducting the sit-in to protest GOP/NRA obstruction of even a vote on popular gun safety measures will continue. More details are expected today, report Deirdre Walsh, Manu Raju, Eric Bradner and Steven Sloan at CNN Politics. “The tension exploded onto the floor just after 10 p.m. ET when Republican Speaker Paul Ryan gaveled the chamber into order to hold a procedural vote on an unrelated matter. A dramatic scene unfolded as throngs of Democrats — some holding signs with the names of victims of gun violence — remained in the House well chanting “no bill, no break” and “shame shame shame.” They also sang the protest anthem “We Shall Overcome.”…They could keep their protest going on a smaller scale between now and July 5. Democrats vowed to restart their protests in full once the House returns in July, and they could look for other ways to force Republicans’ hands…”When we come back in July, we will start all over again,” [Rep. John] Lewis said…”We made some progress. We crossed one bridge, but we have other bridges to cross,” he said just after 3:30 a.m., calling the effort “a major down-payment on ending gun violence in America … and we will continue to fight.”… Overall, more than 170 Democrats took part in the sit in, lawmakers said.”

The Democrats’ strategy is to dramatize the fact that Speaker Ryan won’t even allow a vote on enormously popular gun safety measures, some of which are supported by upwards of 80 percent of Americans in opinion polls. Ryan is providing cover for his cowardly fellow Republicans who meekly do the NRA’s bidding, but don’t want to be held accountable for it by voters. The Democrats are committed to making sure that the NRA Republicans can no longer hide in the shadows and escape voter accountability.

At The Fix Chris Cillizza’s “Five things House Democrats’ sit-in on guns will change. And one it won’t” mulls over some of the possible ramifications of the sit-in. I hope he is right about his first assertion: “The Democratic base will be energized beyond belief…The organic nature of the sit-in — most Democratic members outside of Reps. John Lewis (Ga.) and Katherine Clark (Mass.) were unaware of it before it launched Wednesday afternoon — is just the sort of thing that will thrill rank-and-file Democrats. The Democratic party committees will fundraise like crazy off of this event. So will Hillary Clinton, who will highlight it the next time she speaks publicly. Democrats had been privately concerned about the enthusiasm of their party base when compared to Republicans during the primary voting process. A high profile event like this one should help narrow that gap.”

Richard Gonzales reports at NPR that “The owner of Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, where 49 people were shot and killed on June 12, says she and her staff will host a “Latin Night” street party on Thursday.” But to make it more meaningful, they should launch a statewide voter registration campaign at the event, since Florida is one of the worst states for voter suppression.

The Atlantic’s associate editor Clare Foran explores a question on the minds of many “Can Hillary Clinton Turn Red States Blue?” and reports on Clinton’s efforts to launch a ’50-state strategy.’

At Sabato’s Crystal Ball Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley have an updated projection, “The Electoral College: Map No. 2: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The authors still see the Democrtatic nominee, Clinton’s most likely electoral vote total as 347 (270 needed to win the election), vs. Trump’s 191. The authors add, “…Party unity within the Republican family is a non-starter. Two former presidents (both Bushes), the previous party nominee (Romney), and a host of other top GOP officials, donors, and commentators will never get on the Trump bandwagon. News media coverage is bound to stress who does not come to Cleveland, not just who does…As much as many Republicans dislike Trump and fear he will lead to catastrophic losses in the fall, he won the nomination fair and square…Bluntly put, the GOP is stuck with Trump. And a substitute nominee, should one be installed somehow, would be asked to lead a viciously divided party with no real chance of victory.”

At New York magazine’s Daily Intelligencer Ed Kilgore explains why “Why Trump Can’t Afford to Let Clinton Dominate the Political-Ad War.” Kilgore notes, “it should serve as a warning to Team Trump that one of the political scientists most associated with disrespect for paid ads in presidential elections, Lynn Vavreck, also insists that letting one’s opponent run uncontested ads is a path to a slow, but sure, political death. Kilgore sums up Vavreck’s key points, “Unopposed ads do indeed shape impressions of candidates, and those impressions affect polling numbers which in turn affect actual voting in the end.”

Marco “AWOL” Rubio missed another important Senate Foreign Relations Comttee hearing — this time to announce that he has changed his mind and will now run for senate, despite numerous recent statements to the contrary. “Democrats immediately circulated opposition research on Wednesday showing Rubio has missed the bulk of his committee hearings in addition to the votes he missed while running for president.

That’s likely to be a theme of the Senate campaign against him,” reports Burgess Everett at Politico. Ed Kilgore notes, “There are two very recent polls of this race that point in different directions. Quinnipiac has Rubio up 47-40 over Murphy (and 48-4o over Grayson). But PPP has Murphy up 42-41, with Rubio well underwater with a 30-49 job approval rating and his ability to stay even with Murphy depending on the temporary phenomenon of higher name ID.”

In his NYT op-ed article, “How Low Can the GOP Go?“, Thomas B. Edsall notes, “Polls are also showing an increase in the percentage of Republicans who are indicating that they might sit out the 2016 election. The Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll measures how many voters refuse to say whether or how they will vote. Among Republicans, the percentage of these voters has risen since early May from 17.2 percent to 26.6 percent. Among Democrats, the percentage has remained relatively constant, fluctuating between 19 and 21 percent.”


Rep. Lewis, Dems Lead Sit-in in House to Protest GOP Inaction, NRA Obstruction of Gun Safety

“We have a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to speak up and speak out until the House votes to address gun violence. We have turned deaf ears to the blood of the innocent and the concern of our nation. We will use nonviolence to fight gun violence and inaction.” – Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).
Lewsi Sit-in.jpg
Above, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joins Rep. John Lewis and other Democratic members of congress during their sit-in to protest Repubican inaction and NRA obstruction of gun safety.


Dean: Clinton’s 50-State Strategy Can Build Enduring Democratic Majority

In his CNN Opinion post, “How Clinton can redraw the map,” Howard Dean credits Hillary Clinton with making some strategic moves which can help secure working Democratic majorities down-ballot for decades to come. As Dean writes,

Most presidential campaigns follow the same playbook. Candidates parse the map into red states, blue states and so-called “swing states”–and they focus their time and resources exclusively on that third category.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is rejecting that strategy in favor of a much broader one. The plan that Clinton began to execute this week is a 20-year strategy to create a new vision for America.

To fulfill it, she is dispatching staff to all 50 states and is working to identify and organize supporters in each one.

It’s not just about winning the presidency for the Democrats. Clinton’s vision includes strengthening the party down-ballot:

On the same day Americans cast their vote for president this November, they’ll also be voting for senators, representatives, governors, state legislators and city council members. A 50-state strategy means that Democrats can focus attention and resources further down the ballot. We can’t forget that the outcomes of those local races matter too if we’re going to truly make a difference in people’s lives…Every Democrat that she helps get elected to offices across the country this year, the deeper the bench will be for many elections to come. They will become the foundation of a potent legacy, not just for the party, but for a consequential presidency.

“She understands that what happens between now and November is not just about 2016 or even 2020,” adds Dean. “If we really want a political revolution, we have to build it block by block–nurturing strong Democratic organizations in each of the 50 states.”

For too long Democrats have accepted weak party organizations in many states. All too often we read reports about Democrats failing to field candidates, sometimes even in competitive districts. The DNC and Democratic leaders simply must do more to help local party organizations build their strength.

Clinton understands that Democrats have a unique opportunity this year, with an extremely weak Republican presidential nominee serving up daily outrage and myriad disasters. Many Republicans are coming around to the belief that a “cleansing” defeat in the 2016 presidential election may serve their long-range interests by reorienting their party to succeed amid demographic change.

It’s a small window of opportunity in an historical context. It’s good that Clinton recognizes the importance of strengthening the Democratic Party at the state and local level — and the rare chance to do it in a big way this year.

“In her campaign, Clinton will show up everywhere and take no voter for granted,” writes Dean. “That’s why solidly red states like Georgia, Utah and Arizona already appear a few shades more purple.”

Strategically, a presidential candidate has to focus more time, energy and resources in identifiable battleground states to win the electoral college majority. But governing effectively will also require Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. Putting an end to the GOP’s reign of Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis will also require major Democratic gains in the state legislatures of America. Having a presidential candidate who gets this — and commits to do something about it — is a big plus.


Political Strategy Notes

Almost Every GOP Senator Just Voted to Keep Letting Terror Suspects Buy Guns: Once again, gun safety measures fail to move forward in Congress after a massacre,” reports Becca Andrews at Mother Jones.
“Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Republican candidates for the House and Senate would risk large defections from their base if they are seen as sabotaging Trump…Moreover, Greenberg sees a focus on Trump’s personal volatility as having helpful ricochet effects with other constituencies. To the extent that Trump is forced by the party to tone down his rhetoric – just watch his flat, Teleprompter-driven address from last Tuesday – he may start losing some of his magic with working-class voters…Greenberg argues that Clinton knows she has to offer a strong economic message with a populist feel to win over the millennial voters who flocked to Sanders. Appeals aimed their way will simultaneously help earn Sanders’ blessing and pick up the white working-class votes she’ll need.” — from E. J. Dionne, Jr.’s syndicated column.
Hillary Clinton Is On A Mission To Rebuild The Democratic Party: A 50-state strategy has been tried before. Her staff think they can do it right this time,” according to Sam Stein, writing at HuffPo.
Steve Benen reports at msnbc.com that “Clinton moves forward with a ’50-state strategy‘.”
At The Monkey Cage Gabriel Sanchez and Alan I. Abramowitz explain why “Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls may be larger than it seems…” The authors noter, “Why were so many of the polls wrong? In part, because they failed to capture how minorities would vote. Unfortunately, some pollsters may be making the same mistakes in 2016 — and thereby underestimating Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls…In 2012, many polls underestimated how many minorities would vote and how many would vote for Obama…In 2016, the country is even more diverse. Pollsters need to take steps to more accurately estimate the political attitudes and behavior of black, Latino and Asian American voters…If Clinton does as well with minority voters as Obama did, then her lead in the poll would be 10 points (see here).
At salon.com Sean Illing explains why “The Republicans’ November fantasy: A glance at the GOP’s swing state strategy ought to delight Democrats everywhere: The Republicans’ strategy for November is based on wishful thinking. Hillary could win this election in a rout.
Also at salon.com, read Gary Legum’s “Don’t rule it out: Thanks to Donald Trump, the Democrats have a slight chance of taking back the House: The Democrats need to win 30 seats to get control of the House — it’s unlikely but definitely not impossible.”
NYT’s Lynn Vavreck afforms that “Yes, Political Ads Are Still Important, Even for Donald Trump” and notes, “A study estimated that most of the impact of an ad in a presidential election is gone within a day or two of its airing (I am one of the authors of this paper). In governor, congressional and Senate elections, the effects last a bit longer: three or four days. Fleeting effects on campaigns have been shown by various authors in the lab; in Canada; in the 2000 and 2004 general elections; in the 2006 midterm elections; in the 2012 general election; and in field experiments in a Texas governor’s primary in 2006 and a general election in 2014.”
The title, as well as the content, of Joan McCarter’s Daily Kos article delineates one major difference between the two parties: “The consequences of an election in Louisiana: 200,000-plus people now have Medicaid.”


June 18: McCain’s Shameful Claim Obama “Directly Responsible” For Orlando Massacre

A lot of intemperate things were said in the wake of the massacre in Orlando, many of them by Donald Trump. But John McCain took the shameful cake, as I discussed this week at New York:
[Y]ou’d figure the presumptive Republican nominee has reasserted his leadership of the Obama-haters of America. But then came this astounding attack today:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the elder Republican statesman, said President Obama was “directly responsible” for the terror attack in Orlando due to his failure to combat the rise of the Islamic State terror group.

Wow.
McCain’s “reasoning,” so to speak, for this remarkable statement involved the stacking of dubious premises to reach an absurd conclusion:

When pressed by a reporter on the claim that Obama was “directly” responsible, McCain reiterated his point — that Obama should not have withdrawn combat troops from Iraq and should have made a more determined effort to intervene in the Syrian civil war.

Keep in mind that so far as anyone knows, ISIS had nothing to do with the Orlando massacre other than taking “credit” for it ex post facto thanks to the murderer’s apparently independent decision to dedicate his evil act to the evil actors in the Middle East.
Shortly after spouting this insanity, McCain issued a statement on Twitter saying that he “misspoke”: “To clarify, I was referring to Pres Obama’s national security decisions that have led to rise of #ISIL, not to the President himself.”
So that’s reassuring: McCain was not accusing the president of being personally involved in the planning or execution of the attacks in Orlando. But that he felt the need to clear that up is telling.
It’s worth remembering that if John McCain had somehow beaten Barack Obama in 2008, he might still be in office today, actively waging wars instead of merely longing for them and bitterly lashing out at a commander-in-chief who is, to his view, insufficiently bloodthirsty. He’s convinced himself that the case for an expanded and eternal Iraq War was strong when he championed the “surge” and, if possible, is even stronger today. And he wants a new war or two now to make up for Obama’s horrific decision to bring that great folly to a close. Perhaps because he knows Donald Trump won’t make this particular argument, McCain felt the need to make it himself.
If the myth of McCain the Maverick Good Guy still survives in some quarters, it’s time to consign it to the history books for good.


McCain’s Shameful Claim Obama is “Directly Responsible” for Orlando Massacre

A lot of intemperate things were said in the wake of the massacre in Orlando, many of them by Donald Trump. But John McCain took the shameful cake, as I discussed this week at New York:
[Y]ou’d figure the presumptive Republican nominee has reasserted his leadership of the Obama-haters of America. But then came this astounding attack today:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the elder Republican statesman, said President Obama was “directly responsible” for the terror attack in Orlando due to his failure to combat the rise of the Islamic State terror group.

Wow.
McCain’s “reasoning,” so to speak, for this remarkable statement involved the stacking of dubious premises to reach an absurd conclusion:

When pressed by a reporter on the claim that Obama was “directly” responsible, McCain reiterated his point — that Obama should not have withdrawn combat troops from Iraq and should have made a more determined effort to intervene in the Syrian civil war.

Keep in mind that so far as anyone knows, ISIS had nothing to do with the Orlando massacre other than taking “credit” for it ex post facto thanks to the murderer’s apparently independent decision to dedicate his evil act to the evil actors in the Middle East.
Shortly after spouting this insanity, McCain issued a statement on Twitter saying that he “misspoke”: “To clarify, I was referring to Pres Obama’s national security decisions that have led to rise of #ISIL, not to the President himself.”
So that’s reassuring: McCain was not accusing the president of being personally involved in the planning or execution of the attacks in Orlando. But that he felt the need to clear that up is telling.
It’s worth remembering that if John McCain had somehow beaten Barack Obama in 2008, he might still be in office today, actively waging wars instead of merely longing for them and bitterly lashing out at a commander-in-chief who is, to his view, insufficiently bloodthirsty. He’s convinced himself that the case for an expanded and eternal Iraq War was strong when he championed the “surge” and, if possible, is even stronger today. And he wants a new war or two now to make up for Obama’s horrific decision to bring that great folly to a close. Perhaps because he knows Donald Trump won’t make this particular argument, McCain felt the need to make it himself.
If the myth of McCain the Maverick Good Guy still survives in some quarters, it’s time to consign it to the history books for good.