The Wall Street Journal: "McCain Gets Edge For Electability"

"The leading Republican presidential candidates all claim to be the best-suited to overcome the Democratic tide expected in the general election. But opinion polls clearly favor Arizona Sen. John McCain in that regard. ... [McCain] did the best in hypothetical matchups with the two leading Democrats. The [new WSJ/NBC] poll shows him beating New York Sen. Hillary Clinton by 46% to 44% and tying against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 42% support. Messrs. Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee all lose handily in polling matchups with Sens. Clinton and Obama." -- The Wall Street JournalMcCain Gets Edge For Electability
As Primary Moves Along, Republican Voters Face Question of Who Can Win
By Alex Frangos And Elizabeth HolmesThe Wall Street JournalJanuary 25, 2008
The leading Republican presidential candidates all claim to be the best-suited to overcome the Democratic tide expected in the general election. But opinion polls clearly favor Arizona Sen. John McCain in that regard.
In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 37% of respondents said Mr. McCain has the best chance to win in November against the Democrats. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was far back in second, with 16%, followed closely by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 15% and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 12%. Those results are mirrored in other polls.
Mr. McCain also did the best in hypothetical matchups with the two leading Democrats. The poll shows him beating New York Sen. Hillary Clinton by 46% to 44% and tying against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 42% support. Messrs. Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee all lose handily in polling matchups with Sens. Clinton and Obama. Statistically, the results are about the same -- a dead heat -- whether Mr. McCain's opponent is Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama because the poll has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.
Many Republican primary voters face a quandary this year: Whether to choose the candidate they like best or the one they think has the best shot against a formidable Democratic opponent in November.
"We have got to figure out who's the most electable. That's the hard part," said Ron Dahlstrom, a 67-year-old retiree living in Naples, Fla., who says he hasn't decided on a candidate. The self-described religious conservative likes Mr. Huckabee, but says the Baptist preacher is too religious to get elected. That leaves him undecided between Messrs. Romney and McCain. "Anybody but Hillary," he said Tuesday.
The electabilty quotient is a growing concern for voters as the campaign heats up in Florida. That represents a change for the Republican Party. In recent elections, Republicans have either had an incumbent or an anointed front-runner who gained momentum early, such as George W. Bush in 2000 or Bob Dole in 1996. This year, Republicans are the underdogs, with an unpopular sitting president and facing a possible economic recession.
"A lot of Republicans are looking for who can win," Mr. McCain said yesterday after an event in West Palm Beach, Fla.
Mr. McCain released an Internet advertisement yesterday that will appear on the Web sites of Florida newspapers. It's called "Democrats' Worst Nightmare." The ad says Democrats "fear John McCain most because he's the one candidate who can rally the conservative Reagan Coalition while appealing to independent voters to win in November."
That type of message resonates with McCain supporter Bob Freid of Boynton Beach, Fla. The retired dentist, 67, said yesterday that Mr. McCain is "the candidate that can beat the illustrious Democrats."
"He can work with anybody," Mr. Freid said, explaining Mr. McCain's appeal to independents. ...
Read The Wall Street Journal: "McCain Gets Edge For Electability"

FORMER THOMPSON NATIONAL VETERANS CO-CHAIR, MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT MAJOR GENERAL JAMES E. LIVINGSTON, JOINS TEAM MCCAIN

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Major General James E. Livingston, USMC (ret.), recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and former National Veterans Co-Chairman for Fred Thompson, joined over 100 former general and flag officers to endorse John McCain for President of the United States.

"Senator McCain is a true American patriot whose decades of fine service to this great nation make him the best candidate in this race for President of the United States," said Gen. Livingston. "His tireless efforts to defend this nation's security and to take care of those who have served on the front lines of conflict throughout the world deserve our respect and support. It is with pleasure that I join the company of former service members in support of John McCain."

John McCain thanked Gen. Livingston for his support, stating, "I am deeply honored to have earned the support of an American hero such as General Livingston. His service and performance under fire are shining examples of the best traditions of U.S. Marine Corps, and we are very proud to have him on board."

General Livingston joins fellow Medal of Honor recipients Colonel George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (ret.) and Colonel Leo Thorsness, USAF (ret.) in support of John McCain's candidacy. Cols. Day and Thorsness served as POWs with Senator McCain in North Viet Nam. "We are pleased to have the support of a great Marine and a great American like General Livingston," said Col. Day and Col. Thorsness.

General Livingston was awarded the Medal of Honor for his conduct as a captain in command of Echo Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, in a battle for Dai Do, Viet Nam. Then-Captain Livingston's company reinforced two other companies from their battalion that had been attacked by a full regiment of North Vietnamese troops. General Livingston was wounded three times in the course of the firefight, but continued to lead his company through several assaults against North Vietnamese positions, and had to be dragged to safety by his fellow Marines when he tried to stay behind to cover the withdrawal of one of the companies. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions and leadership under fire by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

General Livingston resides in South Carolina.

FORMER THOMPSON SUPPORTERS JOIN JOHN MCCAIN

McCain Gains Six Key Leaders From Georgia

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that six key leaders in Fred Thompson's campaign for president have endorsed John McCain, including Steve Croy who served as Thompson's finance chairman in Georgia. Croy was also a member of Thompson's national finance committee.

"John McCain is strong on national security issues, committed to stopping out of control federal spending, and will appoint judges to the Supreme Court that do not legislate from the bench," said Mr. Croy. "Those are the qualities that drew me to Senator McCain, and I am sure they will attract many other Thompson supporters as well."

Mr. Croy, a Richmond Hill businessman, is joined by Representative Buddy Carter (R-Pooler), Mr. Bob Irvin, Mr. Joel McElhannon, Commissioner David Gellatly, and Mr. Bill Knowles in endorsing Senator McCain. State Representative Carter served as Mayor of Pooler for five terms before being elected to the State House. Irvin is the former State House Republican Leader. McElhannon served as Thompson's Regional Political Director following his successful consultancy for Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle's 2006 campaign. Commissioner Gellatly served as Thompson's Chatham County Chairman, and Bill Knowles served as Thompson's Bibb County Chairman.

John McCain thanked the former Thompson supporters who have joined his campaign, stating, "I am grateful to have these fine leaders on our team. I know they will make an immediate impact on our campaign in Georgia, and I look forward to working with them in the weeks ahead."

ROMNEY RECORD: A STRONGER STATE ECONOMY

Governor Romney Helped Turn Around The Massachusetts Economy And Today, The State Is Among The Most Economically Competitive In The Nation:

Because of work done by Governor Romney, Massachusetts is now credited with being one of the most economically-competitive states in the nation.

· The Boston Globe: "Nonetheless, Romney's policies are credited with improving the state's competitiveness. His administration promoted high-density development to increase housing production, got a fast-track permitting law enacted by the Legislature to help businesses expand, and revived an agency to help firms move to the state." (Brian Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert and Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals," The Boston Globe, 6/30/07)

· The Beacon Hill Institute: Massachusetts "One Of The Most Economically Competitive States In The Nation." "Massachusetts ranks as the one of the most economically competitive states in the nation, buoyed by innovation, entrepreneurship, and an educated and skilled workforce, a new study concludes. The study, released today by the Beacon Hill Institute, a think tank at Suffolk University, ranks Massachusetts second only to Utah in the attributes that create and sustain high levels of income for residents." (Robert Gavin, "Reports: Mass. A Top U.S. Economic Competitor," The Boston Globe, 12/19/07)

· The Information Technology And Innovation Foundation: Massachusetts First In The Ability "To Compete In A Dynamic, Innovation-Driven Global Economy." "It follows another study, by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank, that measures states' abilities to compete in a dynamic, innovation-driven global economy and ranks Massachusetts first." (Robert Gavin, "Reports: Mass. A Top U.S. Economic Competitor," The Boston Globe, 12/19/07)

· Under Governor Romney, The State's Credit Rating Was Upgraded For The First Time Since January 2000. "Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Standard & Poor's has raised the state's credit rating one notch, from 'AA-' to 'AA'. This is the state's first ratings upgrade since January 2000, when Moody's Investors Service raised the state's credit rating from 'Aa3' to 'Aa2'." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Announces Bond Rating Upgrade For Commonwealth's Debate," Press Release, 3/15/05)

· MassINC And Northeastern University Report: "The Massachusetts economy is the envy of many other states. Our economy consistently ranks among the top in measures of New Economy success. We rank near the top of the nation in our level of labor productivity and have outpaced the nation in recent years in the rate of growth. We have the most educated workforce in the nation. We also score near the top in terms of knowledge jobs and innovation capacity." (MassINC & The Northeastern University Center For Labor Market Studies, "Mass Jobs: Meeting The Challenges Of A Shifting Economy," November 2007)

Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Added Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs After The End Of A Deep Recession:

Before Governor Romney took office, Massachusetts was losing jobs month after month after the tech bubble burst in 2001. Under Governor Jane Swift, Sen. McCain's chief Massachusetts surrogate, the state lost over 140,000 jobs.

· Massachusetts "Suffered The Deepest Job Losses In The Nation After The Tech Boom." "Massachusetts, because of its large technology sector, suffered the deepest job losses in the nation after the tech boom went bust in 2001, shedding 6 percent of its jobs, compared to 2 percent nationally." (Robert Gavin, "Job-Growth Study: Mass. Next To Last," The Boston Globe, 11/28/07)

· Under The Previous Administration, Massachusetts Lost Jobs Month After Month. Under Governor Swift, Massachusetts lost 141,000 votes. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, "State And Area Employment, Hours, And Earnings," Massachusetts, Total Non-Farm, Seasonally Adjusted, Accessed 1/21/08)

Under Governor Romney, jobs began to return to Massachusetts. Massachusetts added 57,600 jobs after the recession ended in December 2003. In 2006 alone, Massachusetts added 18,700 jobs.

· Massachusetts Added 57,600 Jobs Since The Recession's End In December 2003 Until The End Of Governor Romney's Term. "Massachusetts has added 57,600 payroll jobs since December 2003." (Massachusetts Department Of Workforce Development, "Jobs In Massachusetts Up By 1,700 In December," Press Release, 1/18/07)

· In 2006, Massachusetts Added 18,700 Jobs. "Total jobs are up 18,700 from one year ago to 3,224,700." (Mass. Department Of Workforce Development, "Jobs In Massachusetts Up By 1,700 In December," Press Release, 1/18/07)

· Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Posted The First Gain In Manufacturing Jobs In Several Years. "For the first time in several years, Massachusetts has posted a gain in manufacturing jobs, according to the 2007 Massachusetts Manufacturers Register, an industrial directory published annually by Manufacturers' News, Inc. (MNI), Evanston, IL. MNI reports Massachusetts has added 3,681 net jobs since August of 2005, indicating a slight reversal in the downturn the Bay state has felt since 2001." (Manufacturers' News, "Industrial Directory Reports Massachusetts Manufacturing Jobs Up," Press Release, 8/30/06)

Under Governor Romney, personal incomes grew dramatically, and the level of personal income was far higher than the national average.

· During Governor Romney's Term, Massachusetts Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Grew By 17%, Outpacing Per Capita Personal Income Growth For The Entire United States. In 2003, Massachusetts per capita personal income was $39,442 and rose to $46,255 in 2006. (Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State Annual Personal Income," www.bea.gov, Accessed: 1/21/08)

· In 2006, Massachusetts Had A Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Of $46,255. This PCPI Ranked 3rd In The United States And Was 126 Percent Of The National Average, $36,629. (Department Of Commerce, Bureau Of Economic Analysis, "State BEARFACTS 1996 – 2006: Massachusetts," Accessed: 1/21/08)

Under Governor Romney, Massachusetts Became A Better Place To Do Business:

Under Governor Romney, the business climate improved and more companies were attracted to Massachusetts.

· In Three Years Under Governor Romney, The Number Of Companies In The State's Development Pipeline Went From 13 To 288. "Under Ranch C. Kimball, who became Romney's secretary of economic development in 2004, the number of companies in the Massachusetts development pipeline jumped from 13 to 288 in three years." (Brian C. Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert And Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals," The Boston Globe, 6/30/07)

· The Boston Globe: "Last year, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. chose an 89-acre site at the former Fort Devens over one in North Carolina for a $660 million complex that will create 550 jobs. The deal required a customized tax credit, a $34 million infrastructure bond, and an unusual show of teamwork by Romney and the Legislature." (Brian Mooney, Stephanie Ebbert And Scott Helman, "Ambitious Goals," The Boston Globe, 6/30/07)

Governor Romney took the action necessary to improve the state's business climate and stimulate the economy through pro-growth economic policies.

· ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE: In November 2003, Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package To Help Spur The Massachusetts Economy. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03)

· ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE: In June 2006, Governor Romney Signed A Second Economic Stimulus Package To Help Spur The Massachusetts Economy. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Vetoes Wasteful Spending, Cities Needed To Maintain Fiscal Discipline," Press Release, 11/26/03)

· 2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY: Governor Romney Enacted The State's First-Ever Sales Tax Holiday In 2004. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Promotes Tax-Free Shopping Day On Saturday," Press Release, 8/14/04)

· 2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY: Governor Romney Enacted A Second Sales Tax Holiday. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney, Dimasi, Hart Promote Tax-Free Shopping Weekend," Press Release, 8/14/0)

· INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Signed An Economic Stimulus Package Making The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Permanent. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03)

· BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Tax Rebate For Manufacturing Jobs Created In The Biotechnology, Life Sciences And Medical Device Fields. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Economic Stimulus, Supplemental Budget Bills," Press Release, 11/26/03)

· RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted An Expansion Of The Research And Development Tax Credit. (Jay Fitzgerald, "Gov Nearly Halves Package; Rebellious Legislators Vow To Override Stimulus Vetoes," The Boston Herald, 11/27/03)

· COMMUTER TAX RELIEF: Governor Romney Signed Legislation Allowing Commuters To Deduct Transportation Costs From Their Income Taxes. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Governor Romney Signs $25.2 Billion FY 2007 State Budget," Press Release, 7/8/06)

· BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Governor Romney Proposed And Enacted A Refundable Tax Credit To Promote Development At The Former Fort Devens U.S. Army Base. (Stephen Heuser, "$660M Drug Plant, 550 Jobs For Mass.," The Boston Globe, 6/2/06)

· PERMITTING REFORM: In August 2006, Governor Romney Signed Permitting Reform To Expedite The Permit Process For New Businesses. "Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation that reforms and streamlines the commercial permitting process, making it easier for companies to expand and add jobs in Massachusetts." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs Permitting Reform Into Law," Press Release, 8/2/06)

· INFRASTRUCTURE: Governor Romney Created A $200 Million Fund To Help Businesses Pay For The Infrastructure Costs Of Growing And Expanding. "The Governor signed into law the $200 million in bonding, half of which will go into a fund under the control of the Executive Office of Economic Development (EED) to help pay for infrastructure costs to help businesses grow and expand." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Vetoes Wasteful Spending, Cities Needed To Maintain Fiscal Discipline," Press Release, 11/26/03)

· MARKETING MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Romney Expanded Massachusetts' In-State Sales Force. "The Governor also signed $1.5 million for the creation of an in-state sales force to market Massachusetts to companies around the country." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Vetoes Wasteful Spending, Cities Needed To Maintain Fiscal Discipline," Press Release, 11/26/03)

ROMNEY RECORD: A STRONGER MILITARY

Governor Romney Will Expand Our Armed Forces And Increase Military Spending:

To Confront A New Generation Of Global Challenges, Governor Romney Believes We Need "An Unquestionably Strong Military." "We're going to defeat violent jihad with a two-part strategy. First: an unquestionably strong military. The best ally for peace in this world is a strong America. In my view, we need more men and women in our military, better armaments, and a strategic defense initiative." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., 3/2/07)

Governor Romney Will Increase Our Military By At Least 100,000 More Troops. "First, we need a stronger military. I propose that we sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment, and armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Bush Presidential Library Center, College Station, TX, 4/10/07)

Governor Romney Will Commit At Least Four Percent Of Our Gross Domestic Product To The Military. "But we're going to need at least in my view an additional $30 to 40 billion per year over the next several years to modernize our military, to address our gaps in troop levels, and to ease the strain on our National Guard and our Reserves and of course to support our wounded soldiers. … Based on my analysis, America should commit to spend a minimum, a minimum of 4% of gross domestic product on our national defense." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Bush Presidential Library Center, College Station, TX, 4/10/07)

Governor Romney Will Empower a Team Of Private Sector Leaders And Defense Experts To Ensure That Increased Spending Does Not Lead To Waste. "Now increased spending shouldn't mean increased waste. If I am fortunate enough to become elected President, I will convene a team of private sector leaders and defense experts to carry out a stem-to-stern analysis of military purchasing." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Bush Presidential Library Center, College Station, TX, 4/10/07)

Governor Romney Will Create A Permanent Rapid Innovation Force To Ensure Our Troops In Harm's Way Have The Equipment And Technology They Need. Governor Romney will establish a Rapid Innovation Force within the military to rapidly deploy the equipment and innovative solutions our troops need for their success and protection. This force will expand and provide permanent authority for efforts started in the Army and create a permanent Force to continually assess the military's needs on the ground and the available technology so that commanders have the equipment they need. (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: Assisting Military Families And Veterans On And Off The Battlefield," Press Release, 11/12/07)

Praise For Governor Romney's Military Strategy:

Heritage Foundation "Applauded Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney For Pledging To Increase Defense Spending." "The Heritage Foundation today applauded presidential candidate Mitt Romney for pledging to increase defense spending to four percent of gross domestic product, a national policy recommended in a Heritage study last month. 'We hope all candidates from both parties will see the wisdom of our proposal as well,' said Baker Spring, the think tank's lead defense analyst." ("Heritage Foundation Pleased With Romney's Embrace Of Its 4% Defense Funding Formula," Heritage Foundation, 4/10/07)

National Review: "Mitt Romney has called for adding 100,000 soldiers and boosting defense spending to four percent of GDP. These are sensible proposals, and we hope the other GOP candidates make similar ones." (Editorial, "Size Matters," National Review, 4/16/07)

TECHCRUNCH ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN

"[McCain's] positions on Internet Taxes, H1-B visas, China/human rights violations and other issues are strongly pro-technology. ... Senator McCain also has more pure leadership experience than any other candidate running for office. He is the elder statesman of the election, and that experience counts for something. Finally, his pro-business leanings will do much to promote the technology economy in the U.S." -- TechCrunch
Excerpts From "Our Tech President Endorsements: Barack Obama And John McCain"
By Michael ArringtonTechCrunchJanuary 29, 2008
Taking all of the Republican candidates' positions into consideration, as well as TechCrunch reader voting, we are endorsing Senator McCain as the best candidate from that side of the aisle. Senator McCain, more so than any other Republican candidate, is at least willing to go on record on any issue we brought up in our interview with him. ...
[H]e's made it clear that he'll address inequities that arise from his hands-off policies on net neutrality and mobile allocations, which other Republican candidates refuse to do. And his positions on Internet Taxes, H1-B visas, China/human rights violations and other issues are strongly pro-technology. Romney and, to a lesser extent Huckabee, by contrast, have shown little inclination to even discuss their position on these issues.
Senator McCain also has more pure leadership experience than any other candidate running for office. He is the elder statesman of the election, and that experience counts for something. Finally, his pro-business leanings will do much to promote the technology economy in the U.S. ...
Frankly, I don't give a damn if McCain ever turns on a computer or not. I just want a president who has the right top-down polices to support the information economy or, as I said above, be smart enough to just get out of our way and let us do our thing.
Read Entire TechCrunch Endorsement

JOHN MCCAIN 2008 LAUNCHES NEW WEB AD: "A TALE OF TWO MITTS"

U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released a new web ad, entitled "A Tale Of Two Mitts," focusing on Mitt Romney's shifting positions on important issues like abortion, gun control and Ronald Reagan.
As the Orlando Sentinel wrote today, Romney's record of shifting positions "raises doubts about his core beliefs and commitment to principle."
VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGur36uVWxA
Script For "A Tale Of Two Mitts" (1:00-Web)
CHYRON: Masterpiece Theatre
CHYRON: A Tale of Two Mitts
CHYRON: On Abortion
CHYRON: MA-U.S. Senate Debate 1994
MITT ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.
CHYRON: MA-Gubernatorial Debate 2002
MITT ROMNEY: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.
CHYRON: TV-Interview 2007
MITT ROMNEY: I am pro-life, and favor that legislation.
MITT ROMNEY: You will not see me wavering on that or be a multiple choice. Thank you very much.
CHYRON: MA-U.S. Senate Debate 1994
CHYRON: Republican Presidential Debate 2007
MITT ROMNEY: You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice but, my position was effectively pro-choice. I've said that time and time again.
CHYRON: On the 2nd Amendment
CHYRON: MA-Gubernatorial Debate 2002
MITT ROMNEY: We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them.
CHYRON: Speaking in 2007
MITT ROMNEY: I support the 2nd Amendment. I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life.
CHYRON: Speaking in 2007
MITT ROMNEY: Small, small, uh, varmints if you will.
CHYRON: On Being a Republican
CHYRON: MA-U.S. Senate Debate 1994
MITT ROMNEY: Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush.
CHYRON: On Being a Republican
CHYRON: Campaign Commercial-2007
MITT ROMNEY: It's time for Republicans to start acting like Republicans.
CHYRON: On Being a Republican
CHYRON: MA-U.S. Senate Debate 1994
MITT ROMNEY: I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.
CHYRON: Mitt Romney's Flip-Flops Truly Are Masterpieces
JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
CHYRON: Paid for by John McCain, 2008. Approved by John McCain.
CHYRON: www.JohnMcCain.com

THE MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT

"Republican voters who believe that this nation needs a strong military, conservative fiscal policies and a White House that recognizes the needs of a broad spectrum of Americans should support John McCain in the Republican primary on Feb. 5." -- The Montgomery Advertiser
McCain Tops Field Of GOP Hopefuls
EditorialMontgomery AdvertiserPosted January 27, 2008
The field of candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination is narrowing, but voters in the Alabama Republican primary still will have a wide range of options on Feb 5. Based on experience, independence and proven leadership abilities, the Montgomery Advertiser's editorial board believes that U.S. Sen. John McCain is the best choice.
We believe McCain is the strongest candidate in the Republican primary for a variety of reasons, chief among them his willingness to reach out to Americans from all walks of life instead of aiming his political appeals to a narrow spectrum of voters.
His military background and staunch support for a strong U.S. military are also powerful assets. More than any other candidate, this former Navy pilot and prisoner of war understands the needs of U.S. servicemen and women. McCain has been a vocal champion of modernizing the U.S. military and for ensuring service members and veterans receive the support they need and, in fact, deserve.
He also has a strong history of fiscal responsibility. While other GOP candidates talk about conservative economic policies, he can show a track record of votes to document his advocacy for such policies. Throughout his four terms in the Senate, McCain has been recognized numerous times for his support of responsible spending.
McCain also has spoken persuasively for reforming the nation's policies on health care and health insurance. He recognizes the need to give families more options while holding down costs. And he has been the leading GOP voice for campaign finance reform.
But perhaps what most sets McCain apart from the GOP field is not what he does, but what he doesn't do ... McCain often says what he really believes even if it might hurt him politically. Such candor can be a weakness in a candidate, but it would be a strength in a president.
Republican voters who believe that this nation needs a strong military, conservative fiscal policies and a White House that recognizes the needs of a broad spectrum of Americans should support John McCain in the Republican primary on Feb. 5.
Read Montgomery Advertiser Editorial: "McCain Tops Field Of GOP Hopefuls"

SIX CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS ENDORSE JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT

The Stockton Record, the Los Angeles Daily News, the Chico News & Review, The San Jose Mercury News, the Santa Cruz Sentinel and The Sacramento Bee endorse John McCain
"Make no mistake: McCain is a staunch Republican. He's willing to stray from partisanship for partisanship's sake. He's willing to take stands that aren't popular with members of his party and forge coalitions with Democrats." -- The Stockton Record
"In McCain, Republicans have a candidate who is true to their party's ideals but not a lackey to its leadership. ... [W]hen it couldn't have been less popular, McCain pushed for the surge. History has proved him right on that score, too. And many U.S. troops and Iraqis' lives have been saved because of it." -- The Los Angeles Daily News
"Among the viable Republican candidates, John McCain is the best choice. On several issues -- immigration, global warming and trade among them -- he is as good as any candidate, Republican or Democratic ... [He's] consistently fought to expose wasteful, pork-barrel spending. He's long championed campaign-finance reform. As a former POW, he understands that torture is unworthy of America, and has pledged never to use it and to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. -- The Chico News & Review
"Six month ago, McCain's campaign was in shambles. What has caused voters to give him a second look are his integrity and authenticity. ... At 71, McCain would be inaugurated as the nation's oldest president. But with age has come a maturity and steadfastness of purpose." -- The San Jose Mercury News
"McCain has the kind of grit and determination that comes to a man who has suffered and overcome. ... He is the most electable Republican running and he's conservative enough. He's a politician who delivers straight talk; a man who has been down and doesn't stays there." -- Santa Cruz Sentinel
"As a senator with 20 years experience, a former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, McCain has the independence, moral compass and public service ethos to renew the presidency and his party." -- The Sacramento Bee
John McCain: A Promise Of Principled Leadership
EditorialStockton RecordJanuary 27, 2008
Because the Feb. 5 primary election gives California voters a real chance to impact the presidential nominating process, The Record is breaking precedent by offering its recommendations.
John McCain is the only candidate who would give Republicans a realistic chance at retaining the presidency.
He also would give voters a distinctly different and viable option against either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards on Nov. 4.
McCain, the four-term U.S. senator from Arizona, earns The Record's endorsement for the Republican nomination as Super Tuesday approaches. On Feb. 5, California voters get the chance to make a difference in the presidential nomination process.
McCain, 71, doesn't walk the balance beam of public opinion. He takes distinct - although not always popular - stands and does so with a strong sense of ethics, a trait that'll be challenged in increasingly perilous economic times.
He decisively states his views, and while we don't agree with all of them - specifically his contention that troop levels should be increased in Iraq - he would provide a positive departure from the damaging waffling on issues that has emanated from the White House during the Bush presidency.
Make no mistake: McCain is a staunch Republican. He's willing to stray from partisanship for partisanship's sake. He's willing to take stands that aren't popular with members of his party and forge coalitions with Democrats.
His immigration policies gravitate toward the melding of human and security considerations and are based in reality, not rhetoric. He long has supported a guest-worker program coupled with practical avenues to gaining citizenship while maintaining security.
He hasn't adopted a close-minded approach to global warming that has afflicted many in his party.
He's been willing to work with Democrats on important issues, even risking the wrath of Republicans in a vote against President Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
His background as a senator, Navy pilot, prisoner of war and public servant engenders feelings of trust. Those are going to be necessary, because some voters will be worried about his age and potential viability as a two-term president.
We differ with his stance on Iraq, which, basically, is supportive of Bush policies with a willingness to send even more troops if necessary.
"This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks and support our troops and first responders who are on the front lines of the war," McCain has stated.
"This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it."
All Democratic candidates favor a systematic withdrawal from Iraq.
The nomination of McCain - a self-professed "common-sense conservative'' - will give voters a clear choice in November between viable, principled candidates who are presidential in demeanor and committed to improving the lives of Americans and our place in the world.
Read The Stockton Record Editorial: "John McCain: A Promise Of Principled Leadership"
###
McCain Vs. Obama
EditorialLos Angeles Daily NewsJanuary 27, 2008
Crossover candidates offer best hope for a unifying debate
IN choosing the major political parties' presidential nominees on Feb. 5, California voters will not only have a chance to shape the next four years of American policies but also to dictate the tone of the next nine months' discourse.
It is, at last, a chance to raise the level of the way Americans discuss politics and work toward the future.
And that is just one reason out of many why California Republicans could do no better than to choose John McCain, and Democrats should choose Barack Obama.
Policywise, the two may not have much in common, but they share the ability to transcend the ossified political divisions that have crippled this country for far too long.
In McCain, Republicans have a candidate who is true to their party's ideals but not a lackey to its leadership. He is that rare breed in politics, the principled leader who doesn't take his marching orders from party bosses or special interests and who actually says what he means.
Just look at Iraq. An early supporter of the war, McCain was unafraid to speak up and criticize Bush administration policy when the situation was dire, but the White House maintained a stubborn sense of denial. He led the charge in calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - an event that has proved to be a turning point in the war.
Later, when it couldn't have been less popular, McCain pushed for the surge.
History has proved him right on that score, too. And many U.S. troops and Iraqis' lives have been saved because of it.
On immigration, McCain defied a vocal, vitriolic minority within his party and pushed for the comprehensive reform America desperately needs. Many analysts argued - wrongly, it turns out - that the Arizona senator's resoluteness on this issue would doom his candidacy, but that didn't stop him. Solving one of America's greatest, long-ignored problems meant more to McCain than his ambition. (Too bad so few others in Washington agreed.)
He has also condemned the torture of enemy combatants. Coming from a man who heroically endured 52 years of torture himself in a Vietnamese POW camp, we shouldn't be surprised.
McCain's willingness to work across the aisle has made him popular among many Democrats and independents. Indeed, he is the one Republican with a realistic shot of turning "blue" states "red," or, - better yet - laying that spent division to rest once and for all.
Likewise, Obama also has the potential to break apart the old coalitions of American politics and create dynamic new ones in their place.
His is a candidacy that gives hope to many - to African-Americans, to be sure, and the young as well as people of all races who are inspired by his eloquence and delight in the thought of the U.S. putting the final nail in the coffin of its racist past by electing an African-American to the highest office in the land.
The Illinois senator's appeal is about much more than race. Obama speaks of hope in a way that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did before him. He doesn't despair over what is wrong in America today, but points to what is right, and how we can become better.
This marks a delightful change from the scare-mongering that's prevalent among most of the other candidates. Obama's pitch isn't predicated on exploiting the negatives of his rivals but on accentuating the positives in the American spirit and ideals.
No wonder many voters who don't necessarily care for his policies still find themselves impressed with Obama. They are swayed by his decency, by his vision, by the promise that his election could be historic in the way few others are.
Like McCain in 2000, Obama has been the victim of some unscrupulous and undignified campaigning this year. But he has, for the most part, resisted the temptation to jump in the gutter and drag America down with him. This is a testament to his character.
Imagine how different a McCain-Obama race would be compared with, say, a battle between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, in which both camps would trot out the usual partisan bogeymen and cheap shots. Instead, we would get a frank discussion of ideas, one based on finding the best way forward - for everyone.
It would be a campaign aimed at building America up, not tearing it apart. Whatever the outcome, the public would win, and there would be no loser. The country could only be edified by such a process and, hopefully, strengthened and united for the four years to follow, regardless of who is the president.
If that sounds idealistic, so be it.
In a time of war and economic uncertainty, America could use a little idealism right now. Which is why it needs Barack Obama and John McCain to square off in a campaign that moves us forward.
Read The Los Angeles Daily News Editorial: "McCain Vs. Obama"
###
Primary Picks: Obama, McCain
EditorialChico News & Review January 24, 2008
No matter who wins the presidential primaries, voters will have a clear choice in November between the two major-party candidates.
The three leading Democratic candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- differ less on policy issues than they do in style and emphasis. Clinton touts her experience and management skills, Obama his ability to inspire people and bring them together, and Edwards his willingness to fight for the poor and middle class.
At this point, Clinton and Obama are clearly the front-runners. If either of them is the nominee, he or she will make history as the first woman or African American to become president. That in itself is hugely significant.
But there is a crucial difference between them. The experience Clinton touts is also the source of the baggage she brings with her. For many reasons, some unfair and some of her and Bill Clinton's own making, she has become one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. She also has become a battle-scarred political infighter willing to twist and distort to gain advantage, as she has shown during this campaign.
Obama, on the other hand, offers something refreshingly new and welcome to American politics, especially after seven years of the Bush administration: the ability to appeal to people's strengths and hopes, not their fears, and to motivate them to become involved in creating a country and government that once again have the respect of the world.
His considerable experience as a community organizer, civil-rights lawyer, constitutional law professor, Illinois state senator and now U.S. senator, along with his remarkable personal history and extraordinary communication skills, add up to someone uniquely qualified to reach out across partisan lines and chart a new course for America.
Among the viable Republican candidates, John McCain is the best choice. On several issues -- immigration, global warming and trade among them -- he is as good as any candidate, Republican or Democratic, and can be expected to work closely with Democrats to move forward.
He's shown skepticism toward President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and consistently fought to expose wasteful, pork-barrel spending. He's long championed campaign-finance reform. As a former POW, he understands that torture is unworthy of America, and has pledged never to use it and to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The biggest issue on which McCain disagrees with the leading Democratic candidates is Iraq. He believes the United States should stay there for "as long as it takes to win." We don't believe that military victory is possible or that this country can afford to occupy the country indefinitely. The future of Iraq must be put in Iraqi hands.
Ron Paul is the lone GOP candidate opposed to the occupation, but some of his other positions concern us. (Eliminate the Fed and go on the gold standardreally?!?) Among the contenders in consensus on Iraq, McCain has been the most honest and unwavering proponent, so he's the Republican with whom we're the most comfortable agreeing to disagree.
Read The Chico News & Review Editorial: "Primary Picks: Obama, McCain"###
McCain Best Choice For Republicans
EditorialThe San Jose Mercury NewsJanuary 25, 2008
Eight years ago, we said that Arizona Sen. John McCain was our choice in the Republican presidential primary. The nation and the Republican Party would be far better off now had he beaten George W. Bush for the nomination.
Today, we recommend McCain again. Unlike Bush, McCain believes in the law and has a moral compass. He has crossed party lines to craft bipartisan solutions on key issues. A candidate with convictions, he can attract independent voters the Republican Party need to stay in the White House.
We disagree with all of the Republican candidates on their solutions - or lack of thereof - on critical problems facing the nation and global economy. We specifically disagree with McCain on many issues, starting with the war in Iraq, which he strongly advocated. He has voted consistently with conservatives on abortion and domestic spending during 26 years in the Senate and shown little interest in health-care reform or education legislation. We've been disappointed that during this campaign, he has sometimes veered from straight talk and past positions.
But McCain has also driven conservatives crazy with his independence on issues that resonate in Silicon Valley. He voted for stem-cell research. He was one of few Republicans to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. He voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
While others in his party remain deniers of global warming, he has co-sponsored a bill to address it. He proposed comprehensive, sensible immigration reforms. A former prisoner of war in Vietnam, he has demanded the humane treatment of prisoners of war.
McCain is wrong on Iraq. He still justifies the war and would commit troops there indefinitely. But Iraq might be more secure today and our troops less in peril, had President Bush followed McCain's call for more troops early on. The success of the surge would appear to vindicate his strategy - for the moment.
Six month ago, McCain's campaign was in shambles. What has caused voters to give him a second look are his integrity and authenticity.
Contrast McCain's candor with Mitt Romney's phoniness and Rudolph Giuliani's arrogance. Romney, a decent governor of Massachusetts, will say anything to anyone for a vote. Giuliani, the New York mayor during Sept. 11, is scaring up votes with visions of terror. The other candidate still in, Mike Huckabee, is as charming as McCain. But he plays to a narrow base: Christian evangelicals and viewers of Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central.
At 71, McCain would be inaugurated as the nation's oldest president. But with age has come a maturity and steadfastness of purpose.
He is far from an ideal candidate. But he is the best of the Republican lot.
Read The San Jose Mercury News Editorial: "McCain Best Choice For Republicans"
###
As We See It: McCain Republican Choice
EditorialSanta Cruz SentinelJanuary 25, 2008
Each of the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination brings along political baggage.
Mitt Romney is accused, with some justification, of being a serial flip-flopper.
Mike Huckabee of being a liberal in evangelical clothing.
Rudy Giuliani? Married three times, muddled on the abortion issue, running a strange and seemingly misguided campaign.
Then there's John McCain.
Too independent. Too old. Too pro-immigrant -- and a supporter of the current strategy in Iraq. But here's the real deal.
McCain is the one Republican who can attract independent voters, especially if Democrats nominate Sen. Barack Obama.
McCain has the kind of grit and determination that comes to a man who has suffered and overcome.
Pilloried by his own party and the Bush campaign in 2000, left for politically dead last summer, McCain has risen again, befitting a man who believes what he believes, who doesn't mince words to win popularity.
Take Iraq. Whether you agree we should be there or not, McCain is the one candidate who has the background as a former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW that makes him worth listening to when he says this country cannot fail in Iraq. At the same time, he's taken strong stands against the use of torture against suspected terrorists.
McCain's kind of honor says it is not worth it to gain popular approval for the sake of what he describes as "surrender" to forces that celebrate failure.
If he's nominated, Americans will have an opportunity to vote on our continued long-term presence in Iraq, which neither Obama, our choice for the Democratic nomination, nor Sen. Hillary Clinton supports.
McCain won in New Hampshire, and again in South Carolina -- and leads Romney in polling in California so far -- despite vociferous opposition from many prominent conservatives. Romney, with his business background -- and his stances, however calculated, on immigration and taxation -- seems to be their favorite, with a challenge from Huckabee, who does well with many Christian voters.
McCain has endorsed a cut in the corporate tax rate, and is talking about free markets and small government.
He's been willing to take unpopular stands on issues important to Californians, such as immigration, free trade and climate change.
Still, he needs to convince conservatives what moderates and independents already know.
He is the most electable Republican running and he's conservative enough. He's a politician who delivers straight talk; a man who has been down and doesn't stays there.
Vote for John McCain as the Republican nominee Feb. 5.
Read The Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial: "As We See It: McCain Republican Choice"
###
The Bee Recommends: McCain
EditorialThe Sacramento BeeJanuary 20, 2008
For GOP, a nominee of principleWith no incumbent in the 2008 presidential race, the American people (and the Republican Party) face a clean break from the eight-year Bush presidency. That makes John McCain the clear choice for us. As a senator with 20 years experience, a former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, McCain has the independence, moral compass and public service ethos to renew the presidency and his party.
McCain is a partisan Republican in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. And, like T.R., he is not a prisoner of doctrinaire thinking or poisonous hyperpartisan politics.
On issues that matter to California -- such as immigration, climate change and free trade -- McCain has forged bipartisan coalitions and been willing to take unpopular stands.
Climate change is real; that debate is over, he says. He was an early leader in Congress in proposing "cap and trade" legislation to reduce emissions.
On immigration, he has been a national leader for a humane, realistic immigration policy that combines a guest-worker program, a path to citizenship and border enforcement. He insists that "America is still the land of opportunity. And we're not going to erect barriers and fences."
He has long insisted that "isolationism and protectionism are fool's errands."
McCain was one of two Republican senators to vote against President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001. He also voted against the proposed repeal of the federal estate tax in 2002 and the Bush tax cut of 2003 (though he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006). He has relentlessly fought to expose and eliminate wasteful pork projects.
With McCain, there would be no more presidential hedging on waterboarding or support for torture. "I'd close Guantnamo Bay and I'd declare we never torture another person in American custody," he has said. Terrorists, he insists, are "the quintessence of evil." But, he continues, "it's not about them; it's about us" -- what Americans stand for in the world.
The most important thing that McCain brings to the 2008 race is a clear position on the war in Iraq. He thinks we need more troops in Iraq. He's willing to endure a 100-year occupation or longer. He believes President Bush's surge is working. He remains committed to "Iraq's transformation into a progressive Arab state."
With all the Democratic candidates favoring phased withdrawal, McCain would provide the American people with a clear choice: Either vote for the candidate who wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely (McCain) or vote for the candidate who wants to get out (the Democrat).
Let us be clear: We believe McCain has an unduly rosy picture of Iraq and is wrongheaded in advocating long occupation. But he is a principled proponent of his view, and he would force the other side to present a strong case to the American people. We'd love to see Lincoln-Douglas style debates between McCain and the Democratic nominee -- on Iraq and all the great issues challenging this nation in a post-Bush world.
Read The Sacramento Bee Editorial: "The Bee Recommends: McCain"

Romney: "ASK ANY OF THE VOTERS – IT'S THE ECONOMY"

Sen. McCain Desperately Wants To Avoid Discussing Economics
"Ask any of the voters – it's the economy. Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?" – NBC's Tim Russert (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Boca Raton, FL, 1/24/08)
This Morning, Sen. McCain Was Confronted For His "Direct Contradiction" On The Bush Tax Cuts:
Sen. McCain Voted Against The Bush Tax Cuts, And Was Against Extending Them. NBC's TIM RUSSERT: "One of the questions that has been raised repeatedly in this campaign, Senator, is your opposition to the Bush tax cuts back in 2001. One of only two Republican senators. Back then you gave a floor speech and said this: 'I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.' Then you were on Meet The Press in April of '04, I asked you about that vote. I also asked you about postponing the Bush tax cuts and this is what you said: SEN. MCCAIN: "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 1/27/08)
NBC's Tim Russert: "You Are Now Supporting Extending Them… A Direct Contradiction." RUSSERT: "You wouldn't support extending them, but you are now supporting extending them on the radio with this ad: MCCAIN RADIO AD: "I'll make the Bush tax cuts permanent." RUSSERT: "That's a direct contradiction." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 1/27/08)
To view Sen. McCain's "direct contradiction," click here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVG4ROuLSf0
Sen. McCain Recently Insisted He Wouldn't Need An Economically-Savvy Running Mate:
Sen. McCain Now Says That Because Of His Experience On The Senate Commerce Committee, He Wouldn't Need A Vice President With Economic Experience. "Noting that he also later ran the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. McCain said in the interview that he would feel no need to select a vice president with expertise in economic policy to balance his own foreign-policy experience." (David Leonhardt, "Fiscal Mantra For McCain: Less Is More," The New York Times, www.nytimes.com,1/26/08)
Yet Just Months Ago, Sen. McCain Said He Would Need A Running Mate "Well-Grounded In Economics":
In November 2007, Sen. McCain Said He Would Choose A Vice-President Who Understands Economics Because He Doesn't. "On at least one occasion, McCain has raised the matter himself. On Nov. 10, while traveling through New Hampshire on his Straight Talk Express bus, McCain was asked what he would seek in a vice presidential candidate if nominated. After mentioning the ability of a potential running mate to replace the president, McCain said, 'You also look for people who maybe have talents you don't, or experience or knowledge you don't, as well.' 'What are those qualities that you don't - that you wouldn't mind complementing?' asked David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times. McCain paused. 'Uh, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, somebody who's really well grounded in economics,' he said." (Sasha Issenberg, "McCain Tested On Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, 1/26/08)

In The Recent Boca Raton Debate, Sen. McCain Denied Saying He Didn't Know About Economics:

McCain Denied His Own Comments When Tim Russert Quoted Him Saying He Did Not Know About Economics. RUSSERT: " And now the economy has taken hold. Ask any of the voters; it's the economy. Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?" MCCAIN: "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics." (MSNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Boca Raton, FL, 1/24/08)
But Sen. McCain Himself Has Repeatedly Said He Doesn't Understand Economic Issues:
Sen. McCain: "The Issue Of Economics Is Not Something I've Understood As Well As I Should." "Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he 'may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,' McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book.'" (Sasha Issenberg, "McCain: It's About The Economy," The Boston Globe, www.boston.com, Posted 12/18/07)

Sen. McCain: "I Still Need To Be Educated." "On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tells me: 'I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.'" (Stephen Moore, "Reform, Reform, Reform," OpinionJournal.com, 11/26/05)

LIZ CHENEY JOINS ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

Today, Governor Mitt Romney announced that Elizabeth "Liz" Cheney will be joining the Romney for President campaign. Having most recently worked at the U.S. State Department handling Middle East policy, Cheney will serve as a senior foreign policy adviser to Governor Romney.
"I am proud to support Governor Romney. Throughout this campaign, he has distinguished himself as a leader who can guide our country with a clear vision for overcoming the threats we face today. Dedicated to the success of our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Governor Romney is the only candidate who has outlined a comprehensive strategy for defeating the global Jihadist threat. I look forward to working with Governor Romney, because he is the leader our country needs," said Liz Cheney.
Making today's announcement, Governor Romney said, "Liz Cheney brings to our campaign years of experience helping to formulate America's foreign policy and to advance democracy and reform in the Middle East. She understands that to defeat this global Jihadist threat we have to help Muslim nations reject the violent extreme. I am honored that she will be joining our team."
Background On Liz Cheney:
Liz Cheney Is A Former High-Ranking State Department Official With Years Of Experience Helping To Formulate America's Foreign Policy. Most recently, Cheney served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. As the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, she was the second-ranking State Department official overseeing U.S. policy in the Middle East. She helped develop and oversee programs to promote democracy and reform in the Arab world. Before joining the State Department, she served at the U.S. Agency for International Development, the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank, and as an attorney at White & Case LLP. Cheney was also a National Campaign Co-Chair for the Fred Thompson presidential campaign.

THE WALTHAM DAILY NEWS TRIBUNE (MA) ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT

"Mitt Romney's record here in Massachusetts has also escaped scrutiny. A competent, if often indifferent, manager, he was neither effective nor inspiring as a leader. ... Sen. John McCain stands head and shoulders above this crowd. On policy, we often disagree, but we've long been impressed by his willingness to take principled stands that go against his political self-interest." -- The Daily News Tribune
Excerpts From "Primary Endorsements"
EditorialThe Daily News Tribune January 27, 2008
... For Republicans: John McCain
George W. Bush's disappointing presidency has left Republicans divided and dispirited, which is reflected in their cast of candidates. All have flaws, but one has qualities that make him our clear choice.
Of the remaining candidates, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the most entertaining, with an engaging wit and a take on economic issues that contrasts with the corporate Republicanism of his opponents. But his inexperience in foreign and military affairs is troubling, some of his policy prescriptions are curious and he shows a disturbing tendency to blur the distinctions between church and state.
Rudy Giuliani is a legend in his own mind, a man whose performance over a few days following the attacks of 9/11 blinded many Republicans to his real record. While things improved dramatically while he was mayor of New York, nearly every other large American city saw similar reductions in crime and welfare rolls. His real record, before 9/11 and after he left office, betrays tendencies toward arrogance, cronyism and overreaching.
Mitt Romney's record here in Massachusetts has also escaped scrutiny. A competent, if often indifferent, manager, he was neither effective nor inspiring as a leader. His actions seemed more geared toward burnishing his own credentials than solving real problems. As we've seen in the presidential campaign, Romney has the constancy of a weathervane.
Sen. John McCain stands head and shoulders above this crowd. On policy, we often disagree, but we've long been impressed by his willingness to take principled stands that go against his political self-interest. He alienated the most powerful interests in Washington and in GOP politics by pushing campaign finance reform. He stood up to his party's president in time of war in order to prohibit the use of torture by American forces. On the eve of his presidential campaign, he teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy on comprehensive immigration reform legislation, knowing he would be branded a supporter of amnesty.
In the pursuit of the nomination that eluded him eight years ago, McCain has become less of a maverick and less of a straight shooter. But he has a record of working effectively across the aisle and his knowledge and experience, especially on national security issues, far exceeds that of his rivals. He deserves to represent his party in the general election.
Read The Entire Daily News Tribune Editorial: "Primary Endorsements"

NEWSPAPERS FROM ACROSS THE NATION ENDORSE GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Romney Rises As Republican Choice" (1/27/08)
"'To win the White House, Republicans need a nominee who can be competitive in states drifting Democratic – Ohio or Colorado, among others. Romney can,' the AJC editorial board notes in its endorsement in the Republican race."
…
"The qualities needed now in the Oval Office are business knowledge and experience, an understanding of economies and the imperatives of those who manage them around the world, an ability to problem-solve and to assess talent and to assemble the right team to accomplish a mission. What's needed, too, is a strong grounding in principle and steadfastness in the face of pressure and panic, but with the adaptability and flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances."
… "But McCain does not have management experience nor wide-ranging expertise in business and economics. The Republican who best exemplifies all the qualities needed in a president is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a successful CEO and the target of Huckabee's populist broadlines."
…
"For Republicans, it's time to be realistic.
"And the reality is that the next president could be handed a Congress controlled by Democrats, as George W. Bush was in 2006. That demands a leader with experience in working with the opposition party."
… "In addition to a pragmatism toward the opposition, another practical concern for Republicans is electability. To win the White House, Republicans need a nominee who can be competitive in states drifting Democratic – Ohio or Colorado, among others.
"Romney can. On policy matters, the great differences are between the two parties – not, frankly, the serious contenders in either field.
"It is for that reason that purists should recognize that the crucial test is which of these candidates can win in November. In all respects, Romney looks, sounds and acts presidential, projecting competence and the intelligence to deal comfortably with policy nuance and complexity. In a perilous world, whether the peril is terrorism, global competition or a tanking economy, Mitt Romney is the Republican who inspires confidence in his ability to lead.
"'I will not need briefings on how the economy works; I know how it works,' Romney said last week in Florida. 'I've been there. I think it's time to have a president who understands the economy, understands jobs, understands why jobs come and go.'
"That should be an appealing argument to Republicans."
To read the full endorsement, please see: http://www.ajc.com
Hartford Courant: "Mr. Romney For The GOP" (1/27/08)
"Mitt Romney's record while governor of Massachusetts was much better than he's given credit for. It's the record of an achiever.
"The Republican governor led the fight to control sprawl and bring more affordable housing to the Bay State with groundbreaking laws and a dramatic reorganization of state agencies. In 2003, he combined transportation, housing, environmental and energy agencies into a super-agency, charged it with stopping runaway suburban growth, then appointed a Democrat environmentalist to run it. By comparison, Connecticut is still nibbling around the edges of smart growth.
"The former venture-capital company CEO and rescuer of the 2002 Winter Olympics also worked with the Democratic legislature to stop job losses and reduce a projected $3 billion budget shortfall. He managed to balance his state's budget without sales or income tax or gas increases. And he streamlined other government agencies — all while maintaining the state's huge accomplishments from a decade of education reforms that put Massachusetts ahead of Connecticut on many academic achievement scores.
"Though some in his party abhorred it as 'socialized medicine,' Mr. Romney backed a bold state plan to cover the uninsured that required every Massachusetts citizen to have health insurance but provided aid for those who couldn't afford it. His business school case-method approach to health care – let states experiment; see who comes up with the best ideas – is the most likely to yield ingenious and flexible solutions to an increasingly worrisome national issue."
…
"With the economy gaining on the war in Iraq as the leading worry for Americans, however, Mr. Romney's real-world grasp of economic principles, his real-world successes on both sides of the public/private-sector aisle, are increasingly valuable assets."
…
"He's believable when he promises to bring 'innovation and transformation' to Washington. He has done it.
"He is The Courant's choice for the Feb. 5 Republican presidential primary."
To read the full endorsement, please see: http://www.courant.com
Salt Lake Tribune: "Executive Material: Mitt Romney Should Be The Republican Nominee" (1/27/08)
"When Americans go to the polls in November, they will be electing a chief executive of the United States. As we survey the Republican field of presidential aspirants in Utah's Feb. 5 primary, one candidate stands above the others as a talented chief executive: Mitt Romney.
"Utahns learned about Romney up close when the state's governor at the time, Mike Leavitt, tapped him in 1999 to rescue the scandal-plagued committee that was organizing the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. In the subsequent months, we watched him quickly assemble a top-drawer management team, impose financial discipline and turn a foundering ship around. He brought the Games in on budget, and brought the world a winter Olympiad of unrivaled brilliance.
"That's one reason Utahns admire Romney."
…
"No other Republican candidate, not even Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who guided his city through the 9/11 crisis, can match Romney's executive resume in both government and the private sector. That's a big reason why we believe he is presidential timber and deserves the support of Utah's Republican voters on Feb. 5." …
To read the full endorsement, please see: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8087587

THE MEMPHIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT

"Republicans have an excellent choice in Arizona Sen. John McCain. ... McCain's record as a war hero and his long service in the U.S. Senate give him a perspective on foreign policy that his opponents don't have." -- Memphis Commercial Appeal
Excerpts From "Clinton, McCain Best Prepared"
EditorialMemphis Commercial AppealJanuary 27, 2008
... Republicans have an excellent choice in Arizona Sen. JOHN McCAIN. ...
In the Republican primary, McCain's well-deserved reputation as a maverick could be looked upon as either an asset or a liability.
Some conservatives dislike McCain because of his independent streak on some issues. McCain has opposed legalized abortions, but supported stem cell research.
He opposed a ban on assault weapons, but supported criminal background checks for people who purchase firearms at gun shows.
He advocated securing our nation's borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, but also supported a program to give some of those immigrants a path to citizenship.
Some people have and will continue to criticize McCain for failing to more strictly adhere to right-wing ideology.
It is this board's position, however, that such nuanced positions demonstrate McCain's ability to recognize that complex problems require complex solutions that can't always be referenced in a partisan political handbook.
McCain's record as a war hero and his long service in the U.S. Senate give him a perspective on foreign policy that his opponents don't have. He's been a leading advocate in Congress for campaign finance reform. He's been outspoken about the need to outlaw torture and provide proper legal representation for military prisoners.
He seems genuine about his interest in developing alternative fuel sources to combat global warming and reduce this country's dependence on foreign oil. He believes in spending what is necessary to maintain a strong military, but also wants to reduce "pork barrel" spending within the federal budget.
Among McCain's opponents, Mitt Romney's business acumen and his executive experience as governor of Massachusetts make him an impressive candidate.
On the balance, though, McCain seems to have more to offer. McCain seems to have a broader appeal among moderates and independents, which would be useful in uniting the country behind a set of common goals.
For all of those reasons and more, this page recommends McCain in the Republican primary.
Read The Entire Memphis Commercial Appeal Editorial: "Clinton, McCain Best Prepared"

McCain: The Weekly Standard: "How Bush Decided On The Surge"

"But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy." -- The Weekly Standard's Fred BarnesHow Bush Decided On The SurgeA year ago, we were losing in Iraq. Then the president made the most momentous decision of his presidency.
By Fred BarnesThe Weekly StandardFebruary 4, 2008 Issue
The date: December 13, 2006. The location: a windowless conference room in the Pentagon known as the Tank. It was an inauspicious place for President Bush to confront the last major obstacle to the most important decision of his second term, perhaps of his entire presidency. And the president chose not to deal with his hosts, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a commander in chief would address subordinates. He hadn't come to the military brass's turf simply to order the five chiefs and two combatant commanders to begin a "surge" of additional troops in Iraq and to pursue a radical change in strategy. For that, he might have summoned them to the Oval Office or the Situation Room in the basement of the White House. He had come to the Pentagon to persuade and cajole, not command.
The president was in a weak and lonely position. After Republicans lost the Senate and House in the midterm election on November 7, nearly 200 members of Congress had met with him at the White House, mostly to grouse about Iraq. Democrats urged him to begin withdrawing troops, in effect accepting defeat. Many of the Republicans were panicky and blamed Bush and the Iraq war for the Democratic landslide. They feared the 2008 election would bring worse losses. They wanted out of Iraq too.
Inside his own administration, Bush had few allies on a surge in Iraq aside from the vice president and a coterie of National Security Council (NSC) staffers. The Joint Chiefs were disinclined to send more troops to Iraq or adopt a new strategy. So were General George Casey, the American commander in Iraq, and Centcom commander John Abizaid. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice favored a troop pullback. A week earlier, the Iraq Study Group, better known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, had recommended a graceful exit from Iraq.
The presence of former secretary of state James Baker, a longtime Bush family friend, on the commission was viewed in Washington and around the world as significant. It was assumed, correctly in this instance, that Baker wouldn't have taken the post if the president had objected. (At least one top Bush adviser faulted Rice for not blocking the amendment by Republican representative Frank Wolf of Virginia that created the commission in the first place.) Baker was seen as providing cover for Bush to order a gradual retreat from Iraq.
But retreat was the furthest thing from Bush's mind. "This is very trite," he told me. "Failure was no option ... I never thought I had to give up the goal of winning." He wanted one more chance to win.
At the Pentagon, Bush listened sympathetically to the complaints and worries of the chiefs. He promised to ease the strain the war had put on the military. Bush knew the idea of deploying more troops and changing the strategy would be a tough sell. It had been hatched outside the Pentagon. Co-opting the chiefs was "tricky business," an aide said. It "would be the most demanding civil-military challenge the president would face."
Some of the president's aides feared the chiefs would raise such strenuous objections to a surge that Bush would back off or, worse, they'd mount a frontal assault to kill the idea. Neither fear was realized. The session in the Tank lasted nearly two hours. When it was over, the chiefs were unenthusiastic. Weeks earlier, when Bush aides had asked them to draft a plan for what a surge would look like militarily, the Pentagon had dawdled. Now, with Bush doing the asking, the chiefs agreed to produce a surge plan. Bush had gotten all he needed from them -- acquiescence. The surge was on.
It wouldn't be announced until Bush addressed the nation on January 10, 2007. In the meantime, important details had to be worked out, such as getting assurances from Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki that he wouldn't interfere to protect Shia friends or militias. And when the Pentagon said one or two more Army brigades would suffice, the White House consulted General David Petraeus, whose selection as the new commander in Iraq had yet to be made public. Petraeus said he'd need a minimum of five and that's what he got. "I decided to go robust," Bush said. A senior adviser added: "If you're going to be a bear, be a grizzly."
For an unpopular president facing a Democratic Congress ferociously opposed to the war in Iraq, it was a risky and defiant decision. Now, a year later, it's clear the surge has been a success. Violence is down, Baghdad mostly pacified, many Sunni leaders have abandoned their insurgency, and Al Qaeda in Iraq has been crushed (though not eliminated).
The war is not over, nor have the Iraqi government's steps toward sectarian reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis amounted to much. But should progress continue to the point that American troops begin coming home in large numbers and Iraq emerge as a reasonably secure democracy, a possibility arises: that because of his surge decision, Bush not only won the war in Iraq but saved his presidency.
The summer before Bush's visit to the Tank, success in Iraq had seemed unattainable. As sectarian conflict mushroomed and violence in Baghdad lurched out of control, the president had reluctantly concluded the war in Iraq was being lost. His hopes for a stable Iraq, buoyed by three elections there in 2005 and the installation of a democratic government, had been dashed. "There was just a constant stream of reporting about an impending civil war or innocent people being just run over by lawlessness and armed gangs," he told me when I interviewed him recently. "The cumulative effect of the rise in violence suggested to me we were going to have to do something different."
By early November, the president had a pretty good idea what that something should be. On November 5, the Sunday before Election Day, he met with Robert Gates, deputy national security adviser and eventually CIA director in the administration of Bush's father, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Bush was looking for a replacement for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose departure was to be announced the day after the election. Gates, president of Texas A&M University at the time, was his first choice.
Gates "informed me in the course of the conversation that, as a member of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, he favored a surge of additional troops in Iraq," Bush said. This matched the president's own view. "I was thinking about a different strategy based upon U.S. troops moving in there in some shape or form, ill-defined at this point, but nevertheless helping to provide more security through a more robust counterinsurgency campaign," he said.
The president had been impressed by a plan developed by his NSC aides with advice from a loosely knit group of retired and active duty Army officers and civilian experts. It called for adding troops, protecting Iraqi citizens, securing Baghdad, and eventually pacifying the country. Bush received a daily written report on Iraq, and as conditions worsened in the fall he began to question NSC staffers informally about his options in Iraq. "Not every meeting in the White House is a formal meeting," Bush told me. "A lot of times decisions can be formulated outside the formal process."
The surge decision certainly was. By the time a formal NSC review began in October, followed by an "interagency" task force that met from mid-November to early January, Bush was quietly but solidly pro-surge. Had another credible plan for victory in Iraq come to his attention, Bush might have latched onto it. None did.
National security adviser Steve Hadley knew the president was single-mindedly committed to winning in Iraq. "He knew my anxiety and ... knew my intensity on the issue," Bush said. "He read me like a book." Though the president hadn't requested it, Hadley's deputy J.D. Crouch assigned NSC aide William Luti, an ex-Navy officer, to prepare a surge blueprint. When Meghan O'Sullivan, the 37-year-old Oxford Ph.D. who ran the NSC's Iraq desk and was an early advocate of a surge, dropped by, Bush casually questioned her about Iraq. He also grilled Hadley, Crouch, and NSC official Peter Feaver about conditions in Iraq. "Any chance I had, when I was alone with them, I would probe, get their sentiments."
He was never alarmed, Bush said, by the opposition to a surge from nearly everyone in the political community, the media, and the foreign policy establishment -- everyone, he pointed out, "except for the people inside the White House I trust. We've been in this foxhole now for seven years, and we're battle-tested, hardened veterans of dealing with the elite opinion in Washington, D.C."
Though Bush had all but decided on a surge before the formal "interagency review" began looking at new options on Iraq, the process wasn't a charade. It forced the president to consider alternatives. And it also involved agencies besides the White House -- the Defense and State departments, the CIA, the Joint Chiefs. "At a very minimum," the president said, it made them "feel they had a say in the development of a strategy." In this case, a small say.
The military, in Bush's view, has to be treated with special deference and tact. "One of the most important jobs of a commander in chief, and particularly in a time of war, is to be thoughtful and sensitive about the U.S. military," he said. Bush believes in persuading the military to embrace his policies rather than simply imposing them. In fact, a senior Pentagon official said Bush hoped the military would use the interagency review to push for a surge on its own. That didn't happen. The chiefs preferred the status quo, which meant sticking to a strategy of training the Iraqi army and leaving it with the job of defeating the insurgency.
This was the attitude Bush sought to mollify when he went to the Tank, the regular meeting place for the Joint Chiefs. He sat across a table from them: chairman Peter Pace, Army chief Peter Schoomaker, Marine commandant James T. Conway, chief of naval operations Michael Mullen, and Air Force chief T. Michael Moseley. Casey and Abizaid, the combatant commanders, were also present. Two defense secretaries sat, a bit awkwardly, on Bush's side of the table, the outgoing Donald Rumsfeld and his successor, Robert Gates, who was confirmed the following week.
In September, Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired general Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and Pace. Keane insisted the "train and leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced. But now, with Bush favoring a strategy nearly identical to Keane's, he didn't object. "Rumsfeld was never a lose guy," a Bush adviser said. "He always wanted to win."
With Bush's connivance, Cheney asked the chiefs a series of questions designed to ease their qualms about a surge. What would be the consequences of losing in Iraq? Was the Iraqi army capable of quelling the sectarian violence without substantial help from American troops?
The chiefs had real grievances to air, and they didn't hold back. Schoomaker cited the stress on combat forces from repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, Bush told me, was "the main thing I remember from that meeting. That was clearly a factor in some of the people around the table's thinking ... if you sustain our level, much less increase the level, you could, Mr. President, strain the force, which is an important consideration."
Bush agreed that strain was a problem. Then he delivered a sharp rejoinder, touching on a theme he returned to in nearly every meeting on Iraq. "The biggest strain on the force would be a defeat in Iraq," he said. Winning trumped strain. To alleviate the strain, the president committed to enlarging the Army by two divisions and increasing the size of the Marine Corps. The chiefs had two more complaints. The military, practically alone, was carrying the load in Iraq. Where were the civilians from the State Department and other agencies? Again, Bush agreed with their point. He promised to assign more civilians to Iraq. (The number of provincial reconstruction teams was soon doubled.)
Their final problem was the unreliability of Iraq's Shia government and army. Would Iraqi forces show up and do their part in the surge? And would they act in a non-sectarian manner, treating Sunnis the same as Shia? Bush said he'd get a public commitment on both counts from Maliki before making a final decision on the surge. And he did.
In early 2006, Bush was positive about prospects in Iraq. "First of all, 2005 was a fascinating year," he said. "You know, elections were held, the country looked relatively calm." The president wouldn't have been as hopeful if he'd talked to colonels and majors and captains on the ground in Iraq. As news traveled up the military chain of command in Iraq, then to the White House, it tended to get more optimistic. Bush's confidence about Iraq would soon be shattered.
On February 22, 2006, the golden dome of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest Shia mosques in Iraq, was bombed. That single act of violence would change everything. For several weeks, Iraqi Shia and their militias didn't react, and Bush and his advisers thought they'd dodged a bullet.
Then in April, violence exploded with a fury unseen in Iraq in the nearly three years since American troops had deposed Saddam Hussein. Shia militias hadn't responded to earlier al Qaeda and Sunni provocations. But now they erupted in a killing spree. Shia death squads slaughtered thousands of Sunnis. Baghdad became a free fire zone. Iraq was on the verge of an all-out civil war.
At the White House, officials began to question the military strategy in Iraq and the assumptions behind it. American forces had been pursuing a "small footprint." Its rationale was that Americans were an occupying force whose presence stoked the Iraqi insurgency. So the strategy was to keep U.S. troops out of Iraqi neighborhoods as much as practicable. They were camped instead in large installations, mostly outside Baghdad, and deployed on missions to destroy al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents.
There was another crucial assumption shared by American military leaders: Iraqis had to step up first. Violence wouldn't subside until the new Iraqi government took tangible steps toward reconciliation between Sunnis and Shia. Reconciliation was a precondition for security. And while the American military could train and equip an Iraqi army, it couldn't win the war. If Bush was skeptical of the small footprint, he never expressed it. He accepted the assurance of his commanders that the strategy was working -- until Samarra.
After the bombing, NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren't alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy -- but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad. But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy.
White House thinking about Iraq changed quickly, at least at the staff level. The reigning assumptions about the conflict were discarded. American troops weren't seen as targets and catalysts for violence anymore. Iraqis wanted their protection. Nor was the insurgency the biggest threat to stability. Sectarian violence, fueled by Al Qaeda in Iraq, was. To tamp it down, a new strategy was required.
The counterinsurgency option, with its emphasis on protecting people, was soon popular with NSC officials. At O'Sullivan's request, Army general Kevin Bergner was assigned to her staff. He had conducted a small counterinsurgency operation in Mosul in 2005 that succeeded in reducing violence and restoring normal life. Around the same time, Colonel H.R. McMaster had led a successful counterinsurgency effort to secure Tal Afar in northwest Iraq.
To stimulate fresh consideration of Iraq strategy, the NSC staff organized a panel of experts to address the president and his war cabinet at Camp David in mid-June. The two-day meeting at the presidential retreat loomed as a potential turning point in the Bush administration's approach to Iraq.
The four-man panel wasn't stacked. Kagan spoke in favor of additional troops and outlined his plan for pacifying Baghdad with a "clear, hold, and build" strategy. American soldiers, along with Iraqi troops, would do the holding, living in Baghdad and guarding its citizens, Sunni and Shia alike. Robert Kaplan, the foreign correspondent and military writer now teaching at the Naval Academy, talked about successful counterinsurgency campaigns in the past. (Kaplan's books are among Bush's favorites.) Kaplan neither advocated a troop buildup nor opposed it.
Countering Kagan, Michael Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operations officer, explained how Iraq could actually be won with fewer troops, not more. Vickers is now an assistant secretary of defense. The fourth panelist was Eliot Cohen, now a State Department adviser. Bush had read his book on wartime leadership, Supreme Command. Cohen reemphasized its theme: Leaders should hold their generals accountable if a war is being lost or won.
Bush's reaction to the panel offered no hint of his thinking. After the first day's session, he secretly flew to Iraq to attend the inauguration of Maliki's government. Bush's advisers, still at Camp David and expecting to see him in person, were surprised when he spoke to them by teleconference from Baghdad.
Rather than a turning point, the events of June prompted a fleeting moment of optimism. The week before Camp David, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, had been killed. (Cheney has a piece of the house where Zarqawi died on display at his residence.) And not only was Iraq getting a new and presumably more effective government, but American and Iraqi forces were jointly beginning an initiative to curb violence in Baghdad.
Organized by Casey, Operation Together Forward embraced the essence of counterinsurgency -- clear, hold, and build -- on paper. But in the field, it was counter-insurgency-lite with no additional American troops. Americans and Iraqis were to together drive out al Qaeda and the insurgents and take over Baghdad neighborhoods, with the Iraqis then staying behind to keep them secure. But many Iraqi units failed to show up. Those that did refused to stick around. The operation fizzled, as did a second attempt dubbed Together Forward II.
Bush, not heeding Cohen's advice, didn't blame Casey. The strategy "was unable to work because the clear, build, and hold was not complete," he said. "We would clear, we would somewhat build, but we wouldn't hold. And the sectarian violence that I thought had been avoided right after the Golden Mosque bombing began to spiral and neighborhoods were being cleansed."
The president, normally upbeat, was growing worried. At almost every meeting on Iraq, he emphasized "winning." It was Bush's mantra. But now he was losing the biggest gamble of his presidency. Another recurring theme was the consequences of defeat for America, Iraq, and the Middle East. "I was constantly trying to think about what do we need to do to succeed, what was it that was necessary," he said.
And so the first thing we did, here in the White House, with a very small group of people, was work on whether a different strategy was needed. And there were competing strategies. One was to keep it the way it was. Two was clear, build, and hold with a counterinsurgency strategy, empowering the Iraqis, but at the same time having enough troops there to make sure that the security situation changed, primarily in the capital as well as Anbar province, where the Sunnis were being harmed greatly by al Qaeda.
The other one was kind of the burnout strategy -- step back, let it burn out, contain it, go to the borders, encampments outside the city, let them fight it out, and eventually it will fade out, and then we'll make sure it doesn't get totally out of hand, but out of hand albeit to a certain extent.
In the NSC's inner circle, Bush's partiality was clear. He liked option two, what later became known as the "surge." He got plenty of reinforcement for that position. Hadley and Crouch traveled to Iraq in late October and early November: Hadley to talk to political leaders, Crouch to spend time with military units. On his return, Hadley sent a memo to Bush and his war cabinet that criticized Maliki, but also pointedly hinted at a surge of additional troops in Iraq. The memo was leaked to the New York Times.
"We might also need to fill the current four-brigade gap in Baghdad with coalition (American) forces if reliable Iraqi forces are not identified," Hadley wrote. And the president should "ask Secretary of Defense and General Casey to make a recommendation about whether more forces are needed in Baghdad."
Crouch visited Anbar and found what O'Sullivan and others had also discovered in Iraq: American soldiers were now welcomed. Anbar, once controlled by Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq, had turned. The Sunnis had revolted against their al Qaeda allies and joined forces with Americans. With more troops, U.S. officers said they could gain control of the entire Anbar region.
On November 30, the day after Hadley's memo became public, Bush met with Maliki in Amman, Jordan. He had "a couple of important factors" to work out before committing to a surge. "One was, would I have a partner to deal with in the prime minister of Iraq," Bush said. "I went out to the region to have a little sit-down with him, to get a sense of his intensity in dealing with killers, whether they be Sunni or Shia. In other words, there had to be Iraqi buy-in to any new strategy in order for it to be effective."
The second issue was whether the Iraqi troops would participate in a surge and perform better than they had in Together Forward I and II. Maliki claimed the Iraqi army could handle the job of securing Baghdad alone. His attitude, the president said, was, "We need you there for a while, we can do this, we'll take care of it." But "after the meeting, General Casey said they can't." Bush believed Casey.
It was weeks before Bush got satisfaction from Maliki on the two points, weeks that included numerous phone conversations and talks by teleconference. Finally, in a speech four days before Bush announced the surge, Maliki gave public assurances that Iraqi troops would be fully engaged in pacifying Baghdad and would act in a nonsectarian manner.
In Washington, the president got little satisfaction from the interagency review of Iraq policy. Instead of a surge, the State Department favored a strategy of pulling troops out of Baghdad and allowing the Sunnis and Shia to finish their bloody struggle. When Bush heard about this idea, he rejected it out of hand. "I don't believe you can have political reconciliation if your capital city is burning," he said.
The Pentagon was on Bush's side, arguing that American troops shouldn't be ordered to stand by while people were being massacred. But, as Bush was to hear firsthand during his visit to the Tank, the military wasn't favorably disposed to a surge either. During the review, Joint Chiefs of Staff representatives stuck to the line that political reconciliation, not a troop buildup, was the key to reducing violence in Iraq. They also said a greater civilian effort was needed in Iraq. As for the U.S. military, the status quo in Iraq was fine.
Bush wasn't buying that. On December 11, Bush had five military experts to the Oval Office to talk about the Iraq war. Keane, a friend of Cheney but almost unknown to Bush, made the strongest impression, arguing that "train and leave" wasn't a strategy for winning. He laid out a case for the surge, reinforcing Bush's strong inclination. Retired generals Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey opposed the surge. (McCaffrey later changed his mind.) Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Democrat, criticized the gradual retreat urged by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. And Eliot Cohen talked about civil-military aspects of the Iraq war and said Bush should talk to younger officers, not just the generals.
That afternoon, Keane and Frederick Kagan gave Cheney a full briefing, including a slide show, on their surge plan. It had been developed at AEI with help from Keane's network of officers. Cheney didn't need much encouraging. Bush told Cheney biographer (and WEEKLY STANDARD senior writer) Stephen F. Hayes last year that the vice president had always been a "more troops guy." The surge neatly fit Cheney's specifications. Keane and Kagan became a sought-after pair in Washington, a gravelly voiced general and a young professor with a plan to win in Iraq. They gave briefings to Hadley and Pentagon officials, among others.
Bush was originally scheduled to deliver a nationally televised speech on Iraq the second week in December, a day or so after the Tank session. But the president wasn't ready. He wanted to give Gates time to visit Iraq. And a key decision -- about sending troops to Anbar, home of the Sunni Awakening -- was still to be made. The speech was put off until after New Year's.
When Gates returned from Iraq just before Christmas, he brought Casey's recommendation for a surge of one or two brigades -- a mini-surge. Bush felt that wouldn't work. He had agreed with Hadley and Crouch that Anbar was an opportunity worth seizing. He didn't want to "piecemeal the operation" by tackling the province later. Once he'd "made the decision to cleanse Anbar and settle down Baghdad at the same time," Bush said, it had to be five brigades.
By this time, Petraeus was a factor in the decision-making. Both Gates and Rumsfeld had recommended him. He was already a favorite of Cheney, who'd spent a day at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, with Petraeus while the general was writing the new Army counterinsurgency manual. Petraeus gave a pre-publication copy of the manual to Cheney.
Though he was replacing Casey and jettisoning his strategy, the president didn't want to embarrass him. Bush admires Casey and rejects the Lincoln analogy: that like President Lincoln he fired generals until he found one who would win the war. When I raised the analogy, Bush interrupted. "McClellan and Casey," he said. "That's not accurate." Lincoln fired General George McClellan and ultimately made Ulysses Grant his top commander. According to the analogy, Petraeus is Bush's Grant. "I wouldn't go there," Bush told me. He promoted Casey to Army chief of staff.
The Petraeus factor strengthened Hadley's hand in working on Bush's speech. Words matter in presidential addresses, even a single word. The Pentagon wanted Bush to announce a surge of "up to" five brigades. Hadley urged the president to be more specific and forceful. Bush agreed and said he was "committed" to sending five brigades.
And if a question lingered about his intentions on Anbar, Bush answered it in his speech. "I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops," he declared.
The 20-minute speech on January 10, 2007, was not Bush's most eloquent. And it wasn't greeted with applause. Democrats condemned the surge and Republicans were mostly silent. Polls showing strong public opposition to the war in Iraq were unaffected.
But the president, as best I could tell, wasn't looking for affirmation. He was focused solely on victory in Iraq. The surge may achieve that. And if it does, Bush's decision to spurn public opinion and the pressure of politics and intensify the war in Iraq will surely be regarded as the greatest of his presidency.
Read The Weekly Standard: "How Bush Decided On The Surge"