Quote of the day

posted at 11:34 pm on February 3, 2008 by Allahpundit

“No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it’s not him.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Notice Fred’s quote about Romney’s flip-flopping from liberal Mass. gov. to conservative darling?

jgapinoy on February 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Notice Fred is out after running a lazy hound dog of a campaign?

I like his politics, but not his gumption.

Fight HARD or don’t get in the ring.

profitsbeard on February 3, 2008 at 11:40 PM

The degree to which campaigns’ personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated,” says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns.

What are these people? Clintons?

(Plus, I hate that phrasing “the degree to which”. I’m in Academe and the pseudo-intellectual language-posturing really…gets my goat.)

Tzetzes on February 3, 2008 at 11:41 PM

Does it feel like McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee (w/ an assist from Arnold) have completely hi-jacked a party?

darkegop on February 3, 2008 at 11:41 PM

Maybe it’s just me ,but things like this make me like Mitt even more.
He may not have that charisma/cult of personality thang going, but maybe it’s about time we just let someone manage DC and look to ourselves for that inspiration quotient.

bbz123 on February 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM

“I happen to be a very big admirer of Senator McCain.” – Rudy

Yup, that’s because you’re both RINOs.

“… we all need to make sure it’s not him.”

Yeah, because God forbid, God for-freakin’-bid the conservative party nominate a conservative candidate.

Tony737 on February 3, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Someone has hijacked the GOP but don’t confuse the tools with the person using them.

Buzzy on February 3, 2008 at 11:43 PM

“What Romney has done,” says a Huckabee adviser, “he’s attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in.”

As far as the positions, what do you want him to do? Hold a position that he’s decided is wrong, just for ‘consistency’? A position that your dude still takes?

And as for the money, take your damn class-pandering to the other party, where it belongs.

Tzetzes on February 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Tzetzes on February 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Correct. Mitt, like Reagan, changed. Reagan went from a Democrat in Hollywood to the hero of conservatives and Republicans alike.

McCain continues to maintain he never supported amnesty and still doesn’t.

amerpundit on February 3, 2008 at 11:46 PM

BBZ – “… things like this make me like Mitt even more.”

Hopefully lots of Pubs will wake up and see this too. Mittmentum!

Tony737 on February 3, 2008 at 11:46 PM

The War for the GOP

Connie on February 3, 2008 at 11:49 PM

“No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it’s not him.”

Makes one wonder if this is a dead end road for Mitt

bnelson44 on February 3, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Love to watch TimeMag stackin’ up them sandbags, as the river rises in the background.

Lee on February 3, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Notice Fred’s quote…

jgapinoy on February 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Uh, no. I noticed a quote from a former Fred campaign staffer, though.

FloatingRock on February 3, 2008 at 11:53 PM

Those new Insider Advantage polls at Real Clear Politics are promising for Mitt, but I’m trying not to get my hopes up.

SouthernGent on February 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM

As far as the positions, what do you want him to do? Hold a position that he’s decided is wrong, just for ‘consistency’?

Tzetzes on February 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM

That is what he has been doing. That is why he is being labeled by most pundits as a panderer.

bnelson44 on February 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM

“At times, this apparent rancor among the other candidates toward Romney has seemed like a schoolyard pact.

Yeah, all the RINOs gangin’ up on the one conservative. “He’s not like us! Get him!”

This ain’t over, people. Everybody thought the Pats were gonna win the Superbowl. Romney is the New Jersey Giants! (I know, I know, New YORK Giants, but that’s for another thread). McCain is the Pats (I apologize to all Pats fans for insulting their team for an anology).

Speakin’ of the Giants, ya know who’s even MORE thrilled about the Giants winning tonight? The ’72 Dolphins!

Tony737 on February 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Yeah, all the RINOs gangin’ up on the one conservative. “He’s not like us! Get him!”

Fred’s a RINO too now? How fast things change.

Allahpundit on February 3, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Ooh! Not only is it TimeMag, it’s Ana Marie Cox writing for Time! About the “I Hate Romney Club”! How delightfully tautological!

Lee on February 3, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Samuel Francis once called the GOP the Stupid Party. And why not? Instead of supporting the guy who at least as the courtesy to pay lip service to conservative postions, they hook up the guy who craps all over them.

But then, the Republican businessmen who **heart** illegal immigrant slave labor know they have a gold mine in McCain.

fiatboomer on February 3, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Those new Insider Advantage polls at Real Clear Politics are promising for Mitt, but I’m trying not to get my hopes up.

SouthernGent on February 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM

You mean this one?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ga/georgia_republican_primary-267.html

It is showing that Georgia is in a THREE way tie between McCain, Romney and Huck.

bnelson44 on February 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM

That is what he has been doing. That is why he is being labeled by most pundits as a panderer.

bnelson44 on February 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM

Deciding your position is wrong and changing it is pandering? Guess Reagan should’ve kept on signing legislation like the Therapeutic Abortion Act.

amerpundit on February 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM

How fast things change. – A.P.

Hey, I was never on the FredHead bandwagon. Besides, I had McCain, Rudy and Huck in mind.

Tony737 on February 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM

And if we want to talk about pandering or changing positions, let’s review McCain and Bush tax cuts.

amerpundit on February 3, 2008 at 11:59 PM

If Juan McNasty the Shamnesty Man gets the Republican nomination, likely, and Cackles HildaBeast gets the Democrat nomination, still a bit likely, I hope that somehow Mitt runs third party.

MB4 on February 3, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Hey, I was never on the FredHead bandwagon. Besides, I had McCain, Rudy and Huck in mind.

Tony737 on February 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Then how do you explain Fred’s campaign disliking Mitt?

Face the facts, folks, Mitt is not well received by his confrères because they don’t like his character. It’s personal, not political. You can make up all the excuses in the world for him, but that doesn’t explain it away. And that, my friends, is very, very weird and I don’t think we should be electing such a person to the presidency, no matter if he happens to be pandering to be in line with our slate of issues this week or not.

bnelson44 on February 4, 2008 at 12:00 AM

You mean this one?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ga/georgia_republican_primary-267.html

It is showing that Georgia is in a THREE way tie between McCain, Romney and Huck.

bnelson44 on February 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM

And the one from Tennessee…a McCain loss to Huckabee would be delightful in a number of scary ways.

SouthernGent on February 4, 2008 at 12:00 AM

and he uses his own money

WILL NO ONE STOP THIS MAD MAD? HE’S SELF-SUFFICIENT!!!

locke on February 4, 2008 at 12:01 AM

Connie on February 3, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Good link. Thanks.

Money quote

The conservatives won the immigration battle with a shocking defeat for the establishment. Now the battle is joined again over the Presidency – and if John McCain is nominated and then wins the general election, the American conservative movement may never recover. On the other hand, a crushing McCain defeat in the general, attributed primarily to the refusal of the conservative movement to support him, will be an equally crushing defeat for the GOP establishment attempting to remake the party in its preferred liberal-conservative image – an image in which the “conservative” part is mostly window dressing for the suckers.

a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:01 AM

bnelson44 on February 4, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Yes, it’s very strange that all of these people who A) owed McCain a favor, or B) Are looking for a place in cabinet, aren’t aligning with the underdog Washington-outsider.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:02 AM

I know it is an uphill battle, but I would love to see Romney kick McCains butt snd wipe that stupid smirk off his face.

jpsc1 on February 4, 2008 at 12:03 AM

bnelson44 on February 4, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Read Connie’s link, then get back to us.

Connie on February 3, 2008 at 11:49 PM

a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM

An interesting aside from the internals of a new cbs poll. When asked to describe if a candidate: Says what he believes or Just says what people want to hear
McCain 56 31 Romney 35 43 Huckabee 42 28

Just like the people in the poll, the other candidates probably don’t trust that Romney believes anything he says. As the WSJ says he has no convictioin and will do anything and change any position to win.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM

BNelson44

I think they we don’t like Mitt for his convenient change of heart on so many issues.

jgapinoy on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM

If Mitt stays true to his present conservative positions, he’ll be the nominee in ’12 if McCain loses to Obamary.

jgapinoy on February 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Hey, where are CHO-kemon, Chakra, and apakalyps? I suppose it’s past their bedtime?

fiatboomer on February 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM

B44 – “Then how do you explain Fred’s campaign disliking Mitt?”

I dunno, maybe you answered the question yourself …

“It’s personal, not political.”

Maybe Fred thought HE was the real conservative and was threated by Mitt? Sorry, but I’m not a mind reader. Oh wait, maybe I AM a mind reader … I’m picking something up … it’s coming from John McCain … he says “Phuq all conservatives, this is MY party now!”

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:09 AM

The GOP really has lost its way if Mitt is now the Maverick.

Starting Tuesday, we can take our party back. GO MITT!

Greenhorn on February 4, 2008 at 12:10 AM

Those new Insider Advantage polls at Real Clear Politics are promising for Mitt, but I’m trying not to get my hopes up.

SouthernGent on February 3, 2008 at 11:54 PM

That poll doesn’t factor in the two conservative senators from Georgia that recently endorsed McCain, which may have a little impact.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:11 AM

By Not HIM, they mean CONSERVATIVES.

John McCain AND Rudy Giuliani hates Conservatives.

EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 12:12 AM

fiatboomer-

They’re all Pats fans and are now in the ER.

profitsbeard on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

That poll doesn’t factor in the two conservative senators from Georgia that recently endorsed McCain, which may have a little impact.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Excuse me, Saxby Chambliss is not what we here in Georgia call a CONSERVATIVE Senator.

He lost any right to that title with his shameless attitude towards us during the Shamensty fight last year.

We are looking to replace him next time he is up for re-election.

EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

If Juan McNasty the Shamnesty Man gets the Republican nomination, likely, and Cackles HildaBeast gets the Democrat nomination, still a bit likely, I hope that somehow Mitt runs third party.

MB4 on February 3, 2008 at 11:59 PM

I don’t hope that at all. I will be working to write-in Fred Thompson to repeat 1992. (Unless, of course, he endorses McCain, then I’m at a loss for what Conservative to write-in. Newt lost me with his man-caused global warming big government nonsense.).

Here is my reasoning.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

They may have come to loathe Romney, but I have come to loathe them. So in my mind, we’re even.

This quote is really quite stunning:

And those same staffers delight in trading stories about Romney’s odd behavior. The day before the Republican primary, Huckabee mocked Romney for ordering lunch at a Kentucky Fried Chicken, then peeling off the fried coating and eating it with a knife and fork. Presented with a golf club, Huckabee said he wouldn’t be very good at the game: “I’d be like Mitt Romney eating fried chicken.”

It’s not “odd behavior” and Huckabee is a freaking hypocrite since he himself removes the skin from his chicken as part of his famous diet.

I’m so glad that the future of the Republic is in the hands of churlish children.

/good night.

Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM

I will give McCain credit for not wavering on the immigration issue. He wants those Hispanic votes,legal or otherwise, more than he wants conservative votes, and he’s never flinched. No flip flopping there, which means his statement he’d “build the goddamn fence” was just a lie, not a flip flop. Integrity in these matters is important.

a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Here is my reasoning.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

This is a total sum game. Your write in vote is a defacto vote for McCain.

Try to rationalize it however you like, the result is the same.

EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Lovely little hit piece by Anna Marie Cos, the author of Wonkette.

I guess HA is evolving, now we are seriously considering the views of the Wonkette author? We ascribe to the opinions of Time and Newsweek? Oh, I guess only as long as they bash Romney, then hey, link away.

JustTruth101 on February 4, 2008 at 12:20 AM

The War for the GOP

Connie on February 3, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Per your link this really is a battle over immigration policies that still rages on with the establishment GOP supporting McCain.

It’s also interesting, that on this very day I had a (attempted) discussion going on with a McCain shill who just happened to be blogging about the fact, that…
the fall of the Roman Empire was in the final analysis due to… you guessed it… unrestrained immigration.

You can follow that starting here which points you to this important discussion here.

Mcguyver on February 4, 2008 at 12:21 AM

Yet in recent years, Republicans have made a mantra out of Reagan’s “11th Commandment”: “Thou shall not criticize other Republicans.”

Yet in recent years, Republicans Conservatives have made a mantra out of Reagan’s “11th Commandment”: “Thou shall not criticize other Republicans Conservatives.”

At least Conservatives aren’t In Name Only — CINO

Kini on February 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Excuse me, Saxby Chambliss is not what we here in Georgia call a CONSERVATIVE Senator.

He lost any right to that title with his shameless attitude towards us during the Shamensty fight last year.

We are looking to replace him next time he is up for re-election.

EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Complete BS, just because someone disagrees on the immigration bill doesn’t mean they are stripped of all their conservatism. Is Ronald Reagan also not a conservative, he supported amnesty?

I live in georgia also and can say confidently that Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson are conservatives. Saxby Chambliss’ lifetime ACU rating is 94.4% Isakson’s is 89.9%.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:23 AM

What the he11 did Tagg do to these people?

It’s gotta be Tagg.

I’m blaming Tagg.

Deety on February 4, 2008 at 12:26 AM

I don’t hope that at all. I will be working to write-in Fred Thompson to repeat 1992. (Unless, of course, he endorses McCain, then I’m at a loss for what Conservative to write-in. Newt lost me with his man-caused global warming big government nonsense.).

Here is my reasoning.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Michael, respectfully, look at Romney’s stand on the issues. I read your reasoning. Let’s say for argument sake he is a fake (I don’t believe that, I think he is genuine) but even if he is fake, he is talking the talk, so if you want to send a message that conservatives want a conservative, wouldn’t it send a stronger message to vote for the most conservative running? If you wanted McCain to win, I would suggest voting for him. (same for Huck, people should not vote on electabiity, they should vote on who most closely shares their views) so defeating John McCain sends a much stronger message than letting him win by using your vote on someone who has dropped out of the race, imho.

JustTruth101 on February 4, 2008 at 12:27 AM

Ana “Fonda” Cox.

jaime on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 AM

This is a total sum game. Your write in vote is a defacto vote for McCain.

EJDolbow on February 4, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Yes, just like Perot votes were defacto votes for Clinton. Not quite. Those Perot votes sent a message to the GOP for fiscal conservatism. They answered the call in 1994, campaigned on conservatism and brought back the House to GOP majority.

There is no other way to send a conservative message. If you read what I posted, you would understand that. Not voting can be spun. Voting for McCain will be spun as a vote for liberal/socialism in the GOP and the death of Conservatism. Voting for Hillary over McCain will be spun that the nation wants liberal/socialism/Marxism of the Democrats and the GOP is dead.

A write-in for a Conservative is the only way to not have one’s vote spun incorrectly. Perot votes in 1992 were not ‘wasted’ and neither will write-in votes for a Conservative in 2008.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Time to purge the progressive Republicans right back to the Democrats or else abandon the GOP and let them fade away. Either way works for me.

And Complete7, Reagan understood that his biggest mistake was amnesty and cautioned us to never repeat that mistake.

Buzzy on February 4, 2008 at 12:30 AM

Fred’s a RINO too now? How fast things change.

Allahpundit on February 3, 2008 at 11:55 PM

RINO? No. Establishment? Yes.

Mitt really is not a part of the establishment, and they hate him for it. I support him for it.

HYTEAndy on February 4, 2008 at 12:31 AM

I don’t understand all the venom against McCain.

Oh, I forgot. Yes I do.

fred5678 on February 4, 2008 at 12:35 AM

It’s also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness – what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney’s “wholesale reinvention.”

LOL!

ya think?

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Romney, I was an Independent during Reagan-Bush, I’m not trying to Return to Reagan-Bush..

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:36 AM

JustTruth101 on February 4, 2008 at 12:27 AM

My opinion of Mitt Romney is that he is a new convert to Conservatism. While that is great, as it is always great to have converts to conservatism, I don’t believe he has hardened those beliefs quite yet. I think he ran for President too soon, because most people do not trust his new-found conservatism. He is a young Conservative convert after years of being liberal on most issues. He needs time to fully define his views, so he can defend and explain them better. Right now, he is not strong enough to defend his views, even though he seems to know they are right.

My ideal ticket was/is Thompson/Romney, with Mitt Romney getting that time as VP to learn under Fred Thompson and solidify his Conservative views and then carry the baton forward. His biggest weakness right now is that people don’t trust him and don’t believe his ideological conversion. He needed more time for people to get to know him and trust him, but since he is so young in his conversion, he is not able to explain his understanding of the principles very well. He is not a leader of conservatism, he is a young follower. Which is good, as I said, we need converts, but his understanding of the principles are still young and need strengthening before he can lead the movement.

That’s why my focus is on Fred Thompson and not Mitt Romney. I like Mitt, but I think he needs more time to solidify his views and gain the people’s trust and confidence in him.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:37 AM

Romney Uniting everyone against him.. LOL

Everyone can spot a fraud!

Mitt go sell some used cars! >:}

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM

So they put in print that which is obvious to the naked eye.

Spirit of 1776 on February 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Let’s try again. Try this link.

fred5678 on February 4, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Sorry Mike, but your one little write-in vote for Fred will be forgotten by Wednesday.

Mitt’s not the perfect candidate for a conservative but he’s WAAAAY better’n McCain, and McCain is only slightly better’n Hillary.

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:40 AM

Makes a change from the ‘anyone but McCain’ mantra of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and the other shrill voices whose only interest is maintaining their huge egos. I used to be suspicious of Huckabee, but his campaign is absolutely spot on here:

What Romney has done,” says a Huckabee adviser, “he’s attacked people for positions he once held. That annoys people. And he uses his own money to do it, which rubs it in.” He’s gone after McCain on campaign finance reform (which he once supported), Huckabee on tax increases (Huckabee countered that Romney’s raised “fees” amounted to the same thing), and nearly all the candidates on immigration [having previously criticised those who voted against McCain-Kennedy-Bush].

I expect Huck and Fred to have joined Guiliani in backing John McCain by Easter. One of those two will probably be his running mate. Con-mey has irritated them all with his hypocrisy and negative campaigning, and he has become a repository for the bigots in the party who want to exclude everyone who doesn’t follow their agenda to the line. It’s time to get focusing on the real battle, which most around here seem to have long since forgotten, against the Democrats, and two of the most liberal Senators in Congress.

Pax americana on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Complete BS, just because someone disagrees on the immigration bill doesn’t mean they are stripped of all their conservatism. Is Ronald Reagan also not a conservative, he supported amnesty?

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:23 AM

Ronald Reagan supported amnesty, which he had the [email protected] to call it btw, before most knew how it’d turn out. It was something to try to solve the issue.

20 years later, after we know it fails, McCain continues to push for it. Oh, but won’t call it what it is: amnesty.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 AM

OMG.. I would vote for Huck before I’d vote for Mitt!

At least Huck has a sense of humor.. >;}

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM

Thanks for the link, fred5678.

“I can not dignify that question with an answer.” – Johnny “Cop-out” McCain

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:43 AM

Con-mey has irritated them all with his hypocrisy and negative campaigning…

Pax americana on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Yeah, unlike Huckabee who called an entire press conference with a room full of journalists to announce he was canceling his negative ad. Then, of course, going ahead to show the entire ad to the room of cameras.

Unlike McCain who even Time magazine was wrong about Mitt’s statement on Iraq right before the Florida Primary.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:43 AM

20 years later, after we know it fails, McCain continues to push for it. Oh, but won’t call it what it is: amnesty.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Romney doesn’t call it amnesty either(well.. sometimes he does sometimes he doesn’t)

Mitt has said at a debate, “It’s technically NOT amnesty because it provides for fine”

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:44 AM

Flashback: McCain slams Mitt for not endorsing Bush tax cuts that McCain voted against.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:45 AM

Michael,

If you think Romney was liberal on most issues, then you should read his 1994 campaign flier.
Consider this: If Romney wins the nomination, he knows its not going to be because of special interests or politicians looking for handouts. It will be because Conservative voters stepped up for him and he won’t let us down.

Greenhorn on February 4, 2008 at 12:46 AM

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:40 AM

The “MI” in “Michael in MI” represents MIchigan. Our Primary was in January and I already voted for Fred Thompson.

The write-in effort, if you read my post to which I linked, was focused on the general election.

Mitt Romney and John McCain will, in my opinion, lose in landslides to either Hillary or Obama. So, the only thing I see that we can salvage out of this is to send the message to the GOP that conservatives want conservative government and will not vote for liberal socialists in the GOP. The message was sent in 1992 and heeded in 1994. We can do the same now.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Huckabee definitely doesn’t have any right to call someone else phony. What a prick.

amkun on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Romney doesn’t call it amnesty either(well.. sometimes he does sometimes he doesn’t)

Mitt has said at a debate, “It’s technically NOT amnesty because it provides for fine”

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:44 AM

He more often than not does call it amnesty, and I’m looking for the lesser of the two evils. McCain actively wrote and pushed for nation-wide amnesty, refusing to call it what it is. Mitt didn’t.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Fred running third party, instead of Mitt, would be OK too, I just don’t think that Fred would have the resources. For any chance of success it would have to be as a third party candidate, which would be way up hill itself, rather than as write in.

MB4 on February 4, 2008 at 12:49 AM

Republicans have made a mantra out of Reagan’s “11th Commandment”: “Thou shall not criticize other Republicans.”

That is not the real context of the 11th Commandment..

Remarks in New York City at a Reception for Delegates to the State Republican Convention

June 17, 1982

I want to tell you, if I could just say one thing — I know I have to be very careful, because you have primaries to go and so forth, and so I’ve got to stay neutral until the candidates are selected — except for one: the first Republican woman candidate here in the history of our party. But I know you’ll have a spirited convention, and you’ll have a spirited primary. But remember one thing — it came from the West, I know, but I’m still singing it — the greatest thing that’s happened for the Republican Party is, when the chips are down and the decisions are made as to who the candidates will be, then the 11th commandment prevails and everybody goes to work, and that is: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/61782e.htm

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:49 AM

Thanks for the link, fred5678.

“I can not dignify that question with an answer.” – Johnny “Cop-out” McCain

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:43 AM

Cop-out

“Straight-talk” FIFY/sarc

And if you liked that link, here’s a real beauty – McCain’s version of Hillary’s “It Takes a Village”, complete with bodegas, Sunday Mass, and brothels – all in a San Diego Suburb. “This is the future I promise for you, my friends.”

fred5678 on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 AM

That is After the Primaries, we go to work, no more non-sense.

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 AM

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM

I’m with you, Michael. Fortunately, Fred is still on the NYS ballot, so I don’t have to write him in. I’d comment at your blog, but frankly, I’m losing track of all my registrations and getting tired of having to do that. You are an extremely good writer. Put up an open comments spot and I’m there.

Connie on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 AM

It’s time to get focusing on the real battle, which most around here seem to have long since forgotten, against the Democrats, and two of the most liberal Senators in Congress.

Pax americana on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 AM

No, the real battle is for a place at the new administration feeding trough, preferably with both front feet. You don’t really think this endorsment stuff is about endorser principle or what is best for voters, do you?

a capella on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 AM

He more often than not does call it amnesty, and I’m looking for the lesser of the two evils. McCain actively wrote and pushed for nation-wide amnesty, refusing to call it what it is. Mitt didn’t.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 AM

Nobody wants to do the “amnesty” until the borders are fixed..

Shouldn’t we get that done first?

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 AM

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:49 AM

It’s too bad McCain hasn’t lived by that principle, actively fighting against and attacking fellow Republicans multiple times.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:53 AM

Michael,

If you think Romney was liberal on most issues, then you should read his 1994 campaign flier.

Consider this: If Romney wins the nomination, he knows its not going to be because of special interests or politicians looking for handouts. It will be because Conservative voters stepped up for him and he won’t let us down.

Greenhorn on February 4, 2008 at 12:46 AM

My opinion stands on Mitt Romney. As I said, I believe he is a recent convert to conservatism, but not a leader of the movement. He does not have enough trust of the base, otherwise they would have rallied around him already.

And after so-called conservatives did not rally around Fred Thompson, I don’t see them rallying around Mitt Romney, who is less of a conservative. If conservatives were going to rally around someone, they would have done it around Fred and yet they didn’t. Instead, they watched polls and fell for the “unelectable” and “fire in the belly” and “lazy” mantras from the media and the GOP establishment propaganda.

So, I am resigned to the likelihood of most of those types of people once again not having the integrity to rally around a conservative vs RINOs. They did not do it before, why would they do it now? So I am resigned to the likelihood of a McCain nomination. He has everyone’s support from the mass media to the Democrats to the White House to Mike Huckabee to most conservative bloggers who focus more on electability than principle.

Thus, my focus on the write-in for the general election.

If I had any faith in so-called conservatives to rally around Romney, I would change my strategy. But I have been watching the focus of the primaries and I don’t have any faith in a rally around Romney as there was a rally against Amnesty. Tuesday’s results may change my mind. (I hope it does, but I am not holding my breath)

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 12:54 AM

Mike – The write-in effort … was focused on the general election.

I know, I saw what ya said about Perot, etc, but your Fred write-in vote be forgotten by the next day. I love your enthusiasm for the conservative cause, you should put that fire to work for somebody still in the race. Mitt CAN beat Hillary if we all get behind him and stop fighting with each other.

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:54 AM

Nobody wants to do the “amnesty” until the borders are fixed..

Shouldn’t we get that done first?

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 AM

First of all, we don’t want amnesty at all.

Second of all, McCain’s legislation didn’t take the “borders first” position. The government was required to do a full background fingerprint check, and find a reason not to let an illegal alien stay within 24 hours. Failure to do so gave legal status to the illegal alien, which can lead to permanent legal status.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:55 AM

Ronald Reagan supported amnesty, which he had the [email protected] to call it btw, before most knew how it’d turn out. It was something to try to solve the issue.

20 years later, after we know it fails, McCain continues to push for it. Oh, but won’t call it what it is: amnesty.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:41 AM

That’s not the point I was trying to make. Just like 20 years ago the immigration problem needs to be solved. Some conservatives think that we should secure the border then have amnesty. Others want the borders secured and everyone deported. And there are others in between. My objection was people automatically calling someone not a conservative because they supported the comprehensive immigration bill, completely disregarding their entire record.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:55 AM

Okay Michael, didn’t know you already voted. My bad.

Writing in Fred in November over McCain is cool. I’ll be writing in Mitt over McCain in November…if it comes down to that.

Greenhorn on February 4, 2008 at 12:56 AM

My objection was people automatically calling someone not a conservative because they supported the comprehensive immigration bill, completely disregarding their entire record.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:55 AM

Ok, let’s leave the immigration record out of this completely. Fair? How about taxes? Judges? Free speech?

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 12:57 AM

..Mitt has said at a debate, “It’s technically NOT amnesty because it provides for fine”

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:44 AM

Mitt is right when he says it is technically and legally not amnesty, because with the McCain-Kennedy Shamnesty bill, there is a fine after-the-fact solicited bribe of $3000 or so. But McCain’s “Shamnesty” is WORSE – it is a blatant reward of what the thieves stole in the first place!

“Amnesty” has become shorthand for the program of REWARDS, BRIBES, and BENEFITS for law-breakers in McCain-Kennedy.

To paraphrase Carville, “It’s the REWARDS, stupid.” And if you think rewarding illegal aliens with the ill-gotten goods (residency and a right to work) they came here to steal in the first place will ever stop the illegal flood, you are dreaming or lying to yourself.

fred5678 on February 4, 2008 at 1:00 AM

Mike – Mitt Romney. As I said, I believe he is a recent convert to conservatism …”

Better a newbie than a not-at-all, ANTI-conservative. McCain will lose big, the Base will stay home and then we get Hillary.

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 1:00 AM

Mitt really is not a part of the establishment, and they hate him for it. I support him for it.

HYTEAndy on February 4, 2008 at 12:31 AM

How can Mitt be the anti-establishment candidate when everyone from the giants of conservative talk radio to NRO are either explicitly endorsing him or tacitly supporting him. They are the definition of the Republican establishment, and are scared to death that a Maverick and some of his unorthodox supporters (Giuliani, etc.) are going to take power in a party they feel is rightfully theirs. All of this “I’ll vote for Hillary over McCain” talk is just the screams of anguish of a faction of the party that is coming to the realization that it has marginalized itself and is losing influence. It’s pathetic.

Big S on February 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Nobody wants to do the “amnesty” until the borders are fixed..

Shouldn’t we get that done first?

Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 AM

The fence has been defunded. Somehow, I’m not convinced McCain will fight to refund it. Just doesn’t have that old fire in the belly for it. More expedient to blame Congress for his failure to live up to campaign promises. Just a feelin’ I have.

a capella on February 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM

I know, I saw what ya said about Perot, etc, but your Fred write-in vote be forgotten by the next day. I love your enthusiasm for the conservative cause, you should put that fire to work for somebody still in the race. Mitt CAN beat Hillary if we all get behind him and stop fighting with each other.

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 12:54 AM

Tony – I put my fire to work and was told to shut up, policy and ideology does not matter, only “electibility”, polls, “fire in the belly” and “laziness” matters. I read it for months here and other places while Fred Thompson was still in the campaign. Now, I see those same people whining about McCain. Funny how that works. When people don’t rally around a conservative and eliminate him based on “fire in the belly” and “silly hats”, we are left with liberal, socialist Republican as the nominee. Brillaint.

To be honest, I am resigned to the fact that the GOP will lose and lose big in November. So I am focused on sending a message to the GOP. Voting for Mitt Romney will only send a message of “anybody but McCain”. I want to send a bigger message, a Ross Perot type message. A message that cannot be spun or ignored. A mass movement of people voting on the magnitude of Ross Perot’s votes from 1992 for a 3rd Party Conservative in 2008 will send a wake-up call to the GOP to get their arses back in gear and get back to governing conservatively. We have to leave no doubt that we are standing together to adamantly reject McCainservatism.

One Fred write-in vote will be forgotten. But a national movement which results in Ross Perot-type percentages will not be ignored the next day and will not be able to be spun the next day either.

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM

I gave a good amount of money to Fred, then watched him piss it all away and now he’s seems to be prepared to become another McCain “buddy”. His campaign was the most pathetic and enervated I’ve seen since Mario Cuomo’s “Hamlet” act in 1984.

Between Huckabee attacking Romney, Fred (or a surrogate) attacking Romney, and neither of them really laying a glove on the primo flip-flopper and non-conservative of them all, McCain, I now think both of them are just crap.

Fred – I want my money back, you old fatass!

TexasJew on February 4, 2008 at 1:02 AM

I’m with you, Michael. Fortunately, Fred is still on the NYS ballot, so I don’t have to write him in. I’d comment at your blog, but frankly, I’m losing track of all my registrations and getting tired of having to do that. You are an extremely good writer. Put up an open comments spot and I’m there.

Connie on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 AM

Thanks, Connie. I’ll have to figure out how to change my comments thing to allow that…

Michael in MI on February 4, 2008 at 1:03 AM

How can Mitt be the anti-establishment candidate when everyone from the giants of conservative talk radio to NRO are either explicitly endorsing him or tacitly supporting him. They are the definition of the Republican establishment…

Big S on February 4, 2008 at 1:01 AM

They’ve fought the establishment on major issues such as immigration. McCain’s an establishment candidate himself, serving in Washington for over 2 decades.

amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 1:05 AM

… Some conservatives think that we should secure the border then have amnesty. Others want the borders secured and everyone deported. And there are others in between. My objection was people automatically calling someone not a conservative because they supported the comprehensive immigration bill, completely disregarding their entire record.

Complete7 on February 4, 2008 at 12:55 AM

Forget Conservative/Moderate/Liberal. That’s just a label. McCain-Kennedy is what McCain fought so hard for = 3 times! I don’t care if McCain is a Whig – his push for that bill alone disqualifies him.

See here for what people want. A clear majority of both Republicans AND Democrats reject McCain-Kennedy. They shut down the Capitol switchboard in protest. And McCain has learned his lesson?? B.S.

fred5678 on February 4, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Mike – “A mass movement of people voting on the magnitude of Ross Perot’s votes from 1992 for a 3rd Party Conservative in 2008 will send a wake-up call to the GOP …”

Again, I love your enthusiam, but that ain’t gonna happen. If Fred had enough votes to do that, he’d still be in the race. McCain is winning because of name recognition. If the Base rallies around Mitt, and he is nominated, he WILL have name rec too. Mitt can beat Hillary, but McCain will lose like our last name rec candidate, Bob Dole.

Tony737 on February 4, 2008 at 1:06 AM