Video: Romney answers McCain’s attacks
posted at 12:30 pm on January 28, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Less than 24 hours to go to the Florida primary, the polls are knotted up, and the back-and-forth between McCain and Romney is getting more intense. On Fox this morning, Mitt Romney responded to John McCain’s latest criticism — that Romney will say anything to get elected, and that he has supported timetables for withdrawing from Iraq. As Allah has covered previously, that’s an egregious attack on Romney.
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: « 1 [2] 3 »
That assessment is in your mind and it started the very second you started your intellectual dishonesty. Mitt is the lesser of two evils. McShamnesty being the worst. And you’d hard pressed to find a Mitt supporter who thinks he is the Messiah.
Seriously dude. You are losing all the credibility you used to have. You’re sounding like the Paulbots. Facts don’t matter. All that matters to you is spinning facts in an shameless attempt to help McShamnesty by weakening his competition. And the reason you do that is because you cannot defend McLiar on his liberal record.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Oh you mean this quote: (from CM’s article)
Oh, no wait. That’s the opposite.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Good call there - You know it’s even more perplexing that someone’s having to get schooled by Vanceone AND r2b (1:09pm) on the same side of an issue with Mitt.
SkinnerVic on January 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM
So, I’m comparing and contrasting both McCain’s and Romney’s publicly stated positions and I’m finding very little difference between the two. Both want to win. Both want to set benchmarks with timetables, and both have expressed support for an eventual drawdown.
McCain wins on his dishonest demagoguing of the issue, however. That said, I give Maverick a slight edge on the Iraq issue due to his background and past involvement.
It’s not enough of a difference to put him at the top of my list overall, however.
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Actually that is leadership. Planning ahead, setting goals and making those goals. Any leader or manager worth his salt will be constantly setting benchmarks and step-plans to assure the success of the business and it’s endeavors.
I think what you want is a drawn out, set-in-concrete (although somewhat pliable) plan for the actions our troops will be taking. That is not possible. How can a presidential candidate possibly have up-to-date information on the true situation that the president and Chiefs of Staff only know? Now we can assume/guess what is going on, but without all the information available it would be foolhearty to set out any plan in stone.
The best any of them can do is state there intentions which Romney has. He has stated that he will set goals/benchmarks and measure the success as each phase of plan is entered, with the intention of standing down as many troops as possible given the situation.
I think the ultimate goal in any conflict is to bring the troops home… whether we have a presence there afterward or not is another discussion.
Luckedout on January 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM
It would take three to six months after the deployment of the new troops, which is possible in May, to know whether the Iraqi government was making progress in meeting the benchmarks, McCain said.
“It’s taken us four years to get into this debacle and it’s going to take some time to get us out,” he said.
NTWR on January 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Forgot the link last time…
NTWR on January 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM
That was very funny.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Skinnervic: Yeah, I noticed that too. I was more than surprised, to be honest.
Amos: here’s a hint: if both I and Right2bright think you are distorting Mitt’s record (and Hollowpoint as well!) then you should admit you are wrong. Don’t you have any integrity at all? When Mitt’s bitter opponents Right2bright and Hollowpoint agree that you are distorting the facts–it’s over, man.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 2:09 PM
But..but…but..he talked about benchmarks for withdrawal! He did exactly what he is falsely accusing Mitt of doing.
Buy Danish on January 28, 2008 at 2:09 PM
No kidding, it boggles the mind.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Amos better go back to just quoting polls
oops, new Ramussen national poll has Romney up by 2
windansea on January 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM
He talked about benchmarks for the Iraqi government at the same time he backed the surge. Again this is at a time where the surge wasnt a sure thing.
And where am I falsely accusing mitt of backing benchmarks WHEN HE DOES BACK BENCHMARKS ! How can that be a false accusation when Mitt says he is for that ?
Look you mitties have become as bad as the Paulbots. I pointed out that Mitt wants our troops out of Iraq and you start screaming “ITs not a withdraw its VICTORY !”
I pointed out that Mitt has some dublious Plans on how to fight Jihadism
I have alot of problems with McCain. I really dont want any of the 4 remaining rinos to be president. Only I have strapped on Mitt blinders and taken every word he as said as gospel.
Now you mitties have turned into paulbots smearing me and attacking me simply because I disagree with Mitt on a POLICY issue ! And I have pointed out problems he would have winning the nomination.
Im not the one being dishonest here. I could have challenge Allah or Bryan to change the title of this thread because it is obvious now Mitt is the one lying on Iraq not McCain. I used his own words to prove that.
But I give up talking to some on this issue is no different that talking to the paulies.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM
You need to read that poll its a dead even tie.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Hol on to your hats folks, its going to be a bumpy ride! Romney/Thomson 08!
kcd on January 28, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I must have missed that. What I read where a serious of question and answers about Mitt’s positions and a recasting of those answers to fit a pre-established theme, one which McCain is attempting to play off of. One so transparent and weak even his water-carriers, the MSM, don’t buy it.
So, help me out. What is the policy issue you disagree with? Do you disagree with the plan to stabilize Iraq and transform it into an ally on the war on terror? Or do object to the military and political pieces having goals in the form of benchmarks and timetables? Serious question, what exactly are you objecting to aside from the general ‘Mitt is bad’ because Mac said so.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Pardon my typo: were a series of questions
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Amos: You really need to explain why you think that Mitt’s support of benchmarks = “Withdraw immediately” while McCain’s support of benchmarks is “wise, rational planning.”
That’s the disconnect. You read Mitt’s benchmarks as a call to withdraw immediately. You’ve provided no evidence that backs that up. Please explain this.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Yes i stooped…
I admit it
cuz yer fricking BORING!!!!!!!
5 different people have gave you evidence and you spin whatever they give you to mean something else or you change the argument. My frustration with them continuing to confront you is what caused my outburst.
and of course here I am responding like a not so smart individual too.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 28, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Ok, Ok… Most of the *honest* ones aren’t lleve el agua for McCain on this specific issue. There’s a few though that just…can’t…stop.
SkinnerVic on January 28, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Why do McCain supporters claim he is stronger on defense than Romney?
Closing Gitmo and moving terrorists to the United States and conferring on them the legal protections of our laws as McCain would do is not being stronger on defense.
Romney does not want to close Gitmo, he undertsands what it gives us, in fact he would double bed space there, hunt down more terrorists, and put more of them in that limbo. That really is a lot stronger on defense.
McCain has no positions on how to deal with jihad domestically , and has not addressed dealing with the jihad problem our European allies have. Romney on the other hand has stated he will fight aginst jihadists use of the American judicial system. Romney has stated that he will help bolster our traditional allies and support them when they come out against unpopular positions against jihad in their own countries.
The differences on defense between McCain and Romney are stark, and the record clearly shows that Romney takes the more hard line position when it comes to defense and our global struggle against jihad.
paulsur on January 28, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Its the end goal. McCain says he would stay 100 years to win in Iraq. Mitt has stayed silent on what happens if benchmarks succeed or fail.
I will honestly admit I myself have adovcated what Mitt said. I said before the surge that we could consider Iraq a war “won” and consider leaving.
WHERE I differ from Mitt was I argue that we dont base the whole WOT on just Iraq. That we allow the shiia to fight Al Queda in Iraq while we take on Al Queda in Afganistan. We would simply shift the main war to Afganistan it seek to win it there.
So I wouldnt be to adverse against what Mitt is saying. I simply wish he had the guts to argue that. But again I dont like how he plans to fight the WOT on other fronts. Its not about poverty its about ideologue. Nor has Mitt said what to do about Afganistan and that also leaves me pause.
Reagan proved you can beat an ideology with the right strength. Mitt hasnt shown me that strenght yet.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:41 PM
At this point, flip-flopping doesn’t matter and that’s very sad. But it’s McCain’s amnesty bill that he cosponsored with Kennedy… you know the one that will be resurrected and signed into law in the McCain administration… that’s what scares me. That coupled with Maverick McCain’s well-known reputation… distrusted by the right and and good ol’ boy to those on the left… that’s why I will never vote for McCain. NEVER.
Oink on January 28, 2008 at 2:44 PM
And before anyone misinterprets what I stated I differ on Mitt on HOW to fight the WOT. We might agree it isnt all Iraq but from there our paths go down different lanes.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:45 PM
The Amos position is the same as the MSM position on McCain;
if McCain says something about the Surge, pullout, or anything WOT, it is respected, courageous and Maverick. If Bush says precisely the same thing, he is an intellectual dolt. Amos and others think that only McCain has the gravitas to be trusted on all things military, and that because Romney didn’t serve, then you can’t rely on what he says on the subject, ie Bill Clinton. The world does not share your demons.
kflynn on January 28, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Thanks for the link. A couple interesting things there aside from the theme you mentioned.
So McCain is reversing his own view (or spinning his answer as the article illustrates) now for political traction, presumably because the economics have become the hot topic.
And that made me chuckle. McCain out to just have Bob Kerrey come out and say that Romney is the Iraq Manchurian Candidate!
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I said repeatedly I have read Mitt’s stance on the WOT and it gives me alot of pause. Mitt’s rhetoric doesnt match his positions
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Ya know?
Maybe like a drinking game every time William Amos spins some bit of evidence we all should donate 5 bucks to the Romney campaign!
LOL! maybe that would stop him from being Obtuse!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 28, 2008 at 2:50 PM
WA, Mitt agrees with you.
You:
Ah. So it’s not the ‘Iraq front’ that concerns you after all. Excellent, now we won’t have to revisit this issue relating to Iraq again. Now we can address global jihad. That’s welcome progress.
Now I suppose we need to know how you think global jihad would be best approached (not how not, but how) so that we can analyze and criticize Mitt’s position on it.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Well, Amos: What, exactly, don’t you agree with?
How do you plan to fight the ideology?
There’s only three options of fighting the jihadi ideology:
1) kill them all. Easy to say, and certainly should be tried. But how can you get them all? without genocide of some kind?
2) Convert them all. While it would be nice, that’s not happening.
3) Promote the moderate view of Islam, if possible, as a competitor. That means funding and supporting them.
In the roughly 1 billion Muslims, there’s gotta be some good ones. I refuse to believe that that entire block of people is evil. So our task is to find those who aren’t and see if we can’t get them into the ascendancy.
Otherwise, it’s time for option one. And I think that’s where Mitt is at too. But we can’t just start at option one.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 2:57 PM
There is NO DOUBT, Romney would be tougher on the Islamofascists for three reasons.
1) He called it a battle against Radical Islam before any other GOP candidate. ANd he did so often.
2) He will not take waterboarding off the table
3) He wants Gitmo DOUBLED in size.
McCain pushed the terrorist bill of rights in the Senate last year, does not want water poured in their nose and wants Gitmo closed.
Being TOUGH of terrorist means being tough of Terrorists and McCain does not want to go there.
EJDolbow on January 28, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Precisely! McCain can’t have that discussion, he’ll get own3d. I personally like watching the ebb & flow of memes like this. It’s good training for what the donks will pull.
SkinnerVic on January 28, 2008 at 3:02 PM
This is exactly what we would get with Romney: Clintonian parsing of phrases.
If Romney is so strong on fighting the Islamists, why is it that in Michigan he was paling around with a supporter of Hezbollah, rep. Joe Knollenberg???
With Romney we will get, just like we are getting with Pres Bush and Condi, a politician who is willing to suck up and crawl on his knees to the Saudis and shieks of Dubai, UAE, Yemen, etc. Romney’s whole background is as a corporatist, not a capitalist or entrepreneur. We will get more big corporate lobbyists controlling our foreign and economic policy. Forget about capitalism and free markets, what we will get is going along with the OPEC pricing cartel and their anti-American agenda just so a few folks can make millions.
Forget about the flip flopping, that is bad enough, what about his actual policies??
georgealbert on January 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Here’s a link to a significant speech Mitt gave long ago, in Israel, that addressed Iran. Speech at Herzliya Conference.
The speech was Jan 23, 2007. Almost a year ago.
I think I agree with it totally.
Vanceone on January 28, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I think it also might indicate that the McCain team on the ground is not expecting to win. What he has done in the last 3-4 days is not the actions of a frontrunner. I think internals must show Romney ahead, surging if you will, in FL and he is desperate to bring him back done, truth be damned. It’s enough to almost make me predict a win for Mitt in FL.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 3:07 PM
After reviewing John McCain’s life story, resume, accomplishments, grasp of the Business World, and his acutely developed interpersonal relationship skills that he has used to exhibit team building and reach goals, please let me know what Fortune whatever company could best utilize this skill set.
None?
Then why is he being seriously considered for the top CEO job in the world?
kflynn on January 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Please explain this. what doesnt match what exactly?
paulsur on January 28, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Amen.
melda on January 28, 2008 at 3:22 PM
I agree with you and let me expand on Mitt. I trust Mitt. I trust him to have the wisdom to do what it takes to win the war and make the best decisions for the country regarding the war, immigration and even better, our economy.
I can’t say what will happen in the future, neither can anyone else.
Who could have predicted 9/11?
I’m not a genius in politics. I watch it closely and learn a whole lot from a lot of smart people on HA and do have my idea’s and certainly know where I don’t want this country to go and who would lead us there. IE, any Democrat or McCain.
I do know I have total faith in Romney and whatever decision he makes, that it will be what’s best for the country on a wide range of issues.
Romney 08.
Geronimo on January 28, 2008 at 3:22 PM
PPP Poll: Romney Leads in Florida
The latest Public Policy Polling survey in Florida shows Mitt Romney with a 35% to 28% lead over Sen. John McCain.
Key finding: 40% of respondents said they made up their mind either over the weekend or in the last week. Romney has a 47% to 28% advantage among folks who said they decided who to vote for in the last week, and a 36% to 26% lead with people who decided over the weekend.
kcd on January 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM
A Problem-Solver Whose Time Is Now
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Is this a Parody from the scrabbleface or The Onion?
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Since I’m getting dragged into it- you have a point that Romney tends to be a bit vague, but without knowing what the future holds it’s hard to be terribly specific. Romney is also wrong in thinking that more humanitarian aid is going to make much of a difference; as you noted, the problem is ideology.
However, at some point I think we’d all like to see a phased withdrawl from Iraq- but only as the Iraqis become strong enough to stand up on their own, with the US leaving behind only what’s necessary to support the Iraqi government. Setting benchmarks to determine when that starts happening doesn’t necessarily imply a premature withdrawl.
According to Micheal Totten’s latest dispatch, we’ve withdrawn about 90% of our forces from Fallujah thanks to the degree of success we’ve had there. Hopefully we’ll be able to do the same in the rest of Iraq as we continue to make progress.
I don’t care for Romney or McCain, but I’ve little reason to think that either one are out to surrender in Iraq. McCain probably has an edge when it comes to the WOT, but whether it’s enough of an edge to overlook his many weaknesses is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 3:28 PM
No sir, just an honest assessment.
Geronimo on January 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Hmmmm… beyond belief.
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 3:32 PM
A more accurate title would be “A Problem-Solver Whose Time Is Up”
If you honestly think that anything you say is going to sway even a single vote or otherwise help Rudy’s (non-existant) chances, you’re hopelessly naive.
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM
From the headlines, out of McCain’s own mouth.
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Dude, at least I have a dog in the hunt. Rudy? Seriously? Is he even running for President? Doesn’t seem like it. He seems a lot more like wallpaper. Plus that squinting and widening his eyes are annoying as hell and after that he might want to have a character his kids could respect, then maybe if Mitt was out of the race, I would listen to him.
2nd Ammendment mean anything to you. It does to me.
Geronimo on January 28, 2008 at 3:41 PM
He responded well to these charges. Go Mitt!
AbaddonsReign on January 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Forget about Iraq, if McCain becomes President, he’s going to surrender the US to Mexico.
moonsbreath on January 28, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Even though I share your optimism, I’m not one to count certain elements moot. If Rudy does have a GOTV element still working strong, he’s pulling votes (more likely from McCain than Mitt, just my gut on reading some polls). I’m not of the opinion that McCain has anywhere CLOSE to the GOTV game of either Mitt or Rudy, nor the enthusiasm.
You’re right, but for a wholly different reason (as a tie-in above). Per Jim Greer’s assessment of the 165K absentee ballots, Rudy may garner a considerable portion of early voting (pre-January slide). Question is: Of the people left, how many would voluntarily vote for Rudy? Answer: Not many at all, judging from the vitrol towards McCain here at HA and elsewhere, I venture to guess that most people would strategically vote Mitt as a means to an end in preventing a McShamnesty nomination.
Prediction: Mitt wins 1-2% over McCain, with Rudy much closer than predicted (with absentee).
SkinnerVic on January 28, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Thank for chiming in on the debate. I am going to ask that you tell us why you think McCain has an edge. And what do you define as the “wot” do you mean the world war that jihadists have declared against non-muslims?
paulsur on January 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I don’t get that one either. McCain’s got solid military experience, but his instincts in war seem to be just like his instincts in all other areas of the political arena: they seem to push him towards getting along versus doing the right thing. His desire to close Gitmo is a good example. I understand that as a former POW he’s against any form of interrogation that’s not 100% Emily Post, but I still disagree with him on that.
Plus, he looks and acts just like frackin’ Colonol Tigh on Battlestar Galactica.
ErikTheRed on January 28, 2008 at 4:08 PM
These comment boards used to hold interesting, thoughtful debate. The trolls are screwing up the free flow of logical discourse. If in person, we could just tel them to shut up and embarrass them into either listening and learning, articulating their positions more clearly, or freaking leaving. HOWEVER, in this type of forum, they can type as many stupid nonsensical comments as they please and our eyes cannot miss them…perhaps HA could implement some kind of “comment blocker” like you have in chat rooms, so that we can “not see” comments by trolls once we’re tired of their tripe. That would have the effect of stopping them from screwing up the conversation.
JustTruth101 on January 28, 2008 at 4:26 PM
FACTS= McAmnesty WILL say anything and his suroagoats aka Gramnesty,Liberman,Martinez, will also I saw McCain’s BS here in Nh where he persauded the independents to vote for him just like in SC. He will not be able to pull the wool over the conservatives again and if he does the war against him by so many conservatives will bury him. His record in Nam was admirable but as a senator he was like a Dem and still is trying to stand with the established record of trying to stop Bush in so many areas and vote to place himself above Bush because he lost in SC back in 2000. This man is ridiculas as Scotus period.
Romney did say he would let the Comanders on the ground to determine how to play the game in Iraq and McVain knows this, he heard it from Romney in Nh and he is just playing to a different gullible audience. Such a shame.
bones47 on January 28, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Haha
Geronimo on January 28, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Global warming is not called America warming.
I nominate this as Quote of the Day.
The Ugly American on January 28, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I second. He-he.
kcd on January 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I love these definitive proclamations about candidates that are running a very weak third in a state they must win. You need a reality check dude.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Reality check time for you dude.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I love coming to Hotair for a comedy fix. You wonder who this site supports? I hope the good folks here never complain about media bias again. There are a number of polls out today including one that has Romeny up three and another that has Mac by one. Hotair decides to only show the Riomlee seven point lead poll that comes from a source I’ve never heard of. LOL. No more complaining of media bias, please.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 4:51 PM
McLyingsackofcrap is at it again. Now he’s lying to the Cuban population. This guy is despicable.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Somebody call the Whaaaaaaaaambulance! Get real dopey! HA ENCOURAGES all of it’s members to get educated on a subject. It encourages honest debate. If you don’t think their headlines are thorough enough, then post links to better information instead of whining like a little 8itch.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Oh…my…G_D!!!!
I actually agree with FDSDEVEN!
Repent! The End of the World is NIGH!
In all seriousness, since Romney peeled the plastic coating off and started acting like a human, I’ve been impressed by the type of human he turns out to be. He’s also the only candidate left that I won’t have to hold my nose to vote for.
Bitter Old McCain is just showing his own human side in this latest attack. His tactics are even lower and more dishonest than csdeven’s attacks on Fred.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 28, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Get a banjo.
Go bungee jumping.
Just quit venting in my ear.
Mitt’s my pick.
Domino on January 28, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Get ready for your government run health care, raising your taxes, raising corporate taxes to pay for Greening out the nation which in turn causes more pink slips, ABSOLUTELY THE WORST PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, higher crime, lesser punishment, all to spite Johhny Mac cause he’s not a right wing lunatic. Great. We’ll all be wining very soon einstein.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Prediction of Electoral College:
452 Obama
6 Romenye
Luckily Utah doesn’t forget their boy.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Get used to not having the White House for eight LOOOOOOOOOONNNNGGGG years.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM
It’s probably not a huge edge, but Romney has almost no experience relating to national security or foreign policy as it relates to the War On Terror, where McCain does.
That doesn’t excuse McCain’s many serious flaws, and I ain’t voting for McCain or Romney, but there’s a case to be made that McCain is a bit stronger with regards to foreign policy. I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote for one, the other, or at all.
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 5:07 PM
When does the random drug testing program program kick in for posting rights?
kflynn on January 28, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Yes, except I was only speaking of Iraq, not of the GWOT or of national defense issues in general.
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Geez, the USA has fought every war without “timetables”: Revolutionary War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean Cuban and Vietnam conflicts. Damn, WWII didn’t have “timetables” to spend a limited time in Africa, then pulling out before putting the Germans on the run because of a “timetable”. Our losses against Communism began when Democratic “dove” Presidents and Congress allowed the MSM to influence strategy and tactics rather than leaving the wars in the hands of “hawks” to finish. It’s a matter of “compassionate” liberalism directing our course, destroying our sovereignty. Regardless of the futility resulting from politician interference in warfare causing defeat, Korea and Vietnam were not fought according to a “timetable”. Kennedy didn’t set out 1 year of involvement afterwhich the USA pulled out. If he had, we wouldn’t have had our Vietnam experience. But then, the USA was hoisting puppet regimes that were not truly of the people. Hence, GWBush’s ideal, to facilitate the Iraqi people’s own cultivation of their own democracy. GWBush’s military motivation was to gain a permanent US military installation in Iraq in order to counter Iran, the West’s true threat. That the Iraqis got rid of Saddam’s tyranny is their bain in loss of stability and their bonus in gaining liberty.
maverick muse on January 28, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I doubt that Rudy’s campaign is the only one who has been encouraging early voting- there’s no reason to believe that the majority of early votes went to him. The early and absentee votes might result in a better than predicted third place (depending on turnout), but third place still ain’t a win, and a win is the only thing that could save his campaign. He’s done.
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 5:12 PM
To bad I’m part Lamanite and was “cursed” to have “black skin”..
Sorry mitt..
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 5:13 PM
You love the Liberal Media don’t you..
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Fixed that for you, even me, a non-Mitt supporter, understands his stance. The one thing he has been fairly consistent on. Especially considering once anyone gets into office, the information he (or anyone else) receives will actually be what he bases his decisions on. Not some campaign speech.
Neither he or McCain, want us to fail, and neither one will hang our military out to dry…a major difference between us and the libs.
Now can’t we all just get along on this one issue?
right2bright on January 28, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Grow up. Religion has no place in presidential politics.
csdeven on January 28, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Wow, such powers of deduction you must have. Who knew that 2 + 2 = Pineapple?
Hollowpoint on January 28, 2008 at 5:26 PM
So you think a general tells his men…okay in the next few days or weeks, or months if you want, we are going to take that hill, or we may not take that hill, we may go over there and set up camp at the farm tonight, no maybe tomorrow instead. Well whenever you guys feel like it, set up camp, and then attack the hill…before the war is over. Thanks guys, let me know when it is done.
D-day, what day was that, and why not some other day. I know, half the boats tomorrow, the rest next week. Don’t want any of the timetables to get in the way…Ike to his commanders…
Whenever you want to drop that bomb go ahead, pretty sure it will end the war, but we don’t want you pilots to fret over any timetable…not even sure the bomb is ready, they never gave me a date it would be ready…
I think you get the picture…
right2bright on January 28, 2008 at 5:27 PM
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Your criticism is just. As easily as Mitt hands out promises to folks in Michigan, you’d think he’d have a promise ready for those folks concerned about our involvement in Iraq. Evidently, he limits his promises and his platform to the economy. Even his posture for a strong border is economy driven. But he’s playing the Nixon secret plan on Iraq. War is expensive and bloody, reason enough that the USA remains in Iraq alone as each coalition member returns home. Perhaps Mitt will solidify our US presence in Iraq as a military installation like those in Japan, Korea and Germany. BUT, mums the word; wait and see. He might do a Nixonian “honorable withdrawal” and negotiate his own deals with Congress.
maverick muse on January 28, 2008 at 5:29 PM
So, Amos, is that all it takes? The magic “I’ll stay there 100 years” quote?
You complain Romney has no plan to win Iraq but, “I’ll stay 100 years” isn’t a plan. Romney’s site has a section on global jihad, which admittedly doesn’t have a detailed plan on Iraq and requires a lot of diplomacy, but it does point out that efforts should be made to train forces to deal with civilian governments, ferret out terrorists, and that the effort is intelligence driven. I like that. It’s pro-active, trying to make sure things don’t develop into a problem. (The intelligence community needs to be overhauled, but that’s another discussion.)
McCain, on the other hand, seems to deal only with Iraq and doesn’t address ‘confronting radical jihad’ as Governor Romney puts it. As others have pointed out, closing Gitmo isn’t good for our war against jihadis, and while I respect he was a POW, I think it’s ludicrous to compare waterboarding to torture under the Viet Cong. By comparison, sleep deprivation, dietary changes and waterboarding are kid gloves. Also, open borders and open arms to illegals are terrible for our security! Ever hear of Adnan el-Shukrijuma? The FBI think he was smuggled over the US/Mexico border by a gang run coyote group.
One of the main reasons that I’m supporting Romney at this point is he’s had a LOT of experience in running an administration; he’s been involved in small business, and his suggestions about reforming government are deeper than McCain’s. It’s great to say make the tax cuts permanent but McCain’s site also talks about reducing this tax, making raising taxes harder and cutting pork barrel, but there is so much waste NOW that I appreciate Romney wanting to scrutinise the entire Federal Government for waste. Talk about potential for a long term permanent gain… it would take the Dems and RINOs probably 50-100 years to build waste up to the point it is at now. There’s lots of dirty laundry in appropriations and earmarks that I would love to see come to the light of day.
The experience of being a governor and Senator is very different. As a governor, you run a ‘mini-Presidency’, with competing departments, priorities, sporadic emergencies. Being in the Beltway means you’re removed, that you pass laws that control people who you rarely are forced to answer to or interact with. Look at how many ‘lifers’ or ‘near lifers’ there are in the Senate! The largest thing you manage as a Senator is a staff for your office.
That’s why, on the whole, I think governors or mayors are often better prepared to run the country. (Others have made similar comments about management above). What do I care about? Preventing more illegal immigration and punishing employers and lawbreakers already here. Romney fought against illegals getting drivers licences in Massachusets, etc. McCain pimped amnesty, pushed it, cast aspersions on those of us who didn’t support it. I want a strong economy, I want Washington earmarks and taxes cleaned up, REALLY cleaned up. Not convinced McCain is up for that job; he’s too much of an insider, who voted against tax cuts and said they were ‘for the rich’.
Personally, I want to be rich, and I don’t care who else is. As long as you don’t steal it from me, I don’t care, it’s no skin off my nose. I don’t go for class warfare rhetoric.
Romney also doesn’t talk about a complicated carbon credit scheme or fighting global warming, but he DOES say we should open up ANWR and invest more in nuclear power.
As for Iraq and the GWOT, I haven’t seen anything - aside from a few too oft used catchy phrases about following bin Laden to the gates of hell - that convinces me McCain would be a terrific leader in fighting radical Islam. So why would I pick him when he is obviously weaker in these other areas? It doesn’t make sense.
Now if you like illegal immigration, the campaign finance laws (which by the way - ahem - helps incumbents), and think you should only get your money back if Congress manages to exercise sufficient self control to tighten its belt, then maybe McCain IS your guy.
I’ll say this… the only issue that McCain trumps Romney on now is the space programme. McCain has one sentence about it at the bottom of his issue page, and while I can find transcripts where Romney says we need to keep our edge in space and technology, it’s not a topic on his issue page.
I’ve emailed his campaign about this, we’ll see if they respond.
linlithgow on January 28, 2008 at 5:31 PM
It’s hillarious. Mitt and Mac are both moderates. One tells it to your face(Straight Talk Express), the other smiles with nice hair and sticks it to you after promising to be a “true conservative”. I think thats it. I finally figured it out. Conservatives will vote Mitt because he’ll make them feel good about themselves through the election. Of course it’s all a moot point because middle america won’t vote for a mormon. It is sad, but true. This election year is sad, but true.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Why the slap in the face at “middle-America”. Weren’t you just told that religion has no place in presidential politics?
You don’t speak for me…
CliffHanger on January 28, 2008 at 5:39 PM
LOL!
WoW.. No Religion doesn’t matter?
I think I just Stepped into the Outer Limits.
What about ALL those Evangelicals tht everyone was Sooo worried about if someone were nominated.. :rolls eyes:
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Time tables are limitations by constraint. Goals have sequence in achievement, but no innate time limit unless stipulated from the outside. The two can combine; but each can exist independently. The effectivity caused by a time table can create either lack of achievement via departure from goal unmet within given time allotment (team losing a game; student quitting an unsuccessful effort), or possibly by coordinating sequence an achievement within the given time frame (entry submitted by deadline).
maverick muse on January 28, 2008 at 6:00 PM
That’s rich. So should an American Islamic Jihadist seek nomination for POTUS, that would have no bearing in your presidential politics.
maverick muse on January 28, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Wow, Fox news just showed McCain up in two seperate polls, but you find those here. I guess Fox and Brit Hume are Liberals.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Maybe Romney will reconsider is Ban on Muslims in the Cabinet?
LMAO..
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Romney no Muslims in my cabinet based on a percentage of the US Population 1 Percent, but vote for me because Mormons have a whopping 2 Percent!
Chakra Hammer on January 28, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Look we jeer Hillary when she was asked if She wanted to win in Iraq is it so wrong that I want all the republican candidates to answer the same question ?
And Mitt’s plan to deal with Radical Jihadism stinks to high heaven. I can forgive him for leaving Iraq but he has nothing of substance to replace it with.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Brit hume just rolled his eyes on air at the mention of how many Romney adds are on in Florida. He said you couldn’t possibly be in Florida without hearing a Romeny add. It’s amazing that someone can publicly try to buy a nomination. Incredible, simple incredible.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 6:59 PM
What country have you been living in? This has been a benevolent oligarchy for decades. At least Mitt uses his own money and not some shadowy McCain-Feingold 527 group funded by George Soros’ money.
NTWR on January 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Romney is going to win FL, the nom, and then the WH. I’ve known this for a while now.
I could be wrong.
lol…
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on January 28, 2008 at 7:06 PM
you got completely schooled on this earlier
no pride eh?
windansea on January 28, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Seeing as he doesn’t want to leave Iraq, that’s not a valid criticism. And what do prefer as a plan to deal with rad Jihad?
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM
If my candidate had a weakness, I would tend to ignore it also…
right2bright on January 28, 2008 at 7:17 PM
When did this happen ? I missed it over the rantings.
All I got from the other side is “Mitt plans to re educate Muslims to make them more moderate”
Good luck with that. I really will enjoy sending US dollars to the Saudis to help them better educate their kids.
That whole argument is a farce. Mitt is saying that its all about poverty and if the US spends enough money we can educate the Arab youth to be better muslims. I really wonder if you can see how stupid that sounds ? I guess not.
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
For the millionth time, McCain-Feingold was a noble attempt to limit corporate influence. It failed because McCain had no idea how sneaky neocons would be. That’s right, republicans started the 527’s. So save me the lecture please. At least he tried to protect my vote as equal in the eyes of the law. I guess some of you like having no voice.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Good greif are you still spinning that LIE ?
William Amos on January 28, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I’m not here to shill for anyone, peddling lies is not my bag. So lets try this a different way.
Okay. He does want to leave Iraq after we achieve our goals: a stable Iraq which is an ally in the war on terror. Mitt wans to win. He has a 3 step plan for that.
What do you suggest to replace his plan? Or alternatively how would you edit his?
Spirit of 1776 on January 28, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »