"Having a president who's been a prisoner of war, and will ensure our national defense, mattered more to me this time," says Andreas Reif, a Manchester resident. Mr. Reif says he intended to vote for Mr. Huckabee, but surprised himself when he entered the voting booth yesterday and instead chose Sen. McCain. "I'm a born-again Christian, but I believe McCain on the serious threats we face. It's not just a scare tactic. Times have changed."This is the Democrats' Achilles heel--they will not realistically recognize the threat, nor will they admit the surge has worked. Even the liberal Washington Post castigates the Democrats for being in denial, and this:
But any U.S. policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback.So far, the Democratic candidates have refused even to consider that challenge, they have cravenly pandered to their Leftie nutroots. Democrats will be challenged on this issue in the general election campaign. Displaying ostrich-like tendencies or rigid timetables that ignore the facts on the ground will not be persuasive. Nor will impugning the integrity of General Petraeus be acceptable. Win or lose, John McCain will still be around.
UPDATE: WSJ:
Three out of four New Hampshire Republicans yesterday said they support the Iraq War, and Mr. McCain got the bulk of them. On the question of who would be the better Commander in Chief, the exit polls showed that Mr. McCain beat Mitt Romney decisively. The Senator's performance suggests that, at least among Republicans and independents, the war was unpopular mainly because the U.S. seemed to be losing it. General David Petraeus's "surge" has not only saved Iraq from defeat, it has also helped to rescue the McCain candidacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment