Video: “How is it that you’re the expert on my position?”
posted at 10:07 pm on January 30, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
There are a couple of ways to look at this exchange between McCain and Romney over Iraq (which I’ve edited for brevity’s sake). One, John McCain is too thick-headed to understand the difference between the words “public” and “private” and their possible impact on the timetables and benchmarks that are central to the debate. Or two, McCain does know the difference but he’s being wholly dishonest about them in order to score points on Romney. Neither possibility speaks well of McCain at all, and the entire exchange underlines the problem that he has with the base. We don’t trust him because of episodes like this. The fact is, Romney is approaching the issue much like a business leader would and he happens to be right on the facts here. Of course you keep track of data to see if your efforts are on course, but also, of course, you don’t publish the timetables etc or you’re just telling the enemy how long he has to wait. It’s common sense. McCain, for whatever reason, just dug in and defended the lie that he trotted out last weekend in Florida. It’s disgraceful. Every time I start to get used to the idea of McCain as the nominee, he pulls a stunt like this and proves that he can’t be trusted.
On the subject of the Romney December 2006 comments, which is the issue McCain retreats to when the timetables issue becomes problematic for him, it’s worth noting that when Michelle and I went to Baghdad in January 2007, we picked up on an interesting and unexpected phenomenon among the troops in Iraq. Even they weren’t wholly supportive of the surge to a man and woman. Many of the ones with whom we spoke, troops who were on the front lines in Baghdad, were skeptical that a surge in force would make the impact that the war’s supporters hoped. They didn’t favor withdrawal, but like Romney in December 2006, they wanted to know more about how the troops would be used. One of the most common comments we heard was that more bodies won’t do much good if there’s no clear purpose to how and where they’ll be deployed. This was in January 2007; we were there the day President Bush announced the surge. I hardly fault Romney for wanting to hear more detail before he put his name on the line one way or the other on the surge. That was a reasonable reaction by someone whose day job didn’t include daily studies of troop numbers and strategies in Iraq.
Update: I really wanted to see two things tonight. I wanted to see Romney take the fight to McCain and earn the front runner spot. That didn’t happen. Romney came off well but I doubt the fundamentals changed. The other thing I wanted to see was some sign that McCain was ready to be a leader and be a less irritating figure than he has been up to now. That didn’t happen either. His “I led for patriotism, not for profit” line is a slap in the face to business. A slap in the face to business, and from the presumptive nominee of the pro-business party? Who does he think he is? And where does he think his own money came from? It came from his wife’s father, who presumably led for profit, not for patriotism.
His dishonest attack on Romney’s war stance, captured above, just signals that he’s the same old McCain.
I’m now in the position of having come around to like Romney. He’s decent, smart and fair and I think he would make a fine president. And I dislike McCain all over again. He’s a smarmy beltway insider who just lied to everyone who was watching while he smeared a good man, flipped on his own awful legislation and belittled free enterprise. This man wants to lead the party of Reagan?
McCain sure has his work cut out for him at CPAC. I don’t want to say that his mission of making peace with the base is impossible, but I won’t argue that it’s not.
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 »
Seriously, WTF?
Geronimo on January 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I’m with you.
Geronimo on January 30, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Good analysis again Bryan.
I think Romney is our last possible hope for a not-too-bumpy-future. Although there will still be some very slight hope for a brokered convention and the draft of an actual decent nominee should the race stay pretty close.
To show how disgusted with McCain I am (and have been for a lonnngggg time):
If nutty old Ron Paul would quit pretending to be a Republican/Conservative and go back to the Libertarian party or start his own constitutionalist/moonbat party I might be tempted to turn loon myself and vote for him.
LegendHasIt on January 30, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Fantastic analysis, Bryan. I considered voting for McCain many times, but every time I thought I could settle on him he did or said something repugnant. He is just very, very unlikeable. I think he’d kill Hill, but Obama would end up taking him out, man. No problem. I LIKE Obama. Who the hell actually likes McCain. I respect his service, yada yada, but who the hell likes the man other than the media and Democratic/RINO politicians?
RW Wacko on January 30, 2008 at 11:19 PM
On a practical note, if they’re going to be seated that close together they need to be in a semicircle–I got a crick in my neck just watching Mitt trying to turn and confront McCain. It would also make for better television if they could actually face off against each other, and the guys on the ends wouldn’t have to try to see around the ones in the middle.
Cooper wasn’t as bad a moderator as I expected in terms of liberal bias–definitely liberal, but not as liberal as the PMSNBC debate was. But time really wasn’t managed at all as far as I can tell.
ReubenJCogburn on January 30, 2008 at 11:23 PM
For the love of Pete, could someone please explain why the sheeple are voting for such an unlikeable, dishonest individual?
sheesh on January 30, 2008 at 11:26 PM
In light of AP saying Rush is irrelevant, since 90% of HA is for Romney, yet McCain keeps winning, does that make HA irrelevant?
Of course I am part of he 90%.
Or is conservatism about dead?
WoosterOh on January 30, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Romney was great in this exchange and it really showed what McCain’s true colors are. If Romney is unable to beat McCain, I’ll be joining the Stay Home 08! movement!
LMM on January 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM
This Georgian won’t be voting for McCain. In a primary or a general election.
bigbeas on January 30, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Mitt should have used used a Naval scenario to clarify the point.
When you are moving your war ship at see, you check your bearings, head to certain coordinates, and when you reach them you scan for enemies. You do not do this at random, you have a plan. Sure, you don’t tell your enemies when and where you stop, but you still follow a procedure.
Agrippa2k on January 30, 2008 at 11:51 PM
As an AZ resident I have emailed McCain’s office several times each year dating back to 2004 asking him to git rid of the “R” next to his name and go to the party he truly supports and represents. McCain is just another RINO that is attempting to run over and though our Party. Why its successful I really do not understand.
Also, again as an AZ resident….McCain does NOT understand what it means to represent a Border State!!!!!
I pray to primary voters put down their drinks and sober up long enough to see what McCain really is…….The second Democratic nominee for President in ‘08!
azcop on January 30, 2008 at 11:52 PM
McCain will lose in November if he is the nominee. And not because of MM or LI either. He will lose because the dems will enlighten the swing voters as to just how dishonest and two faced McCain is. The dems are running as dems and that is acceptable, but a dem in rep clothing is assiduously loathsome thing.
csdeven on January 31, 2008 at 12:04 AM
100% agreed!!!!
azcop on January 31, 2008 at 12:06 AM
McCain was bragging about getting the endorsement of his hometown newspaper, the Arizona Republic, I believe it is. I don’t know if that is really a conservative newspaper. Does anyone know?
cjs1943 on January 31, 2008 at 12:17 AM
I do want to give some credit where credit is do. To the one man who POLITICALLY went all out to win in Iraq.
George Bush facing extremely bad poll numbers fighting a unpopular war and even facing talk of impeachment backed the surge idea. He could have withdrawn and taken the political hit for that. He could have continued the old war strategy. He made a bold move that is paying off now.
So while bush screwed up initially he did have the guts to make the right call. And deserves the praise politically for the success of the surge.
William Amos on January 31, 2008 at 12:20 AM
The Arizona Republic is conservative on some issues but has moved to the left in recent years and supports Amensty/open borders…….
As an AZ resident is does not impress me. The AZ Daily Star is super liberal and they will endorse McCain too.
azcop on January 31, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Bingo.
Livefreeordie on January 31, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Previously I noted the opinion that Mitt should not deny saying “time table” but reference it in context. Now he did that well.
McCain’s campaign projects a cancerous plague on the party. Perhaps Mitt supporters should allow McCain all the rope he wants to hang himself. The contrast in personal zeitgeist between the two is like night and day. We’re going to get whomped with huge taxes regardless, thanks to their RINO existences. So if not voting a write-in or going the ultimate extreme of checking for the libertarian, one can vote either for the optimist Mitt or live under the thumb of an overbearing pessimistic brute.
When Romney addressed his supporters following the Florida results, he expressed humble, complete appreciation for their heroic efforts.
I must express my outrage at Hannity’s summary today, that the conservative movement no longer is relevant, that we must not only accept liberalism in others, but that we must now convert into liberals ourselves. Geez, coming from a Catholic, that’s the same rationale as to say that if 99% of the population decide that Jesus is no longer relevant in defining personal relationships and values, that the remaining 1% must not only oblige the lack of respect from others, but must disavow any faith in Jesus’ expressions about life. Even if 99% of voters believe that overbloated corrupted thieving opportunistic greed is the American Way, promoting the system’s obesity in order to take more than the system can handle, that only makes the 1% conservative value American Way voters all the more relevant.
Bush and Mitt did the carnival barker routine and persuaded many GOP pundits and followers to disavow their heart and soul in preference for the Democratic way of liberal RINO fashion. Promise the pie in the sky. Say anything to get elected.
It seemed like RINOs destroyed the conservative platform. Actually, the RINOs took the plunge off the cliff. The platform and the conservatives still exist, knowing better than to leave the core soul purpose in preference for the shifting sands of hollow promise structures. It’s the likes of corrupt, overspeculating RINOs and Democrats that cause great Depressions.
It’s a rock and a hard spot we’re in no thanks to Mitt. If he wants the conservative vote, he must personally disavow the very hollow promises that “bought” his differentiation from Fred Thompson.
The current Romney campaign resembles a salesman looking for gullible prospects. The show down will amount to whether Mitt Romney can convert himself to Fred’s platform instead of converting conservatives. As far as parallels go, this campaign scenario parallels Mormons expecting Christianity to conform to Mormon revelations rather than accepting the Christian faith expressed through common credos in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
maverick muse on January 31, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I believe that Hannity was making a point and was not serious. I read earlier that he was not serious! I was upset too but then read about the rest of the show which when talking to Newt he revealed he was not serious but illistrating a point about Conservatives losing when they move left
azcop on January 31, 2008 at 12:29 AM
After hearing McCain tonight, how can anybody not agree that the man is nuts? Jeez, Ron Paul is sane compared to McCain.
fossten on January 31, 2008 at 12:32 AM
McVain is a DIABNO.
Democrat In All But Name Only.
He’s getting to be as sleazy and effortless a liar as Billy Jeff Clinton.
profitsbeard on January 31, 2008 at 12:35 AM
McCains’ tactics are exactly what a liberal, lefty, prog, what ever ya want to call em, would do. No wonder he and Hillary, Lieberman and Fiengold get along so well.
oakpack on January 31, 2008 at 12:43 AM
As I’ve said before, if you have to start throwing out names, you’re starting from a weak position.
Weebork on January 31, 2008 at 12:45 AM
When McShamnesty tells people to judge him by the people who endorse him, why don’t they immediately ask about Juan Hernandez? He opens himself up for this in every debate and I don’t get why he isn’t nailed to the wall for it.
csdeven on January 31, 2008 at 12:58 AM
csdeven,
I wondered about that myself. Perhaps Mitt isn’t aware of Hernandez (which I doubt because I suspect his staff go over conservative blogs) or he wasn’t given a proper opportunity tonight.
Sad either way. But there’s always future debates to slam McCain on this. We’ll see.
sigh…
Weebork on January 31, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Aww crap…I had a great time planned for election day. A little hunting, a few beers, and grilling whichever of God’s creatures that crossed my path. Now that tool McQueeg has forced me to actually vote.
Big Daddy Cool on January 31, 2008 at 1:06 AM
YYYeeeeeesssssssssssssssss!
Weebork on January 31, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Where ever you heard that or read that just know that Sean’s first hour was to punk the republican pundit shrills that were predicting a conservative radio talk show host meltdown today. He was not serious and revealed this the last few minutes of the first hour.
Besides, when I was listening to it, I could hear the sarcasm in his voice at times. I applaud him for keeping a straight face the whole time without giggling or bursting out with laughter.
geckomon on January 31, 2008 at 1:19 AM
When are conservatives going to wake up and start voting for Romney. Please God Please stop this man.
msipes on January 31, 2008 at 1:22 AM
I am sooooo with you LMM
msipes on January 31, 2008 at 1:32 AM
I love how terrible it has gotten. We are hoping that ROMNEY is the savior of our party. Romney, the person who is a gun grabbing, universal healthcare loving “conservative”. Is this how bad its gotten? Can we not run a nominee who at least agrees with the CORE conservative positions on issues?
muyoso on January 31, 2008 at 1:44 AM
The Great Duncan Hunter would probably disagree.
Big S on January 31, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Mitt need to unload both barrels on this tired old commie convert. It should be easy, but if Mitt fails I am going
StayHome’08
HotAirExpert on January 31, 2008 at 1:55 AM
NO ON 93!
Posted by The John and Ken Show @ 9:45 am
The Governor has gone to the dark-side to join the likes of Fabian Nunez! He’s done a lot of stupid things, but this takes the cake! Give him a call and tell him NO on 93!
List of 42 legislators who will be termed out if Prop 93 is squashed
You have the opportunity to rid state government of “Colostomy Bag” Lloyd Levine, Mexican Socialist Fabian Nunez, “1 bill” Gil Cedillo, Don “Crackers” Perata and more!
Sacramento State Capitol
Phone: 916-445-2841
DfDeportation on January 31, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Are you stupid or just an a**hole? Build your own blog.
Creep.
The Race Card on January 31, 2008 at 2:15 AM
Aside from being an a**hole, I thought it would be interesting to drop the dime on Arnold just before he endorses McCain tomorrow. Same old politicians either going back to Washington or wanting to END Term Limits so they can stay longer…Lighten up…
DfDeportation on January 31, 2008 at 2:21 AM
I saw a bitter old man with weak positions feuding with a principled conservative.
CABE on January 31, 2008 at 2:26 AM
It’s this simple after all I have heard from BOTH sides: Mitt Romney should be President.
To put it even more simply, I just think the guy gets it.
ChipDWood on January 31, 2008 at 2:30 AM
Your entire post is related to California politics. It makes no connection to the presidential race. You parrot John and Ken which is completely unoriginal and annoying.
Maybe you’re new. Maybe you’re blind. But your post is misplaced. I repeat. Build your own blog if you’re gonna waste space.
The Race Card on January 31, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Bryan, looking at who big business supports the most in recent years I am forced to conclude that the Democrats are the party of Big International Business. The Republicans are the party of Small American Business.
At one time I rather thought McCain might make a good President. Then his temper tantrums showed through. His finger on the Big Red Button scares me on two points. I do not see in him what it takes to push that button when it is called for and appropriate; but, I do see it in him to push it out of spite and anger during a tantrum.
I also note he talks a strong line on terrorism. But at the same time he has seemed to be rather weak in terms of doing what is necessary to find them and bring them down. I also note that Dr. Walid Phares has elected to support Mitt Romney. I take this as an indication that at least one serious expert in the field feels Romney has what it takes to honestly fight Jihad based terrorism.
I simply cannot bring myself to think of voting for McCain, especially since in California it would be a wasted effort. At least for Romney I’d make that effort.
herself on January 31, 2008 at 5:12 AM
What kind of a computer project manager would not have goals and time tables for a project?
An idiot who is not fit for the job.
What kind of an engineering manager would not have goals and time tables for a project?
An idiot who is not fit for the job.
What kind of a President would not have goals and time tables for a “‘building democracy for Iraqi moms and dads” project?
An idiot who is not fit for the job.
MB4 on January 31, 2008 at 5:22 AM
Well you know that old definition of insanity?
MB4 on January 31, 2008 at 5:25 AM
You both could have saved yourselves a trip. I could have told you that. I would not have charged you anything either. And what you heard from those who were selected to speak to you was just the tip of the iceberg. I double-damn guarantee you.
MB4 on January 31, 2008 at 5:31 AM
When you are wearing the uniform in country and ask fellow soldiers what they really think, other than the fresh 19 year olds, they will tell you straight up this is a charley foxtrot. The same guys however, must have a different reply for those “not in the club.”
- MWNN
MB4 on January 31, 2008 at 5:41 AM
During the debate last night, McCain just reinforced with me every negative thing that I have thought about him. He’s condescending, smarmy, has a sense of entitlement about him, and frankly, he’s just dishonest.
I WILL NOT vote for him. I’ll vote for the others on the ticket, but, after seeing him again last night, I just can’t vote for him. As my wife says… EOD! End of Discussion.
Nineball on January 31, 2008 at 8:03 AM
The only place I though Mitt could have responded better was when asked why he was qualified to lead the military without military experience.
There is a simple answer and he should said it.
He is qualified because that is the way our founding fathers set up our nation. They did not make military experience a prerequisite. We have a civilian run government. Not a military dictatorship. Presidents don’t go around wearing Army Camo or uniforms with chests full of medals in the Oval Office. Then he could have gone on and spoken highly of the military and talked about how he would listen to the generals and support them and made sure they received all they needed in the event of conflicts,, but he would never be the kind of person to pick bombing sites in the Oval Office or weigh down our military with burdensome “rules of engagement.”
JellyToast on January 31, 2008 at 8:19 AM
I can’t see how McCain won many friends last night but I don’t think Romney made the sale. Baring any catastrophe from the McCain camp this weekend, get use to the idea that he is our nominee.
McCain really doesn’t like Romney. That was very clear last night. In fact, none of the other candidates like Romney. What I don’t really understand is why. I wonder if we ever will know.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:20 AM
This is where I think Romney is disengenuous. I think Romney had reservations about the surge and it came out in the way he talked about benchmarks. McCain is right on that point. Everyone knew at the time “benchmarks” was a code word for a plan for retreat. McCain knows that and Romney knows that. So I don’t think Romney is without sin in this reguard.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:23 AM
It’s impossible for you to make a comment about Mitt without mentioning his religion, isn’t it?
Anyhoo, the reaction to the debate from voters that I’m hearing on FNC is so freaking annoying. It can basically be summarized as, Waaaaaaah! We don’t like it when they fight.
What is Mitt supposed to do? Just let McCain lie about his positions and not respond?
The voters respond to the noise but don’t listen to the words. They can’t separate out McCain’s nastiness from Mitt’s principled and honorable objections. Ironically the voters think they are wise and behaving like adults with this sort of lame criticism.
Arrrggggh.
Buy Danish on January 31, 2008 at 8:31 AM
If a soldier is not complaining he is probably dead. I know a lot of soldiers who didn’t think the surge was the right tactic. They thought we should pull back and let the Iraqis kill each other. However, having your forces stand by and watch genocide is not a very wise national policy, and to be frank, I don’t think they would really have liked doing that very much. After oh, about a week, there would be an outcry from them to let them clean things up.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:31 AM
You know, I’ve had about 20 conversations with people concerning Romney in the last 2 weeks. In every conversation the other party has mentioned his religion. This doesn’t happen with any other candidate except Huck.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM
It is sad that the press has dropped the ball on reporting on the candidates in favor of reporting on the race.
I only watched a few minutes of the debate. I couldn’t stand any more. But the part I caught was where McCain kept chanting that Quote from Romney about them hiding in the marshes. I kept hoping that Romney would say the obvious:
Yes Senator. I did say that. I did say that public timetables would serve the enemy by allowing them to hide in the bushes until the time was up. That they would serve the enemy by telling them just how long they had to hold on before we would give up. So Senator, if after reading what I said and I PROUDLY admit saying it, you can say I favored timetables you are being either deliberately dishonest or sensationally stupid. Which is it, Senator? Which is it?
Then they asked Ron Paul a question and I couldn’t take any more.
How do we get Uncommitted Electors on the ballot? I am at the point where I would rather vote for some local guy I have some faith in to choice for us than let any of the likely candidates win. Every step we take to make things more democratic gets us more idiots elected.
OBQuiet on January 31, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Which is why the founding fathers didn’t set up the system this way.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Well done Bryan - this line really sums up essence of the man.
Ann on January 31, 2008 at 8:42 AM
McCain laughing at his own jokes reminds me of Kermit the Frog. His head bobs up and down as he slowly looks from side to side.
I keep waiting for Miss Piggy to slug him.
fossten on January 31, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Tell it, Bryan!
Tzetzes on January 31, 2008 at 8:44 AM
You mean like when McCain proposed a Senate resolution with benchmarks?
Benchmarks are a way of measuring progress. They are a standard, which if not met, require adjusting strategy.
Some people discuss it reasonably, other people obsess over it. Maverick Muse is in the latter category.
As for why people mention Huck’s religion, gosh, I can’t imagine why that’s happening. Among other things, he is intentionally fomenting anti-Mormon sentiment among his flock in that oh-so innocent way of his.
Buy Danish on January 31, 2008 at 8:49 AM
You guys are missing what happened. I agree, it didn’t look very smooth, nor was it a highlight of McCain’s Carrie, but what happened was not a smear because Romney did in fact favor secret benchmarks at the time, it was a debate tactic Romney should have been ready for. What happened was McCain focused the debate on Iraq instead of the economy. One way to do that is to get your opponent all riled up fighting against your proposition. Which in this case was Romney’s being in favor of benchmarks. Romney fell for it. This has nothing to do with being a beltway insider or not. This is a basic college debate tactic.
People keep asking for a “real debate”. Well folks, this is what a “real debate” looks like.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Carrie = career
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 8:51 AM
So I guess Eisenhower and the other generals did not have a timetable and milestones when planning D-day, it just happened?
Sometimes it is called coordination…
*
You only have timetables and milestones for withdraw, and not for the actual fighting or winning of the war?
*
Maybe that’s been our problem…
*
Are you sure McCain served in the military?
right2bright on January 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Wait a minute, I just read a bunch of posts…Mitt is a Mormon?
right2bright on January 31, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Anyway, the purpose of the “benchmark” exercise is not that Romney is not a good guy because he proposed benchmarks. The purpose is to not talk about the economy, and in that McCain succeeded.
By the way, did you read that resolution? This looks like a “decoy” resolution to me. A resolution proposed using the buzz words the Democrats like to use but being a completely inaffective proposal. The only operative paragraph said Iraq had to make “progress” towards meeting those or what? Well nothing is listed so I guess nothing. If passed, that would have been one very week benchmark proposal. That doesn’t seem to be what Romney was talking about. Romney wanted concrete benchmarks that everyone would be held accounted to.
But I digress. Again, the purpose of the “benchmark” exercise is not that Romney is not a good guy because he proposed benchmarks. The purpose is to not talk about the economy, and in that McCain succeeded. Romney lost his chance to hit McCain in possibly the last real debate of the primary.
bnelson44 on January 31, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Bryan,
As usual, your analysis is spot-on. Realistically, what scenario is there for a Romney nomination if McCain takes California and New York, and Huckabee stays in?
kflynn on January 31, 2008 at 9:11 AM
mC has always been untrustworthy, a backstabber and dweeb.
now we can add liar to the list.
jimmer on January 31, 2008 at 9:26 AM
kflynn on January 31, 2008 at 9:11 AM
There is no scenario. It’s over sweetheart.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 9:38 AM
To play devil’s advocate, maybe McCain was trying to say
“I am in favor of no withdrawal under ANY circumstances and you Romney were hedging” ?
?????
navone2 on January 31, 2008 at 9:48 AM
I loved Romney exchange with McCain last night. McCain seemed very uncomfortable when Romney said that the next question from the interviewer in the quote McCain used was “do you support timelines for withdrawal?” which he said he answered “no”. McCain was squirming in the chair next to Romney and looked as if he was trying to think of a way out of the corner he painted himself in.
With Florida hanging in the balance, that was a clear lie by McCain to capture more voters just a couple days be the Florida primaries.
I just don’t know why it seems most Republicans endorse McCain unless, due to the polling that favors McCain beating Clinton or Obama, they think it’s worth selling out conservative principles, just for a better shot at beating the Dems in November. If we are going to be damned, let’s be damned for what we really are, conservatives. That’s why I’d like to see Obama get nominated on the Democratic side. Because he embodies his party, which is anti-war, far-left, socialist utopians that can’t utter a sentence without a platitude being involed. McCain almost seems Clinton-esque in being an opportunist who doesn’t really stand for anything.
Planet Boulder on January 31, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Too bad, Romney wasn’t aware of Capt. McBenchmarks statements in January 2007…When he was actually considering ADVOCATING timetables as CONDITIONS for FUNDING.
He could’ve shoved McWeasel’s words right back down his throat.
missed opportunity
franksalterego on January 31, 2008 at 10:07 AM
A picture is worth a thousand words!
SkinnerVic on January 31, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Mitt needs to pull a Super-Monday surprise on McShame. Much like the ones McCain pulled on Thompson before Iowa (”he’s getting out”) and on Romney before Friday (”timetable”).
sleepy-beans on January 31, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Uh, before we nominate Romney for sainthood, perhaps we want to remember just how conveniently he’s arrived at most of his conservative beliefs in the past– oh, six or seven months. The guy still has his social conservative training wheels on.
McCain says what he thinks. Romney says what he thinks you want to hear.
Potfry on January 31, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Dude…c’mon. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL
Alden Pyle on January 31, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Great analysis, Bryan. And I agree with every word except your implication that, in one night, McCain might have allayed your concerns. He could never allay my concerns of his lifetime of perfidy regardless of how hard he tried.
McCain makes George Bush look like a genius. This guy is simply not bright to put it kindly. To put it more bluntly he is stoooopid! There’s nothing wrong with being stoopid, but McCain is too stoopid to even realize he’s completely out of his depth. Nuance? He don’t need no stinkin’ noooance!
Charles Martel on January 31, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I really liked that Romney got alot more aggressive.
But NOT aggressive enough!
He’s still TOO POLITE to MCKOOK!
Come on Mitt! This is your last chance! For the future of this country and the Republican Party!
Don’t just GIVE it to him!!!!!!!
Conservaboomer on January 31, 2008 at 11:22 AM
There…I fixed it for ya’.
franksalterego on January 31, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I loved that line last. “How is it that you’re the expert on my position?”
Political Pornography. Yeah baby!
Geronimo on January 31, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I like Romney a lot and I am hoping that he finds a way to win the nomination. That said, the rhetoric of the conservative McCain haters is doing little to further conservatism within the Republican Party or among the broader American electorate. Most Americans share many of the core values that conservatives hold dear, but they don’t seem to be voting for conservative candidates. Until we figure out why that is happening, our collective conservative voices will be much less effective.
Although I understand all of the angst surrounding McCain, punishing Republican candidates by not supporting them in the general election hasn’t worked for us. Our best strategy, given the current circumstances, is to lobby for a conservative running mate for McCain if he gets the nomination, hold our noses and vote for the Republican ticket in November, and then intensify our lobbying efforts to keep liberal legislation from getting to the President’s desk. McCain, for all of his many liberal failings, will continue to fight the war on terror rather than surrendering. He will be with us on some issues and will have to be fought by us on others.
Rush Limbaugh said on his program that even though he is not happy with McCain’s liberalness, he is not advocating that we intentionally lose in November. We can never win by losing. We can only win, if we unite behind our Presidential nominee and then use intense lobbying to hold him and our other elected leaders accountable. This is the hallmark of an effective proactive democracy.
Unless conservatives demonstrate more unity and less venom within our own party, it is unlikely that we will appeal to the conservative values that exist in most Americans. If we continue to deride and ridicule those within our own party, most Americans will simply turn away from the ugliness and move farther away from their support of conservatism. We have to learn how to kindle and inspire support for conservative values without resorting to hateful rhetoric and attacks. Unless we find a way to do this, we will fail in our efforts to promote more conservative candidates in the future. We will be regarded as no better than the hate-filled loons on the left. It does no good to be right on the issues facing this country when you are relegated to a position of irrelevance in the eyes of most Americans.
NuclearPhysicist on January 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM
bryan, maybe this will be a president both parties can unite over….we’ll all despise him equally.
DrW on January 31, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I was shocked, shocked by the change in my opinion after that debate. Mostly because now I like Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain is one scurrilous individual.
I’ve got a great new campaign song for McCain.
NTWR on January 31, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I’m persuaded. Of course, as McCain wanted in 2005 when he sued the FEC; it should be illegal to say anything beneficial about a candidate without it being regulated by the FEC as an in kind donation with proper disclosure and appropriate limitations.
So, for this (or any) blog to post anything beneficial to McCain without proper sourcing, limitations, disclosure, and reporting these posts as a donation would be something McCain has fought against.
And in doing so, that support of McCain would be something he has sued to try to get removed from the internet, e-mail, and other electronic communication.
Also, since we’re within 30 days of an election; any blogs supporting McCain should avoid political speech that might indirectly refer to a candidate. Out of respect for McCain’s positions of course.
At least, thats if McCain would support the lawsuit he led against the FEC in 2005 to attempt to silence and control internet speech. Maybe he’s changed his views on that as well…
So, out of respect for McCain and his wishes, are you going to stop commenting in a manner that could be seen as an illegal “in kind” donation for McCain; or are you going to try to help him, thereby going against his wishes; which he not only enacted into law, but specifically sued the FEC to be sure this would apply to internet communications?
Confusing… I’m not sure how to support McCain on the internet in a manner he’d approve of. I suspect it can’t be done.
gekkobear on January 31, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I’m repulsed by McCain. Last night’s debate was the final straw….Stay Home 08…
therightwinger on January 31, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Washington style old politics…lay a charge out there regardless of if its true or not..
1. I saw my father marching with MLK
2. I had the endorsement of NRA
3. I was a lifelong hunter
4. I lowered taxes in MA(MA tax burden increased over 8%)
Chakra Hammer on January 31, 2008 at 2:31 PM
NO TO CAPTAIN AMNESTY
koypop on January 31, 2008 at 3:15 PM
President Romney, has a nice ring to it……We need a business minded person to turn the country around. If anyone can, Romney can. McCain is not the one I believe can hold true to his words.
txstar on January 31, 2008 at 3:28 PM
A friend of mine suggested this year may be like 1976. Sometimes the Republican party nominates a person because of a feeling it is his turn. In 1976, the Republican party did that for Gerald Ford, though in the later primaries, the base started saying to themselves “what are we thinking” and Reagan won a number of the later primaries, though too late to get the nomination. When Reagan spoke at the 1976 convention, most realized he should have been their man. But, instead, Ford went on to lose against a weak Jimmy Carter. Luckily, the party repented and nominated Reagan the next year. So, it’s McCain’s turn. He’ll lose. The Democrat President will do nothing to improve domestic issues, and the 2012 Republican nominee will win the election.
Jens on January 31, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I must say one of the more stupid things said in this campaign. “How is it that you are the expert on my positions?” As if a politicians positions are so secure, so obvious, and God forbid we question a candidate on their position…all we have to do is ask them, they well tell us exactly what we want to hear.
The problem with Mitt, is that you have to ask every month what his position is on any major issue.
*
Promo idea for Mitt: A calendar, each month highlighting his new positions. You get 12 different positions on several issues, leading up to the election. The last month or two is left blank for you to fill in.
“Mitt is for what you are for“
right2bright on January 31, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »