Wave Maker: Romney's Timetable Comments Fair Game

THIS IS MY VIRTUAL LIVING ROOM. COME ON IN AND SAY HELLO. THE BAR IS OVER IN THE CORNER -- HELP YOURSELF, BUT MIND YOUR MANNERS.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Romney's Timetable Comments Fair Game

Immediately following John McCain's victory over Mirtt Romney in the Florida primary, some members of the rabid Nobody-But-Romney camp have focussed on the "lies" McCain unfairly leveled against Romney. As Romney himself alleged, McCain's assertion that Romnmey had expressed support for withdrawal "dishonest."
One particularly rabid Romney accolyte at Red Mass Group expresses his outrage in no uncertain terms:

McCain disgusts me (0.00 / 0

I can't believe I'm having to say this about someone whom I've regarded as a hero lo these many years. But his outright lie accusing Mitt of endorsing a timetable for surrender makes it impossible for me to vote for him in November.
John McCain can go to hell.

Outright lie? Go to hell?

(First of all, one might gain insight into the commenter's ourage by his accusation that Romeny had been accused of endorsing a "timetable to surrender." This was not, nor ever had been, the charge.)

To the contrary, McCain's charge seized upon remarks of ambiguity and equivocation made by Romney on national television:

QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.

Do Romney's remarks constitute an unequivocal endorsement of troop withdrawal by a date certain? No, certainly not. But are they fairly read to reject any such suggestion? No, one cannot say that Romney's statements are a rejection of that either.

This is just another example of Mitt's over-coached approach to answering tough questions. Robin Roberts gave him an open invitation to give an unequivocal answer:"

"Do you believe there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"

Correct answer (as McCain made clear enough): "No, I do not." Issue over. If he wishes then to go on and explain the widely accepted notion of benchmarks for progress, he should do so. But by rejecting the opportunity to answer a yes-no question, he invited the scrutiny that allowed McCain to fairly (yes, fairly) make the charge he did.

Further parsing of the exchange does not rescue Romney from this conclusion: He carefully draws the distinction between private and public pronouncement of timetables -- but fails to make clear enough whether he opposes any deadline for withdrawal. His rejection of a troop withdrawal deadline was couched solely in terms of public announcements - hence his assurance that he would veto and Congressional troop withdrawal resolution:

Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time.

Is it not a fair inference from Romney's response that he would not reject out-of-hand a private deadline? It is, because the basis for his twice-repeated response is the distinction between telegraphing one's plan and keeping it secret.

Romney's approach on this issue is in stark and dramatic contract to McCain, who, against all caution and circumspection as to how his marks could be (and were) twisted, had this exchange during a campaign stop prior to his victory in New Hamshire:

E.H.: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years --

McCain: Maybe a hundred. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Say what you wish about the position. You can't quarrel with the frankness of his language.

It is the difference between one with a firmly held principle and one with a firmly held script.

I'll take the former, because it's less likely to blow away when the wind blows.

Posted by: Wave Maker / 1:05 PM/ |