Video: “Winning Combination”
posted at 10:10 am on January 24, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Florida polls vary fairly widely between McCain and Romney leads of between 2 and 5 points for either one. The average has McCain up by less than half a point, meaning it’s a dead head just 5 days out.
The rap on McCain is of course that apart from the war, he’s hardly a conservative. He advocates restricting free speech, hasn’t helped get conservative judges to the bench, voted against the Bush tax cuts, etc etc etc. It’s all true. So if you’re Romney, how do you set yourself up as the true conservative without going negative and getting bad press or generating more good vibrations from your rivals for it?
Simple: Quote conservatives praising you. That’s what this ad does.
It sure beats what Silky is selling.
Update: I get email —
You write:
“The rap on McCain is of course that apart from the war, he’s hardly a conservative. ”
Well, even that “rap” is wrong.
McCain is certainly strong on the SURGE, but NOT on the war. Because he OPPOSES waterboarding under ANY circumsances, he wants to close Gitmo, and he wants enemy combatants to have habeus corpus rights and to be tried in the U.S. court system, etc.
Therefore, McCain, in my opinion, is WEAK on the war as a whole… certainly weaker than most of his GOP opponents this primary season.
Am I wrong?
No, you’re not wrong. In fact, as I’ve written before, McCain’s stance on waterboarding in particular is awful because it amounts to protecting politicians from the actions that government interrogators take against terrorists in order to save lives. So I stand corrected. McCain isn’t even truly strong on the war.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Awesome. Mitt in ‘08
OKCubsFan on January 24, 2008 at 10:12 AM
What teh he11 does that mean?
ronsfi on January 24, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Can’t say I’m thrilled about Mitt, but now that Hunter & Thompson are gone, he’s the most conservative one left. My biggest fear with him is that he’s the GOP’s John Kerry. I’m just waiting to see “flip-flop” sandals being waved around at the Democratic convention.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Nice…but it needs to be longer. They should quote Rush!
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM
That made me a little dizzy. What’s with the rolling tubes?
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I like what Mitt is selling more and more by the day and now that Thompson’s out of the race, Romney’s probably the best man for the job amongst the GOP field. Three cheers for a Romney/Thompson ticket!
Jockolantern on January 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM
NOBODY flip flops like the dims! On H&C last night, Romney said if it gets nasty, and he hopes it won’t, but he will “fight fire with fire” against the clinton machine. He also said about the clintons that “people who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones”. I don’t think he will take their bs lying down.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Mitt still seems greasy to me
offroadaz on January 24, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Kerry said the same thing. Now granted…there’s a VAST difference between the personalities of Romney & Kerry. Romney is a genuinely likeable guy & Kerry is a pomous you-know-what. If Romney goes up against Clinton, then the fighting is going to come off tit-for-tat & people won’t notice. But if Romney goes up against Obama, I personally think he’s in for a losing battle.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM
McCain deserves flip flops as well. XL ones.
ctmom on January 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM
At first he did to me as well. The more I thought about it the more I realized that Mitt is a smooth talker, simply because he is a business man. He is used to all of the speeches, pitches, etc. associated with that. Therefore he is very comfortable speaking to people from all walks of life. That’s a good thing.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
If it comes down to Romney and McCain, Romney is the better choice. Bloomberg can’t siphon off Independent voters from him the way he can from McCain. The Clinton’s are using the same approach that got Bubba elected – have a billionaire run as a third party candidate in order to get elected with a plurality of votes. I’m not a conspiracist, just a student of Clintonian history.
my2cents on January 24, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Mitt is going to be a terrific president.
GO MITT!
joncoltonis on January 24, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Well, at least he has a lot more than just George Will to fall back on.
Always Right on January 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I dont think so. I agree Romney & Obama both have excellent communication skills, however, the diffences in their experience are vast. If there is no mud slinging, the debate is simply about who is most qualified, most experienced,etc.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Harald cutting and pasting Huck website material in 3…2…
BacaDog on January 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Works for me.
AbaddonsReign on January 24, 2008 at 10:32 AM
When he first started making his personality known to the country, I thought a good number of folks might be inclined to think that, but unless you’ve known (and I’m not trying to stereotype here) someone like that…specifically a good upstanding mormon (our neighbors are mormons and I’ve never met nicer, more industrious people), you’ll initially be put off until you understand he really is like that, he really is as nice a guy as he seems, he really is who he says he is.
It’s entirely understandable in this day and age to be wary when meeting someone who seems like a genetic hybrid between Ward Cleaver and Charleton Heston with the work ethic of an entire farms worth of Pennsylvania Quakers for fear that person is being a poser for personal gain. It’s taken time for some folks to warm up to him I think, but I bet the same thing happens in the general election and he wins…assuming he gets the nom.
TheGoblinKing on January 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM
BacaDog on January 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
That guy has it really, really bad..
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Hey TheGoblinKing, Mitt’s hair is even messed up in these pictures!:
http://confessionsofapoliticaljunkie.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-often-do-candidates-do-stuff-like.html
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 10:37 AM
An ad quoting NRO, that is the same thing Romney did in SC. Maybe it will work better for him this time.
bnelson44 on January 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM
This is a good ad. Not only does it deny McVictim of complaining about negative ads, but it uses Mitt’s endorsements to their full effect. I expect that the “Toughest Sheriff in the country” will be front and center in FL (and other states) from this point forward.
Remember, we have the debate tonight and McShamnesty is trending down and Mitt is trending up. Will McTempertantrum lose his cool, start the personal attacks, and thus open the door for Mitt to stomp him on illegal immigration and the rest of his bald face lies? Oh please, oh please, oh please!
Will HuckaGibot and McAntifreespeech try to gang up on Mitt again? Will Rudy lay off Mitt and blast McMymomhatesmormons?
csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Romney pretty much skipped SC. He’s not holding anything back from Florida. Those two states are completely unrelated especially considering the fact that only Republicans can vote in the Florida Republican primary.
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Whoomp there it is (gotta put a bad song back in your heads today).
Mitt is the shiznit fo’ shizzle.
Brat on January 24, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Yeah, wouldn’t have been nice if Mitt’s facts worked better than McShamnesty’s lying. Well, perhaps the conservatives in FL are better informed that the indies in SC.
csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 10:43 AM
one problem with Romney, he gets beat by double digits vs. Hillary and Obama according to polls. McCain beats them both.
jp on January 24, 2008 at 10:46 AM
National polls mean nothing. Ask Fred. Ask Rudy.
csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 10:47 AM
The problem is it is not true that he is a flip-flopper — this is just a narrative invented by the media to try to stop Romney during the primary stage.
In 1994, lots of GOP men where saying that the government should stay out of the abortion issue — including Fred Thompson.
In 1994, Gay rights meant they should be treated the same as everybody else — Not Gay Marriage.
His view on Gays is the same, No Foul Treatment – No Special Treatment.
His views on abortion are different in that he know nows he must actively work to fight for the sanctity of life.
Mitt Romney fought for these values his entire time in elected office.
EJDolbow on January 24, 2008 at 10:49 AM
That means nothing here in January.
In the January 1980 Gallup Polls the results were:
Carter 63%
Reagan 32%
Do you remember how that race turned out?
EJDolbow on January 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Why is that such a hard concept for people to grasp? National polls are completely meaningless. It would not make a bit of difference if we never saw one ever again. We don’t have a national election. This primary season exemplifies perfectly why national polls mean absolutely nothing.
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM
See, now that’s a really cool thing he did there. That says a lot about the guy, and that there were no media around says even more.
TheGoblinKing on January 24, 2008 at 10:54 AM
McCain sucks. ;)
Griz on January 24, 2008 at 10:55 AM
A lot of that is probably name recognition at this point.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I’m getting the sense that Romney is slowly becoming the concensus candidate by those on the more conservative side of the party. It’s a natural progression since those who supported Thompson are probably critical of McNasty or Rudy.
That being said, the one unknown about Romney is where he stands on the issues and whether or not he has been consistent (outside of the pro-life issue that has been blown way out of proprotion). I sure hope there is some vetting going on behind the scene so that the ultimate “rat” nominee has to run on the issues and not on the usual diet of sliming the opposition with non-sequitors and lies.
highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Regarding Flip-Flops:
I used to work with a conservative Evengalical Christian. I was shocked when he told me he was pro-choice. I consider myself pro-life. When my friend explained his reasoning (wanted that option of a pregnancy threatened to kill his wife or if the pregnancy was the result of rape) it turned out that we had identical positions. (Although I restricted even those abortions more than he, like requiring the person and their minister both to pray and get an answer in the affirmative, from God, that the abortion was allowed, but you can’t put that into law.)
Here we have two people with identical positions (willing to allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, to save the mothers life or if the baby could not survive outside the mothers womb) and we adopted opposite labels. I have determined that pro-life and pro-choice labels are largely meaningless. Abortion advocates include every person who would allow any abortion as pro-choice. Some anti-abortion groups do the same.
Calling to overturn Roe V. Wade is not calling to outlaw abortion, it just sends it back to the states where it belongs.
I have a friend who’s first wife died from liver cancer. She was pregnant when it was discovered. Her doctor told her to have an abortion so he could begin chemo and radiation treatments. She refused and died when the baby was 3 months old. She made the right choice. She gave her life that another might live. Approx. 1000 babies are born every year with no brain. Medical science is not going to fix that any time soon. Many of these babies have their organs harvested and save lives (others are elected liberals in Washington).
Pro-choice implies abortion with no limits. Almost nobody falls into that catagory.
Pro-life implies abortion with no exceptions. Very few fit that description.
Let the terms die.
The the candidates define exactly where the stand. What would they allow and what would they prohibit?
The Rock on January 24, 2008 at 11:01 AM
If anyone is brave enough to watch a segment of MSNBC, this video is truly scary. It is amazing that there are people that actually believe this stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe53lFzFfAs
resqgal on January 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM
teh MITT!
Ludwig on January 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM
JP,
It is January. How many people know much about Romney at this point other than he’s that Mormon guy who ran the Olympics and was Governor of Mass? The match-ups you refer to only make sense when it is the real one-on-one comparisons. I find it hard to believe that, in reality, a mean bitter hag like Senator Clinton would be the double digit winner against anyone. Even people who will vote for her as the “rat” nominee don’t like her as a human being!
There is time to fix Romney’s name recognition issue (getting the nomination solves much of that). As I posted above, I just hope that Romney’s people are vetting out the issues and thinking beyond beating McNasty in the primaries.
highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Look, I’ve got nothing against Romney. He’s not my 1st choice, but my 1st two choices are gone. But the fact remains is that he DID change his public position on one of the most divisive issues of our time. If he’s getting hammered by fellow *republicans* on this in the primaries, just imagine what happens when all bets are off in the general?
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:15 AM
It’s more than just terms, actions are far more important. The DNC platfor calls for abortions to be “rare” yet the political party itself has refused to even join the pro-life crowd in putting an end to late-term abortions where the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Democrats may say they want the killing of unborn life to be rare but, in reality, the child has to climb out of the womb before a Democrat will give it the same rights they demand of the vilest murderer.
That being said, I agree with you that we shouldn’t let political candidates hide behind terms. Labeling oneself as “pro-choice” or “anti-war” is meaningless. Would anybody label themselves as “pro-war.” Nevertheless, we are at war and have troops in combat so if Obama wants to wave the white flag I want to know exactly what he intends to do when Iran fills the power vacuum left behind by his idiotic ideas about stopping the fighting.
Most important to me this election cycle is to know specifically what they intend to do to support the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan and what kind of jurist they intend to nominate for the SCOTUS.
highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Liked that ad, not sure about the spinning tubes, but it isn’t a bad ad.
Sure hope he beats McCain. Other than his own war time service McCain has nothing to commend him as a candidate. He’s self righteous, liberal and the fave of the left wing kooks in the MSM.
And with the NYT talking about how “everyone” hates Romney, the only better stamp of approval could be if Reagan came back for a visit and anointed Romney. (Though with his hair looking like that, Romney probably better skip the anointing.)
drewmesq on January 24, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Bingo. No cameras rolling. That’s what impressed me. I never thought I would see something like that from a politician in this day in age.
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Tim,
Do you really suppose that anybody who is passionate one way or the other about abortion that hasn’t already decided which party he/she/it is going to support. Put another way, there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat and anybody that wants to protect the “right” to kill unwanted life is going to vote for Clinton or Obama anyway.
Romney has made legitimate explanations for why his public position on protecting life has changed over time and much of the “controversy” has been stirred up by the special interests and a certain unnamed GOP candidate who thinks he is holier than God when it comes to these issues. I respect Romney’s answer to these charges because it shows the ability to change with new information, experience, etc. One of the often-opined criticisms of GWB is his refusal to change positions. Now are we to be critical when a public figure does? Just asking.
Romney is a far sight better than McNasty on so many of the issues that matter, I find it hard to believe that he’ll be tripped up in the general election by his position on protecting life. That being said, his selection of a running mate and other strategies can be used to convince the social conservatives that he won’t ignore their values when he gets elected.
highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Tim,
So did Reagan, specifically on abortion. It happens, and not just for political expediency. The whole time he was ‘pro-choice’ as the Mass governor he was getting hammered by NARAL and the like for not voting their way most of the time so it isn’t like he was in the vein of Pelosi and Co in his pro-choice-itude, he obviously was just barely on the other side of the fence, probably for the cases of rape, medical emergency, crack-babies, etc. He certainly didn’t glorify the practice by any means, he said upon entering office he’d not fight to abolish the practice, and he certainly (as demonstrated by his record) didn’t help expand it, he curtailed it.
Look, if he’s got a rationale behind it, and a good reason, why are you doubting the guy?
TheGoblinKing on January 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I never said I was doubting him…I actually said I’m supporting him now. My point is that he’s *already* been branded as a flip-flopper. What on earth makes us think that the Dem’s won’t be hammering this non-stop till November? That was exactly the strategy we had with Kerry – and I can’t imagine a scenario where the Dems won’t turn it back around on Romney.
Romney’s job (past the primary) isn’t to convince folks like me. Any one who’s both a fiscal & social conservative doesn’t have any options any more…Romney’s the last guy standing. But past the nomination, Romney’s job is to convice middle America that he’s not a flip-flopper. And I seriously doubt he can do that.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I wish Romney would start hitting McCain harder on the illegal immigration issue in Florida. Republican voters need to be forcefully reminded where McCain really stands on this issue. I think many of them are being bamboozled by McCain’s “I never supported amnesty” and “I will build the fence first” crapola.
And thanks, Bryan, for correcting your statement about McCain being “strong” on the war. I wish more Republicans understood that McCain is basically just a snarly little Democrat.
AZCoyote on January 24, 2008 at 11:39 AM
On Romney/abortion…The Dim-witts can’t hammer him on something that they totally support! Where’s the logic? If they do, then pro-lifers will think more of Mitt as he has seen the light.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 11:39 AM
If you think I’m supporting McCain, you haven’t been reading. My horses are out of this race, and Romney is the leftover. So be it.
Personally, I’m glad he changed position & had the guts to do that publicly in the Northeast. But it is *by definition* changing positions on a major issue, and you gotta know that the Dems are going to exploit that ad nauseum.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Oh reeeaaallly? And McLame can’t convince people is is not for amnesty, right?
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Sure they can. The GOP hammered a decorated veteran (John Kerry) on his war background.
And please don’t get the idea I liked Kerry. I think the best thing he could do is to move to France. But the fact remains that in the political game, you can tar anyone with whatever you want to tar him/her with, as long as you do it in a way that’s believable.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Why would he want to? McCain’s already abandoned that strategy & if he get the nomination, he’d siphon of liberal support because of his liberal stance on the issue.
Why do you think I support McCain? I haven’t been able to stand him since the Gang of 14 stuff. Are you so enamoured with Romney that you can’t talk about legitimate criticism?
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Limited government?
Did anyone read or hear Mitt’s speech in Detroit a couple of weeks ago? If that’s support for limited government, I’m Jimmy Durante.
He may be fine elsewhere, but he’s not a “full spectrum conservative”.
Jimmie on January 24, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Well, I suppose they could but, A simple “Wisdom and maturity will always make a man realize the difference between right and wrong”.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 11:48 AM
With due respect to the American populace, we’re not talking about Wisdom & Maturity. We’re talking about the modern political process, which is being able to sell yourself to the widest audience possible.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Granted, and that is why we are faced with the “no true conservative” to vote for. Pandering, pandering, pandering…
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 11:52 AM
You do or do not support McCain?
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Tim,
Let’s do a reality check here. The GOP could eventually nominate Christ himself and the “rats” are going to be nasty and inflame any of these single issue passions that they can get away with. In the case of Christ, the “rats” would probably suggest that there was some sort of lurid affair with Mary Magdeline and that Christ forgiving his killers makes him soft on crime.
highhopes on January 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM
offroadaz, I had the same impression when Mitt first came on the scene. I’ll admit that the words “Snake Oil Salesman” did pass my lips a few times back in those days. I found him a little too slick and a little too perfect.
That was then, this is now.
I don’t need to repeat his good points as many have already been posted here, but Mitt is the real deal. Trust.
TexasBella on January 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I emphatically DO NOT support McCain.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:03 PM
well, the polls that show Mitt being beat by double digits do have a 10% or so undecideded factor.
I do think its important to nominate someone that is electable, preferably not McCain of course but if he’s the most electable and can keep the 3 legs of conservatism together in the campaign…
I could see Romney placing some southern and midwestern states in play that haven’t been in awhile. and the real question is how does he do in Ohio and Florida.
we should also factor in the 3rd party options, which could get traction this time around.
jp on January 24, 2008 at 12:03 PM
There is no room for logic on this discourse. Logic and the abortion/no abortion argument went out the window long ago.
Of course you are right, no one, but the most extreme wants it only one way.
Let the candidates explain, in writing, and in show of past votes and comments, what they actually believe and support.
right2bright on January 24, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Sure – and that’s my point. The Dems are going to find anything possible to tar the nominee with. In Romney’s case, that strategy has already been provided to them by the Republican primaries. Hence my earlier comparison with him to John Kerry (which started this whole mess).
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Sorry…I see where I confused you. My statement should have read, “Why WOULD you think I support McCain?” I do not, but it seems to be assumption for some folks.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:07 PM
You have a problem with this?
…Washington should not be a benefactor, but it can and must be a partner…
And this?
If we’re going to be the world’s greatest economic power, we also have to invest in the future. It’s time for us to be bold. I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion to $20 billion – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology. Let’s invest in our future.
I think an awful lot of “conservatives” are really hard core “Libertarians”. The fact is that we have to be able to develop this technology to become more self-sufficient, and to compete with countries like India and China. We cannot allow ourselves to relinquish our economic advantage to those countries. It is a matter of national security and it would be folly to say we’re just going to give up because of strict libertarian interpretations about the Federal government’s role.
Mitt also wants to do a better job of negotiating trade agreements which too often put us at an unfair advantage. I heard a lot of people complain about that too because he used the phrase “level the playing field”. Hopefully people who read this blog have the brains to differentiate between negotiating international trade agreements and p.c. affirmative action programs based on race and gender.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Maybe, but I think that really depends on what Romney says and does just prior to the election. Kerry has this tendency to open his mouth and insert his foot, and that’s what got him labelled as a flip-flopper.
Think about this: if Kerry never uttered the words, “I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before voting against it”, The campaign ads depicting him as a flipper would not likely have been made, and he likely would never have earned that moniker.
Changing your position on something can be explained away, but holding two contradictory positions at the same time cannot. And that’s the difference. As long as Romney doesn’t stick his foot in his mouth (obviously, there are no guarantees), he can prevent such a label from ever sticking to him.
kayawanee on January 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Don’t forget that he’s angry and violent, remember that one time with the money changers? He will also have what will be dubbed “The Jew Problem,” plus they’ll hit him on forgiving adulterers and associating with tax collectors.
BKennedy on January 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I didn’t think you did, but the typo said; “why do you think I support MCain”? I just wanted to clarify. : )
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Mitt sounds just like Hillary Clinton. Mitt has alot money that he is using to try to buy the presidency but he does not have 4 to 20 billion. So he will not invest anything, the taxpayers will.
This is the same crapola feed to us by Jimmy Carter, it is just that Romney wants to waste more billions.
The way to improve our economy is through the free market, something that Mitt is not with which Mitt is not familiar.
Bain operates in closed deals using other peoples’ money to enrich a small group of plutocrats. Mitt never started a business. He took millions he got from Daddy and and connections he got from Daddy and became just another corporate internationalist, not an entrepreneur of builder of a real company.
georgealbert on January 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Full spectrum… does that mean he tries to appeal to the right and left wings of the GOP?
Just guessing…
Oink on January 24, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I sure hope you’re right. But knowing the bias of the MSM, I just don’t see him being able to compete with the rhetoric we all know is going to come against him. I’ll support him, but I’m not hopeful.
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Mormon endorsement of mormon.
maverick muse on January 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Try to stay optimistic! I too was depressed at the way the MSM treats conservatives, but, when I look back over the years, way before forums, HA, etc., I am amazed that a conservative was ever elected! The MSM does not have the power that they used to have or the power they think they have.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM
According to that logic, no one can ever make any changes in their lives with being branded a flip-flop.
I’ll try to explain this so conservatives will stop using flip-flop in the wrong way.
Kerry was against the war, then for the war, and then against the war. THAT is a flip-flop.
Mitt was pro-choice and then had a heart felt conversion and is now pro-life. That is life. That is what we are supposed to do.
And you parroting the dem talking points is just plain wrong.
csdeven on January 24, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Oh please. I was stating the obvious that this is the brand Romney is going to receive. Give me a break.
Thanks for the encouragement. I’m usually an optimist by nature, but following politics has beaten it out of me regarding campaigns. :)
Tim on January 24, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Good article from Jay Nordlinger at NRO for you naysayers to read:
Read it all
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU0YTg5M2M1MmJmMTcxNDQ0YjM0YWJmNDc1NjhkZGU=
Brat on January 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I hate illegal immigration, it’s one of the issues that most concerns me, but let’s face it: in spite of McCain’s flaws he has far more experience with foreign affairs than Mitt. His little verbal snafu yesterday aside, McCain is right that Putin’s rhetoric these days is very reminiscent of the Cold War. This is a dangerous world we live it and while Mitt undoubtedly has more experience with economic issues, McCain has more experience with foreign affairs.
McCain may not be a conservative but neither is Mitt. Voting for either one involves tradeoffs that shouldn’t be entirely overlooked because of one or two hot-button issues, as important as they are.
For example, McCain may be weak on illegal immigration but Mitt supports universal healthcare. Without knowing much about either plan, in the debate the other night Obama’s plan at least sounded less intrusive than Mitt’s because it isn’t mandated. McCain may be weak on the 1st amendment because of CFR, but Mitt supports raiding bookstores, confiscating violent fiction and pornography and prosecuting the stores proprietors. Mitt is hardly a champion of the 1st and neither is he a champion of the 2nd.
McCain may have been lying recently about his support of amnesty and regarding the Bush tax cuts, but overall McCain does seem like a fairly honest person in recent years, and even if he’s not perfect in that regard, is Mitt?
I think that with a gun to my head I’d probably vote for Mitt over McCain, because of shamnesty, but the country may be safer with McCain at the helm than with Mitt. How important is illegal immigration going to be to us if President Mitt allows Russia to steamroll over us on the world stage for fear of upsetting the economy any more than necessary? With McCain and his well-known temper Russia is going to be inclined to tamp down the embers to ward off igniting a conflict with the sleeping giant.
(Wow, this has been the best defense of McCain I can muster.)
Vote for Mitt, er, uh, McCain, uhmmm—-Oh never mind.
FloatingRock on January 24, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Romney is not even the C team. People on the A team don’t change numerous core beliefs a few months before going public.
A teamers don’t trash the USA as Mitt did when he worked at the Olympics
A teamers don’t hang around with Islamist terrorist supporters like Mitt did in Michigan.
And A teamers can beat Hillary and/or Obama. Mitt has near ZERO chance of beating either one of them. A Vote for Mitt is a Vote for Hillary as Pres.
georgealbert on January 24, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Huh?
I think you need to take a second shot at that, make it actually readable, and maybe actually include some links/facts to back up your claims.
As it stands it sounds like complete bunk to me.
Voidseeker on January 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Romney isn’t an idiot. Why would he allow Russia to steamroll over us on the world stage for fear of upsetting the economy? This isn’t a zero sum game? Just because he’s good on economic issues does not mean he must be weak on foreign affairs. Honestly I think Romney is a smarter guy then McCain in ALL areas. He’s just intellectually superior then the simple minded McCamnesty. When it comes to foreign policy, or immigration or the economy, Romney is going to be far more competent then his opponents, whether it be McCain or Clinton or Obama. Republicans are slowly realizing this.
The way I see it is McCain is guaranteed to be a dissapointment to conservatives as President. If any conservative doesn’t know by now that McCain isn’t fighing on the same team they will be forever blind to that fact. Romney cannot be worse then McCain. That is not possible. But he might be a heck of a lot better. Romney has a much higher upside then McCain. Republicans know they don’t like John McCain for the most part. Republicans are not sure if they like Romney yet. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid Romney is going to be like John McCain and turn into a liberal about EVERYTHING? Seriously, at least we have a chance with Romney. There is no hope for McCain. We already know who he is.
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Well said.
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Romney being tagged a “flip flopper” on abortion by the MSM…..I’ll take that. If that’s all they’ve got, that’s a spitball compared to the mountain of crapola that’s come from the clintons over the years!
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 2:27 PM
georgealbert on January 24, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Bless your heart, your drinking the MSM kool-aid. “McCain is the only one who can beat Hillary in the general election” per pmsnbc,abc,cbs,nbc,cnn,
wkrp in cincinnatioops…you get the drift.kcd on January 24, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Oh my God! I’m having a conversation with…myself! I’m afraid I’m done for…. : (
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Registered Republican students from AZ request your early ballot for the primary online HERE!
Do it right NOW!
Deadline is Jan. 25th.
Vote Mitt!!
Deety on January 24, 2008 at 3:23 PM
What team are you on, Dude? Team Paulnut?
Whatever it is, I hope for your sake that they have an affirmative action program for the intellectually-challenged.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Must have pegged that one Buy Danish..
kcd on January 24, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Comment pages: