Mark Levin nukes McCain, calls for conservatives to rally ’round Romney
posted at 2:27 pm on January 31, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Hard to argue with any of that. It’s more of a cry to defeat McCain than it is to elect Romney, but the end result of defeating McCain would be to elect Romney. That bothers some conservatives just as much as electing McCain, which is why we’re in the fix we’re in right now.
As for me, I understand conservative discomfort with Mitt Romney. I’ve gone through it so much in my head that I’ve come up with a name for it: The Romney Paradox. I’ve written a whole post that explains it in detail, maybe I’ll publish it tomorrow once it’s gelled a bit.
Briefly put, it’s the fact that because we don’t elect businessmen to the presidency, Romney wouldn’t be a viable candidate if he hadn’t been a governor, but because he tacked left in order to win his Massachusetts governorship, conservatives have a hard time believing in his sincerity now, even though he probably started off as more conservative and is certainly more conservative now than McCain. But people have a hard time working it all out, so they don’t bother and just decide that he isn’t trustworthy. I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I see where it comes from. I also think that as a businessman Romney has been absurdly successful and as a public servant he’s been a whale of a lot better than most. He fixes stuff, usually stuff that someone else’s incompetence or corruption broke. We have a few things in Washington that need fixing. McCain doesn’t strike me as the guy who can do that, and don’t get me started on the Democrats. They’re not part of the problem, they are the problem.
As for Romney, here’s a rallying point if you need one.
We need to stay in the house that Reagan built.
I think it’s do or die time for conservatives. Either we rally to Romney or we reconcile ourselves to McCain and all that that means. It’s one or the other. We have a few more days to make up our minds.
More: One of my bottom lines in life is that I prefer people who fix things to people who break things. Romney fixed the Olympics, he fixed Bain, etc. McCain broke the First Amendment and I don’t trust him to fix the border. He did, arguably, have a lead role in fixing the war though he’s exaggerating that. On balance, I don’t know of anything that Romney broke but I do know of one thing that McCain broke and one thing he won’t fix. Fwiw.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Just FYI I’ve spent a year in Iraq and have many buddy’s still there and in other places you’ve never heard of fighting the GWOT. I have not given up on the troops I am the damn troops asshole.
jwp
jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I will NOT vote for Mcleftie
McCain, like the socialists, is a habitual liar, he wants to destroy our economy, he wants to destroy our culture, and he doesn’t give a dm about our nations future.
Socialists are chronic liars, want to destroy our economy, want to destroy our culture, want to destroy our food chain, and wants socialism in our future. Freedom be dm’d.
Far to similiar to me!
allrsn on January 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM
stillaneocon on January 31, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Stillaneocon, I’ll tell you why. I am sick to death of trying to defend Bush and I will be damned if I will defend McCain if he is elected. I would rather suffer the BS we will have to deal with in an Obama administration than have to try and defend a democrat to the socialists. There is NO CANDIDATE with an (R) next to his name that represents ME in this election!
ihasurnominashun on January 31, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I am not a MDS sufferer. I am a Republican. Have been for almost 50 years. I worked in the Reagan administration. John McCain was not a Republican then, and he still isn’t. He has no core principles, except that whatever he decides is right and anyone who disagrees with him is an asshole (which is what he called Pete Domenici, to his face, in front of several other Senators.) I could never vote for such a man. The nation will survive the next four years without him.
rockmom on January 31, 2008 at 5:01 PM
allrsn on January 31, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Sorry for the outburst, but I will not be smeared for not supporting the troops because I don’t happen to agree with a certain candidate. I was responding to a very cheap shot aimed at anyone who does not happen to support McCain.
jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 5:04 PM
WOW how did that happen? Let me try that again.
What Planet are you on??? Conservatives HAVE NOT and WILL not turn our backs on the troops!!!
allrsn on January 31, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Juan claims he was a foot soldier for Reagan. Anybody knows what he did to make that claim ? As far as his spin on Romney’s words for a timetable is concerned: Just for that he will never get my vote, ever.
SIJ6141 on January 31, 2008 at 5:06 PM
So what if McCain was a war hero? The last war hero the Repubs put up was Dole and look how far he got?
McCain is a meanie. Everyone knows it. You can see it in his face.
He is also a RINO in too many issues for me.
You can’t trust him. He likes rubbing elbows with the Kennedys and the Clintons and other Democrats.”They like me! They like me!”
Anyone the MSM likes is not the one to vote for.
(Besides, his whiny voice makes me ill.)
Sloan Morganstern on January 31, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Mitt Romney, prior to becoming a “real conservative”:
“Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.”
the anti-mccain people are delicate little flowers who could never countenance anything like a “cheap shot”, that’s for sure.
i’ll remember that the next time i hear a pro-romney seminar caller trying to push the “manchurian candidate” meme.
jummy on January 31, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I’m not terribly pro-Romney. I can’t even vote until April 22 and I might write in Rick Santorum. He was my Senator and he can’t stand McCain either. McCain did nothing to help Rick in his campaign in 2006. Rudy Giuliani did.
rockmom on January 31, 2008 at 5:19 PM
The ‘anti-McCain people’ are conservatives who have a strong distrust for the flower children of the 60’s.
allrsn on January 31, 2008 at 5:22 PM
I was attempting to keep it civil, but it looks like you’re as big a tool as the asshat you support. Not once have I gone outside the political positions of McShamesty or of his political actions that were contrary to the interests of Republicans/conservatives. Anyone who questions Sen McCain’s patriotism of love of country is a bigger tool than you, but I’ll be damned if I won’t criticize his politics and actions since leaving the military.
jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I was attempting to keep it civil, but it looks like you’re as big a tool as the Senator you support.
Not once have I gone outside the political positions of McShamesty or of his political actions that were contrary to the interests of Republicans/conservatives. Anyone who questions Sen McCain’s patriotism of love of country is a bigger tool than you, but I’ll feel free to criticize his politics and actions since leaving the military.
jwp1964 on January 31, 2008 at 5:33 PM
This push for by the RINO aspect of the Republican party has been going on since papa Bush was elected and they have gradually pushed their hand with each Repub president. I feel that McCain is the culmination of these efforts to totally overtake the party.
I appreciate those of you who are concerned about continued progress on the WOT. Here is my question for you?
What good is it to continue the WOT over in the middle east while another more successful enemy army is invading our country on a daily basis? That enemy is doing more to harm and dilute American culture than any muslim psychos.
The moderate RINO’s want to exploit this invading army for cheap labor and will be flying away in their Gulfstream V’s while the remnants of America crumbles around average Americans.
ClassicCon on January 31, 2008 at 5:34 PM
I’ve been anti-McCain since before the surge. This isn’t a new thing, and isn’t going to change. I am not voting for Romney, I’m voting against McCain.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 31, 2008 at 5:35 PM
The Bottom line here is that McCain has 25 years in the Government to do right by Conservatives and he did not.
Making him President will only give a different venue from which to trash our values.
McCain blew his chance.
Give Mitt a chance to do right by us. Ann Coulter says he is “manifestly our best candidate”
EJDolbow on January 31, 2008 at 5:36 PM
McLame (love that , thanks to “The Great One”) is showing he has no basic reading comprehension skills. and this man does alot of reading and writing for a living, kinda scary.
said id only vote for or write in Fred. Im finding Mitt more acceptable. call me a liar.
palefaced on January 31, 2008 at 5:37 PM
So how is it any different for me to base my decision off of Rudy’s endorsement an actual Presidential candidate and one who is more intelligent and that has far more accomplishments than Levin will ever have..
Wouldn’t that same “word” apply to you as well to base your opinion off of what the Levin types say, the Hot Air’s, and the National Review’s say?
Our Party needs an adjustment, and someone called for the chiropractor.
Chakra Hammer on January 31, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I am not trying to smear or make a cheap shot.
My opinion is about the practical implication of not supporting the Republican nominee in the general election even if it is McCain.
I believe that not supporting the republican nominee is a de facto abandonment of the troops—not in intent but in effect.
It is not convincing to me to write that there would not be clear differences between Hillary/Obama and Romney/McCain or that the impact of the difference would not be great.
Conservatives staying at home on election day would be horrible for the country — even if McCain is the nominee (and I am not a McCain supporter).
stillaneocon on January 31, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Don’t know how to break this to you, but McCain wants to let far more dangerous folk in than “freuit-picers” and carpenters. Lots of illegal jihadis from places other than Mexico, are also walking in and he wants to make them citizens if they pay a small fine, because it is the humane thing to do. Sounds like a fine national defense policy to me.
a capella on January 31, 2008 at 5:43 PM
McCain is just more of the same. Mitt hit the nail on the head last Tuesday when he said that it’s not time to send the same people back to Washington to sit in different chairs.
Romney is presidential. He’s a successful leader. He stands FOR things, not AGAINST things. He talks about the future. He is against amnesty. He is a straight talker, honest, married only once, and has great hair. What more could you ask for?
McCain, on the other hand, is a slimy beltway boy. I can’t vote for him. I care too much about the security if our country and don’t trust that he will actually secure our border, especially given the people he has advising him.
cannonball on January 31, 2008 at 5:47 PM
I assume you agree that McCain will be strong on the jihad. Your problem is with immigration — and it should be. His bill was horrid with that absurd Z-Visa. However, he says he has learned his lesson and will enforce the border first then deal with those here already. You, I’m sure are going, ah ha, amnesty. Well, Mitt had no problem with a path to citizenship until he saw how the base reacted. Now, he is spewing that BS like last night how all the illegals must go home. He says we will be humane, their kids can finish the year of school, they can make the necessary arrangements, then they must go home. THAT IS NONSENSE, and a smart guy like Mitt knows it and he is lying to you.
Whether by deportation or economic coercion, let’s assume they go home over the span of a year (after they make their arrangements). Let’s look at the numbers. 12 to 20 million illegals, with dependents let’s use 20 million as our number to force back over the border. That comes to 54,795 illegals (mostly poor) must return to Mexico every day for 365 straight days. That cannot happen. Mexico’s unstable economy would be thrown into chaos. There would be a humanitarian catastrophe. The only arrangements they would be making would be to select the batch of dirt they plan to starve to death on. The international outrage directed at the cold hearted bastards that sent these vulnerable people back into that third world cesspool would be unbearable. It can never happen. It never will happen. Mitt knows that, but typical of Mitt, he is BSing you.
I like the rule of law, I wish our federal government had done a better job in securing the border and deporting over the past few decades. I wish my local schools and emergency rooms here in LA were not inundated with illegals, but here were are. We need to be realistic. We need to get the best deal we can to preserve our culture, but sending them all back, unfortunately, is not an option. Any politician who says he can do it is lying to you.
tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 5:52 PM
That’s a canard and I am not falling for it. We survived 4 years of Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress, at the height of the Cold War. 5,000 Russian nukes pointed at us was a hell of a lot worse than this silly little war we are in now. The Republican Party looked dead for a generation in 1976 after Watergate. Do I need to remind you what happened in 1980??
There IS no Republican in this election now. I will not vote for the nominee of this new party, and I will not be made to feel guilty for it. The nation will survive, and there will be an actual Republican in 2012 for whom I will gladly vote to unseat President Obama.
rockmom on January 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Is that why Mitt consistently loses to BOTH Clinton and Obama in the polls, because of what he is for and the he has such a broad outreach? LOL
Chakra Hammer on January 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Friday, January 25, 2008
McCain Making Nice at CPAC? [Mark Hemingway]
After skipping the event last year, I just heard that McCain purchased a booth at CPAC, the annual conservative gathering in Washington coming up two weeks from now. CPAC attendees are pretty hard core conservatives — not exactly McCain’s base. Romney won the straw poll there last year, and at one point, McCain was actually booed by the crowd when they announced the poll results. Then again, CPAC is a few days after Super Tuesday, so it’s possible McCain could have locked up the nomination by then. It’ll be interesting to see how much of an olive branch to conservatives this is perceived to be.
01/25 06:29 PM
———————————————
Imagine Juan McKennedy showing up at THIS gathering. I wonder if he’ll be spouting the “my friends” line here?
http://www.cpac.org/agenda_20708.html
Pay no attention to the “2007″ on the Fri & Sat tabs. They change to 2008 when you click them.
loaner on January 31, 2008 at 5:54 PM
He also recently said he would sign that original bill if he is president, then he avoided answering that direct question in the last debate. So, which lesson did he learn?
a capella on January 31, 2008 at 5:58 PM
SECOND LOOK AT BOBBY JINDAL
a capella on January 31, 2008 at 6:01 PM
right now we need to get the economy taken care of – this makes me lean toward Romney.
if terrorism becomes center stage again or we are attacked, we still have our military and we do not need a war hero to lead our military.
we survived Clinton after all….
Semper Fi.
jcrue on January 31, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Interesting?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1
loaner on January 31, 2008 at 6:03 PM
If this is “Straight Talk” I don’t want to see revisionist history.
JDH on January 31, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Behold the rationalization of the non-voter…
CliffHanger on January 31, 2008 at 6:05 PM
ooh! i have an example of revisionist history!
Mitt Romney last night:
“We need to stay in the house that Reagan built.”
Mitt Romney prior to becoming a “real conservative”:
“Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan/Bush.”
jummy on January 31, 2008 at 6:07 PM
I am not a fan of McCain but there are real men and women fighting and dying in this “silly little war” and there are also people called “terrorists” trying to kill us all.
EnochCain on January 31, 2008 at 6:10 PM
From last nights debate-
So called “real conservatives” are okay with this? What does completing the school year have to do with anything?
Enough time to organize their affairs? LET THEM ORGANIZE THEIR AFFAIRS WHEREVER THEY CAME FROM.
If McCain or Huckabee had said this, so called “true conservatives” would have a fit.
I think some on the far right are looking for a reason to part ways with the Republican party, well, go ahead and do it. We would all be better off with a little less hate. I’ve always considered myself a Ronald Reagan conservative, and if he were running today, some of the more stubborn among us would probably bash him too. Somehow he managed to reach out to people he did not agree with and I do believe he granted millions of hispanics amnesty.
At this point, I don’t see much difference between any of the Republican candidates (excluding RP of course) In that case, I have to agree with the D-man, five plus years in the Hanoi Hilton is a solid tie breaker.
myamphibian on January 31, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Jummy:
You have to move on. You have used that three or four times today. I will once again remind you that at least he has made the journey and found his way. The same cannot be said of your guy.
You have to love the class warfare language from the Democratic talking points McCain used in 2001 and 2003. Let me give you a link to the site you should be on.
Daily Kos
JDH on January 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Vanceone’s comment had to do with the conservative culture of Mormons. It had absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself.
Thanks for that!
Buy Danish on January 31, 2008 at 6:15 PM
You mean the same polls that had Rudy as the national frontrunner a few months ago? Yeah… I have a lot of faith in those polls.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 6:15 PM
And Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican. So what’s your point? That Romney fits the mold better than anyone?
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Very good points.
dedalus on January 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM
The question is – Why are so many Republicans voting for John McCain in the primaries ?
LODGE4 on January 31, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Name and POW status. Period.
Domino on January 31, 2008 at 6:22 PM
dude, ouch! you told me i belong at dkos? maybe when i get there i can hook up with medved, giuliani, perry the clear majority of republican voters and everyone but “real conservatives”. we will be certain to discuss how much you matter.
jummy on January 31, 2008 at 6:27 PM
The dow was up nearly 200 points today. I bet Romney is disappointed.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 6:27 PM
You could not be more wrong. People are voting for McCain because they want to support a conservative (abeit not a perfect one) that they think can win in Nov. Apparently some so called “real conservatives” would rather have the Republicans lose to the Dems for reasons I can’t fathom.
myamphibian on January 31, 2008 at 6:30 PM
McCain would sign the McCain/Kennedy bill in a New York minute if he were president. He did NOT answer that question. I have that same paradox that you do Bryan. It’s a tough one.
oakpack on January 31, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Sorry, maybe too harsh, but you were recycling a worn out argument. Keep offering up the soft balls and we will keep hitting them out of the park.
JDH on January 31, 2008 at 6:33 PM
SECOND LOOK AT THE KEATING 5!
McShamnesty is about as ‘conservative’ as Jerry Ford in 1976 or Bob Dole in 1996.
Look for the same results.
Trying to lie and weasel his way into the Oval Office may gratify his crusty ego, but only demeans the party.
I can only hope he loses his festering temper in public before Monday night and shows his truly slimy character.
McVain reminds me more and more of the Lon Chaney, Sr. -in the silent era version of “the Phantom of the Opera”- just before the mask came off.
profitsbeard on January 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM
You can’t be stupid enough to think Romney doesn’t invest in the stock market. Or maybe you can be, I don’t know.
sloopy on January 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM
If that’s true I think they are in for a rude awakening come the general election. The media lovefest will come to an end and he’ll have to swim against the current instead of with it. If he turns out to be a weak candidate in the general and loses, then they will have voted for nothing.
The conservatives you impune are at least voting for something they believe in. Their logic is, it’s better to stand on principal and lose, then to stand for nothing and win. Because when you stand for nothing, you get nothing.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Oh I know that he does, however he probably feels that the worse the markets, the better his chances are. I think he’s the type that would revel in it.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 6:38 PM
You’re entitled, and absolutely right. Thanks for your service.
Midas on January 31, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I would rather lose with Romney, than win with McCain.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 31, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I really wish Mitt would stop distorting Mav’s record.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 6:39 PM
More ‘republicans’ are voting for someone other than McCain – he’s getting “independent’ and ‘democrat’ votes – even in the FL primary which was supposed to be ‘republican’ only (I still don’t understand that, ffs).
Midas on January 31, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Details? Otherwise, not much fun or stimulating.
JDH on January 31, 2008 at 6:40 PM
It’s volatile. Seems to be up or down more than 100 every day. More down than up since October.
I’m sure Mitt made money today. More for him to spend on advertising.
dedalus on January 31, 2008 at 6:41 PM
ROFL!! OMG! I think I just laughed up a kidney.
Mitt doesn’t have to distort McCain’s record. It speaks for itself. He is a war hero, but he hasn’t done anything right since.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 31, 2008 at 6:41 PM
People felt similarly about Bush 41. I think he was a good president.
dedalus on January 31, 2008 at 6:43 PM
You only insult yourself with a comment like that.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 6:43 PM
The McCain-Clinton ticket would be hard to beat. Just have to determine which party would be the best to run in.
volsense on January 31, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Uh Oh. Charles Krauthammer and Mort Kondracke just said that Romnee DID favor a timetable for withdrawel. Busted.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 6:46 PM
You’re just a grenade thrower aren’t you? Just throw something out there — true or not — and hope it does some damage? However, like Kerry, I’d say most of the shrapnel is hitting you in your own arse.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Rally around Mittens? You must be joking!
Psycheout on January 31, 2008 at 6:53 PM
I will not vote for Juan McLiar.
He is not a conservative. He is not a Republican.
Last night’s debate convinced me he is not fit to be President of the United States.
SimplyKimberly on January 31, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I agree. I was on the fence about whether or not I’d vote for him in Nov. should he win the nomination. After last night, he’s not getting my vote.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Mitt Romeny said that McCain in reminiscent of the Nixon era. That’s funny cause that’s the last time anyone used the term Silent Majority. Maybe the Silent Majority is quiet no longer. Buh-Bye Mitt.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 7:06 PM
With all due respect, BS. If you really care about conservative principles, how can you support Mitt Romney, who was for abortion before he was against it?
myamphibian on January 31, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Can McCain get rid of his conservative VP after the election??
I just don’t trust this guy in the least.
Should McCain get this nomination, I expect he would choose a VP that seems or is conservative. Then, I would expect that same VP to put forth his resignation at some point within the first year or two due to an undisclosed illness or some other excuse or be pressured to resign due to a scandal.
He is not going to allow some conservative to come in after him and “fix” what he has worked so hard to destroy!
McCain is not trustworthy. He has shown he will ACTIVELY AND PASSIONATELY work against conservative causes.
McCain is not just a liberal or just a RINO. He is a CRUSADER for liberal issues and displays a hatred and contempt for conservatives and Christians.
I predict that, should McCain become president, re-enacting the so called Fairness Doctrine will become one of his top priorities! He will pursue it with glee and the RINO’s and Dems in congress will unite with him to put an end to all the “divisiveness and hate” on talk radio and the internet!
He knows from experience now the need to silence the critics! Once that is accomplished, it’ll be much easier to open the borders, increase taxes, attack the church, education and property rights, appoint liberal judges and on and on.
JellyToast on January 31, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Wrong again. A steady stream every day going home is all we want. No rush. Just a reversal of the steady current influx aggravated by leniency, “amnesty”, rewards, benefits, solicitation of
finesbribes, etc. such as Shamnety ‘06 and Shamnesty ‘07.GENOCIDE!
Where have I heard this tripe before? Oh, I remember. Your last post, word for word. You refuse to learn.
Apparently not. You want to REWARD lawbreakers with their ill-gotten goods. What other laws do you think this policy is good for?
Yes. I agree. Let’s be realistic. Let’s see what is working just fine in 4 states. As soon as 50 states, or the feds, use the same policy, we’re home free.
Don’t believe me – listen the illegal aliens themselves, explaining why they are going home (or to any state that hasn’t yet decided to protect their own citizens).
If you want to help Mexico and Mexicans, and/or any other foreign country and its people, why don’t you petition your government to start a Marshall Plan? Or better yet, why not send your check directly to Calderon? Or just send it c/o Juan Fernandez? Or McCain ‘08 campaign headquarters?
Promoting anarchy, as McCain, Kennedy, Bush, et al have been doing, is never a solution to either our problems or those of another country. The solution that is just, fair, and effective is total and consistent law enforcement. You know it is the right policy. It works every day “forcing” drivers to put nickels in parking meters.
Oh, and I forgot. GENOCIDE!!
Oh, and it’s a winning issue for Rep. and Dems. Ta Da!
fred5678 on January 31, 2008 at 7:11 PM
I heard that statment live: NO he does NOT support a timetable!!!
allrsn on January 31, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Good post Jelly
allrsn on January 31, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Mitt Romney is John McCain.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Giuliani Attorney General
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Who’s Mark Levin?
BJ* on January 31, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Who’s Mark Levin?
BJ* on January 31, 2008 at 7:20 PM
That guy who’s conceded enough to call himself “The Great One”.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 7:23 PM
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton: McCain +1.8
.
McCain vs. Obama: McCain +1.5
Romney has shown that he could never win..
Romney vs. Clinton: Clinton +12.4
.
Romney vs. Obama: Obama +17.0
Chakra Hammer on January 31, 2008 at 7:28 PM
CHEWS ON ONE-
Everyone supports a timetable for withdrawal… after Iraq has been stabilized.
Alhtough allowing it to establish Sharia Islamic law as the core of its Constitution (with our leaders help and approval) was THE fatal mistake for the entire enterprise, and will eventually render the whole effort tragically meaningless.
Unless another malignant “Islamic State” run by Shiites (the more radical sect of Mohammadism) is considered a “win”, or desirable.
Or even half-sane.
The “planners” in Iraq failed to do what was done with the defeated Germans and Japanese: dictate a secular Constitution, and enforce it with blood and thunder.
Shock and Awe never happened.
And we will live with the evil consequences of this blindness and weakness and idiocy for generations.
There is no “winning”, now, only stabilizing.
Then getting the hell on to more violently jihadist regions.
Until Iraq re-descends into one, later.
When, as with the first Gulf War’s indecisive end, Iraq’s now-quiescent Islamofascist maniacs (Sadr’s Mehdi Army, et al) will have to be FINALLY crushed, as they should have been this time.
The timid approach only guarantees more war with this kind of millenialist enemy.
profitsbeard on January 31, 2008 at 7:30 PM
There may be a possibility to select a conservative at the convention. All we have to do is prevent a single-ballot win.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12664
Texas Nick 77 on January 31, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Mitt’s stance on abortion while running for governor of Massachusetts. The more I hear from Romney, the more I get the impression he will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. At least McCain is not a pander bear. Mitt’s quote regarding timetables for withdrawl can easily be interpreted either way, he tries to play both sides of the fence. I think Mac deserves a shot, especially if he picks a good veep. I can’t wait for a Fred or Duncan on McCains ticket so you guys can bash them too. The “i’m more conservative than you” types are becoming just as annoying as their left wing counterparts. Enjoy the backlash you so deserve.
myamphibian on January 31, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Conservatism isn’t one issue.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Why do people continue to worship Reagan and fail to see what he really did. He was a strident anti-communist and he instigated the fall of the USSR. That’s it. And because we’ve had republicans in control who weren’t anti-communist, and failed to realize the threat not only of resurgent communism but of islamo-fascists, we’re back where we started, Putin going whacko and turning Russia into a fascist state and China slowly becoming a military power.
Reagan was no real conservative. He signed a huge tax increase, run with his tail out of Beruit, and signed the F$$*#$^ immigration bill that has us in the pickle we find ourselves in now!
Yeah, he loved America. He returned our belief into ourselves as something positive. But the failure of conservatives to fight the induation of liberalization of our culture has doomed us for good.
Bend over and kiss it goodbye.
mksmithwriter on January 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM
New rule. Six line comments only. Some of you write like your making a case for WMD’s. Remember people, I’m multi-tasking. Trashing Romnely, watching the Tar Heels kick butt, and a mean red clam sauce. No time for tired ramble.
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 7:42 PM
McCain was a foot soldier for Ronald Reagan in the same way that Judas was a foot soldier for Jesus Christ.
highhopes on January 31, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Unfortunately, McCain has a fantastic pension and healthcare plan, courtesy of you and me. Not by my choice, though.
I understand that all Congresscritters get an automatic lifetime pension at 100% salary, with COLA, plus a marvelous health plan, after only one term in office.
Can you imagine any filthy, profit-making organization, that fires its employees, ever doing the same?
fred5678 on January 31, 2008 at 7:44 PM
What have you been smoking!!! He panders to the left – Kennedy, Feingold – are you paying attention.
What a good commie – keep telling a lie long enough and guys like you fall every time.
mksmithwriter on January 31, 2008 at 7:44 PM
The more I hear from Romney, the more I get the impression he will say whatever he needs to say to get elected
myamphibian on January 31, 2008
I think he is a man of Character.
Scroll down to the bottom of the link provided. Mitt was taking a stand for a Christian parent as Governor. The parent was arrested for protesting the homosexual propaganda pushed on his son at school. Mitt took a public stand for this parent. He did not have to do that. http://www.article8.org/docs/news_events/parker/main.htm
JellyToast on January 31, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Huck is so much more conservative than Mitt the fraud, why doesn’t Huckmania get any love from Hotair readers?
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Were you old enough to follow politics when he was running in 1980? I’m not, so it’s hard to fully understand why he was special. But if you go back and read the transcripts from the debates he participated in, you get a better sense of why he was so special and revolutionary. Big government was out of control and here he came and said, government is not the answer it’s the problem.
The problem we have today is our party has since been hijacked by big-government Republicanism. That’s why some people on this blog contend this election is about whether or not we continue down that road, or return to Reagan’s limited government message.
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Mitt’s stance on abortion while running for governor of Massachusetts.
JDH on January 31, 2008 at 7:56 PM
When all is said and done, ‘true conservatives’ will, once again, be left out in the cold because their blind philosophy of ‘it’s our way or the highway’ will see to that.
For whatever reason, being pragmatic is not part of their philosophy. If ‘true conservatives’ are indeed true, they must, then, reject their idol Ronald Reagan who found it necessary to step over to the ‘dark side’ occasionally in order to get his programs through.
I suggest, therefore, that conservatives drop the ‘true’ and become realistic about the political landscape and not again lose both the congress and the presidency this time.
pocomoco on January 31, 2008 at 7:56 PM
David Patreus Secretary of Defense?
THE CHOSEN ONE on January 31, 2008 at 8:00 PM
And you responded with the same tried links and anecdotal evidence which has nothing to do with a situation where we try to force all the illegals in the US to return over any reasonable time frame — 1 year, 5 years. It wouldn’t matter. Decades of a population shift like this cannot be undone without something akin to genocide. Saying anything else, you are fooling us or yourself or both, but it won’t change the numbers or the impossibility of the situation.
tommylotto on January 31, 2008 at 8:03 PM
CHEWS ON ONE-
*yawn*
Your ego is McVainian.
No wonder you suck up to his b.s.
profitsbeard on January 31, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Bryan, thanks for your rational, reasoned, to-the-point post on the issue. It’s very refreshing to read in comparison to some of the yelling and screaming we’re seeing in much of the conservative blogosphere/message boards/punditocracy re: the debate over which guy conservatives should rally around. Theres’s almost a type of mob mentality going on right now WRT to this issue, and it’s not conducive to constructive debate, IMO.
I haven’t felt comfortable commenting at Hot Air since the immigration debate got so heated last spring, because I felt like people like me who were in the “middle” on the issue, who were seeing good points on both sides, were in essence being shouted down and wrongly viewed as “open borders zealots” and traitors to their country for not siding with those who were strongly opposed to the bill. Yeah, I know there was a lot of negative back and forth on both sides (and some of it, unfortunately, came from the administration) but the overwhelming majority of it came from the side who in the end won the battle. I’m certainly not opposed to getting bruised and scratched in order to defend my positions on the issues, but it came to a point where I didn’t feel my opinions – or the others in the minority who were expressing similar thoughts to mine – were welcomed (by other HA commenters), and it got incredibly frustrating for a while. So I left for a long time.
In the last month or so I’ve gotten back to reading HA on a semi-regular basis, and like a moth to a flame I’m always drawn to the threads about McCain, and up until this thread, I saw in those threads what I believed to be the same type of mentality I witnessed during the immigration debate. I read your post in this one, and the comments which followed, and felt like it was a thread where conservatives were for the most part willing to debate and discuss the issue thoughtfully rather than solely on emotion.
Like a lot of conservatives, I am torn this election, because I don’t like McCain. I’m not overjoyed with Romney either, and it’s always perplexed me that some of the same people who will wipe the floor in defense of Mitt Romney (like many of the pundits at National Review) will jump all over John McCain for flip flopping on an issue for political purposes. Yet, that is Mitt Romney’s stock and trade. He’s done it for over a decade. I think it was John Derbyshire who wrote over there recently that you didn’t know what Romney’s position was on an issue until you could see which crowd he was speaking in front of. But between Romney and McCain, I guess most of the NRO crowd somehow believes that Romney won’t flip flop again, whereas they think McCain will. It makes no sense, but whatever.
On the other hand, McCain’s performance in the debate last night was/is a case study on why conservatives can’t stand him – his arrogance and smugness, not to mention his cheap shots on Romney for his work in the private sector and his outright lies about Romney’s postion on timetables for Iraq, were some of the most offensive things I’ve seen from any camapign since the race for the nomination started early last year.
I remember in 2004 how conservatives argued about the importance of getting out to vote, because we were in the middle of a war on Islamofascism, both in Iraq and elsewhere, and we needed to keep Republican leadership who understood what the cost of losing in Iraq would mean both in the short and long term, none of it good. Kerry would be a disaster, conservatives argued, because he’d be cutting and running out of Iraq as fast as he could, regardless of the consequences. Conservatives were already disatisfied with Bush on a number of issues – like immigration, the Farm Bill, his ‘alliance’ with Ted Kennedy on NCLB, etc, but conservatives knew it would be catastrophic to not vote in the 2004 elections, because we wanted our men and women in uniform to be able to come home with their heads held high, and for the sacrifices made by their fellow soldiers not to have been made in vain. Not only that, but America’s reputation as a defender of democracy was at risk if we cut and run, and we knew Iraq would turn into a genocidal bloodbath if we did so. So conservatives pushed on and said “stay the course” with their vote.
Not much has changed four years later, just the faces of those who want to represent our party in the general election. The top three – Mitt, McCain, and Huck, all know the value and importance of winning in Iraq, and not rolling back the progress we’ve made in the overall GWOT. We’re still in Iraq, more of our troops have been hurt and maimed, and many more have made the ultimate sacrifice – all for their country and the people who have stood by them and said ‘we will not forget you’ since day 1. It has been, after all, a war worth fighting and one worth winning.
We’ve seen the progress in Iraq that has taken place in the last year, a progress that will continue only if we have a CIC who understands what the consequences of failure in Iraq and elsewhere are in the fight against Islamofascism. Also, let’s not forget this: Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated in so many words that genocide is not a reason to keep US troops in Iraq – that is an astounding display of ignorance and naivete coming from two people who want to be elected in a position that would see them be the driving force in our foreign policy decisions and in control of our armed forces.
America has an obligation to finish what it started in Iraq, not leave it unfinished as we did in Vietnam (thanks to anti-war Democrats who still today have not learned their lesson on that front). We’ve already seen that with perseverance and determination, things can change for the better in Iraq, that we can succeed, and that one day our troops will be able to come home with their heads held high, knowing that not only were they coming home to a country that supports them, but a CIC who, when the chips were/are down on the floor, wanted them to win, too.
A lot of people have tried to make this a debate about “principles” – one side says “I’m going to stand conservative on principle and sit out this election, because I’m fed up with not having more conservative options for a nominee, and I’m not going to settle anymore” while the other side is saying “I’m standing for the conservative principle of victory and honoring committments the US has made.” But in the end, this is not about who has the most or best principles, because we all have good principles. Each of us right now is either determining or have already determined which principles are more important. We do this every election cyle, and this one is no different.
No matter what my differences are with the candidates – whether we’re talking Mitt, McCain, or Huck – I would not hesitate for a second to pull the lever for any of them against whoever the Dem nominee is. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq, as well as the overall GWOT.
I’m not crazy about McCain’s position on Gitmo or ‘rights’ for terrorists, but on Iraq, he’s been consistent from day one (and was for the surge before it was popular to be for the surge) so I will give him credit for that, and hold my nose and vote for him come election time, should he be the nominee.
Our troops and their families have made so many sacrifices in this war, and all of it done in the name of keeping America safe and spreading democracy in a place where the iron fist of a dictator ruled for decades. I will never forget the first time I saw a purple finger, and read about the Iraqis who were defiantly going to the polls in spite of the possiblity that some Islamofascist thug or “insurgent” would try to make a martyr of himself at a polling station. I think about that, and then I read about people who have actually already decided to sit out an election here in order to prove some type of point, and it saddens me a great deal, because the only point it will prove in the end is that the same America who said in 2004 that we shouldn’t rest until we’ve won in “this silly little war” will sit back and allow someone into the WH who has no concept about what American honor is about, someone who will effectively make it so those same Iraqis won’t enjoy the right to go out and vote anymore because their country will be overrun by terrorists who want to make it a base for global jihad, someone whom our enemies will absolutely love.
The illegal immigration issue is an important one – I don’t deny that. And it will be an uphill climb on that issue should McCain be elected president. On Iraq, though, we’d have a strong ally in him. However, electing Obama or Clinton would be a lose/lose situation, because neither one of them give a rip about our border nor do they support the war in Iraq, and as a consequence everything our troops have sacrificed so much for will be in vain. I, for one, do not want that on my back. Hillary or Obama may win the election regardless, but it won’t be because I stayed at home, or wrote in a candidate’s name.
SisterToldjah on January 31, 2008 at 8:05 PM
I don’t know about others, but the issue for me isn’t that McCain is not a “true conservative.” It’s that he has actively worked against policies I favor, and for policies I’m against. Given than, why would I vote for him?
Spolitics on January 31, 2008 at 8:08 PM
His record on illegal immigration:
1. Pushing hard for in-state tuition so that legal residents of Mexico get an American-citizen-funded, tax-subsidized lower tuition (in Arkansas) that legal residents of 49 states can’t get. He favors foreign invaders over American citizens.
2. Signing a bill (after his legislature passed it) that called for 287(g) training, then stalling for his last 20 months in office not writing a simple letter of agreement to DHS to actually START the training (his Dem. successor signed it in HIS first year).
3. LYING during the campaign that he ORDERED his law enforcement organizations to take training.
He is a complete fake on illegal immigration.
Did you listen during the last debates that Fred participated in? He and Mitt were the only ones insisting that all llegals had to go home with no preferences and no special considerations.
fred5678 on January 31, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Fred5678: Unfortunately, you have been reeled in by the “Chosen One”. He/she/it does not have any interest in logical, thoughtful, respectful debate. Your post is excellent, too bad it will fall on deaf ears.
JDH on January 31, 2008 at 8:15 PM
GENOCIDE!!
I present consistent evidence of a working policy. A policy that is working every place it has been enacted. Where are your “anecdotes” that prove that the 8th amnesty since 1986 would reverse the flow of illegal invasion?
You are fooling yourself, and no one else, that doing the same thing (rewards of residency) over and over will result in a different outcome. Many people use that as the definition of insanity.
You choose to ignore consistent evidence.
You deny what the legislatures of four states (and more soon!) have decided, including at least one Democrat governor (AZ).
And you deny that American citizens want attrition by enforcement. Read that tired ol’ Zogby poll once more. Really. Read it.
Continue to deny reality and you will soon be enjoying the same “villages” that San Diego now enjoys. Enjoy your anarchy.
fred5678 on January 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM
POW!
Or Stalin for Lenin!
mksmithwriter on January 31, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Shew! Say everything you wanted?
I think the McCaininistas have sent out their blog-troopers to try to brainwash the real conservatives…like McCain was brainwashed in Vietnam.
The Manchurian Candidate!
mksmithwriter on January 31, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »