Help me Spin a Liberal Presidental Candinate's Support for War!

[SilentScope001]

Uh...

 

There is this one guy who I really want to become President. He styles himself as nonpartisan, but he share lots of liberal viewpoints, so I pigeonhole him as liberal. Still, he's an interesting guy, and is willing to throw away $1,000,000,000 if he decides to run as an Indepedent (That's a billion dollars.) There's just one problem.

 

This liberal candinate is pro-Iraq War. He supported the surge.

 

And that's a problem.

 

You see, I'm okay with the Iraq War. But I realize that liberals are not. Conservatives won't vote for this liberal (because he's liberal), so the bulk of his support has to come from liberals. But liberals hate the Iraq War, so they won't support him. Meaning my guy doesn't stand a chance.

 

The good news is that this guy is unknown. That's why I'm not naming him, for fear that people who might support this guy will not support him once they realize he's Pro-War (If, in some strange case, you might be interested to support him, PM me so that I can tell you his name). But this is where, uh, you come in.

 

Try to find a way to spin it to liberals so that they would be more willing to vote for this guy, without at the same time compromising the fact that he is in fact Pro-War.

 

The liberal got a billion dollars burning a hole in his pocket, so he could very well just hire great spin doctors and convince everyone, but, uhm...I'm afraid that there are some things money can't buy.

[Web Rider]

spin it so it sounds like he's in favor of ending the war through an effective two-prong strategy of diplomacy and military muscle to help protect Iraq while preventing outside intervention, but working with neighboring nations and internal factions to get the killing to stop.

 

Being in favor of the war does not mean being in favor of it lasting forever. If somebody could come up to me and present me with some hard-through out tactics and show me explicitly how this could be settled, I'd give 'em a couple years to try. As a liberal against the war, I am of course, against it because we shouldn't have started, and also because Bush thinks as commander in chief he knows better than his generals, which is stupid. If I could be shown somebody has a viable, well planned strategy to win, well, I might just give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Corinthian]

Telling the truth would be a refreshing change.

[John Galt]

Go with Huckabee's line: We broke it, we bought it.

[Tommycat]

And that's why I like Huckabee:D

 

At any rate, it would be best not to try to change his stand, but instead show how his support for the surge was the right decision. If he changes his support after his actions, then his opponents will have something to attack him over. If you need help with that, I have a few points regarding how it actually DID help in Iraq.

[John Galt]

No. 1, Conservative and Liberal are just labels. They no longer actually represent comprehensive viewpoints. Neoconservatism is just as "liberal," as in far from the constitution, as Neoliberalism. Partisan lines really mean nothing except in the process of getting candidates nominated.

 

No. 2, no candidate is exactly what he/she claims to be. Well, let me rephrase that: ALMOST no candidate is what he/she claims to be. Case in point: http://taxhikemike.org/ ; McCain, Romney, and Clinton's constant shifting on the issues reflects this as well.

 

No. 3, If your hypothetical(or real) candidate has opinions that don't sync up 100% with the party line(and the Dems have abandoned the idea of leaving Iraq), explain WHY, and deal with your candidate as an individual. Attacking specific points of "Liberalism" could result in a bunch of straw men, or at least badly aimed attacks/questions.