New McCain ad: Mitt’s a Reagan-betraying flip-flopper!
posted at 7:50 pm on February 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Dude, not only did he vote for Tsongas, he flip-flopped as to why. Truly, this is the man to lead conservative America.
GreenRoom
- McDonnell: Romney’s Hatchet Man?
- AFT Tripled Its Donations to Advocacy Groups
- Athens, Europe, America: The inverted triumph of Marxism?
- LA V.I.P. yacht ‘renovated’ with stimulus money
- Move over AttackWatch: Obama wants you for his ‘Truth Team’
- Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty
- Syria, Russia: It all looks different from out there
- Hot Air Survey Results: CPAC Edition
- ‘Playboy’ bunny who cabby thought was vampire sues NYPD for abuse
- Embalmer penalized for speaking ill of dead sues to get license back
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
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
Include me out of your internet brothers and sisters fantasy.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Argh, delete that second “more.”
emailnuevo on February 4, 2008 at 9:28 PM
What a way of returning a favor, endorsing a guy that was an independent and that doesn’t want to Return to Reagan-Bush.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 9:30 PM
John McCain v. Hildog – McCain +1.8%
John McCain v. Obama – Obama + 0.7%
Mitt Romney v. Hildog – Clinton +10.5%
Mitt Romney v. Obama – Obama +15%
I’m not saying mitt can’t come back. I’m saying you’ll have a 10-15% tougher time fighting a campaign with romney than you will with mccain.
Are you willing to take your chances on a hillary presidency? I’m not.
triple on February 4, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Okay Chakra and other like minded trolls. Car crashes and funerals to score hit points? You and Chosen One are obviously DU plants. A principled person would not resort to the base tactics that you and your ilk have employed on this site towards Romney. Please start off with “I hate Mormons.” That should cover most of your illogical rants: it will save you some typing. According to accounts that I’ve heard/read, there was a fatality in the crash. For you to so crassly reference it, shows your level of animus. If McCain/Huckabee’s followers are truly representative of their classless leaders, then we’re all in for a ride during the general. Chakra, thank you for always debasing any and all threads.
Also, if you think a person committed to missionary work is gaming a system, you truly are cynical. I’ve done both: served a mission and served my country. I understand both sides. If a person is committed to God and seeks to strengthen his relationship with Him, that is a noble pursuit. It is just as noble to serve one’s country. The beauty of our process is liberty: free choice. McCain and Romney made noble choices. Leave it at that. I applaud both. I would be honored to have served like either.
Chakra if you cannot substantively defend the message, by all means assassinate and impugn the character.
Cold Steel on February 4, 2008 at 9:31 PM
So what do you call the lying talk express? A lie is a lie, even if McCain tells it 100 times. I don’t need 4 years with a Bill Clinton look alike wrapped around our neck. Rather have a Democrats get the credit for destroying the country … repeat 1994 when the time comes.
tarpon on February 4, 2008 at 9:32 PM
And don’t get me wrong I LOVE romney. I just don’t love his chances.
triple on February 4, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Beautifully said.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Were you even out of preschool in 1992?
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 9:34 PM
In 1992 McCain supported Reagan.
In 2008 Reagan only supports Reagan on amnesty.
In 1992 Mitt Romney didn’t support Reagan
In 2008 Mitt Romney says that the older he gets, the smarter Reagan gets.
Vote John McCain. He got it right in ’92!
BKennedy on February 4, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Again, independents are skewing our polls. Since I assume you want to keep Democrats out of office, the point isn’t to win at the expense of our dignity by putting in a liberal republican – the point is to defeat liberalism with conservatism, which McCain is inherently unable to do.
Once again proving my point, conservatives have principles. McCain does not. Romney hasn’t flip-flopped; he’s just flipped, and defended his flips. I don’t care how “viable” he is; Reagan wasn’t “viable” either; he was (supposedly) dumb, stupid, and warmongering.
And that’s why today we’ve never had a President Mondale.
We need a candidate that has at least some conservatism in him, and since it’s probably going to be McCain v. Romney, the choice is clear: go with the guy who nearly killed Ted Kennedy’s career (no drunk-driving involved!).
emailnuevo on February 4, 2008 at 9:46 PM
While that may be true, I’m getting a talk-radio “I’m a life-long registered Republican, BUT…”, fauxpublican vibe. I might be off, though.
emailnuevo on February 4, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Sigh…here we go with the usual Mormon persecution complex again.
packsoldier on February 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Yeah, but Romney was also against the contract with America in 1994 You’re obviously clueless when it comes to conservative principles.
myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM
I for one am willing to give Romney a chance to beat any Democrat opponent regardless of what these polls are saying today before the real campaign has even begun. I think if you put Romney up against the Dems he will do just fine. I do have a reverse question. Will the McCain supporters support Romney if he is the candidate or will they use the argument of how conservatives threatened them with voting for Hillary as a way of backing out? Please be consistent in your arguments. You know make sure to use the same ones you were using while trying to convince people to back McCain if he was the candidate. If Romney is the choice you are stuck with the “vote Republican to prevent a Hillary/Obama win” argument.
(Do you see how weak that sounds now?)
Just A Grunt on February 4, 2008 at 9:54 PM
It’ll be hard for the McCain supporters to vote for Romney, as they’d have to switch parties.
emailnuevo on February 4, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Mitt’s the one that wants it both ways..
Mitt’s Vietnam Flip-Flop: His Most Disturbing Yet ~Read that
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 9:59 PM
So now Romney is the Maverick? There is more context to that answer he was giving, but which isn’t captured in the clip. It sounds like he was going on to explain how he would go about getting cooperation from the other side while not alienating them. I am willing to bet that somewhere in that answer is also a portion about sticking to your principles to get what you want.
Just A Grunt on February 4, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Well, I think I have officially given up. Just saw a segment on H/C and Luntz is interviewing a focus group. Hannnity asks them to list even one of Obama’s accomplishments. The first two stutter and say “ah well, uhh, the third says, “he’s a great oratator”. Yeah, an oraTATOR. Not orator. OraTATOR.
I f**king give up. Obamas’s gonna win it. Hold on to your wallets and your civil libersties folks.
jewells45 on February 4, 2008 at 10:01 PM
–Snip—
During CNN’s January 30 debate from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Romney said, “one of the two great regrets I have in life is I didn’t serve in the military. I’d love to have.” This echoes what he told the Boston Globe last June 24. “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”
Now, as works with almost any subject, search Google or Nexis for “Romney” and “Vietnam” and any date before 2004, when he got serious about pursuing the 2008 GOP nomination.
Voila! There it is, from May 2, 1994. “I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam,” Romney told the Boston Herald.
This flip flop is much more revealing and far more disturbing than the rest.
—Snip–
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DeroyMurdock/2008/02/04/mitts_vietnam_flip-flop_his_most_disturbing_yet
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Classic! myamphibian, who is voting for the Twilight Zone Conspiracy theorist is calling Chakra Hammer out about what happened in 1994. Meanwhile, CH loathes Mitt. It’s a confederacy of dunces.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 10:02 PM
BTW he wasn’t against the contract, he was against the manner in which it was presented. Big difference. Nothing in the clip says he disagrees with the points in the contract just the presentation.
Just A Grunt on February 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Mitt Romney = John Kerry without the fake medals, carrying Clinton’s Dictionary.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I think you mean the following:
“If you’ve been called a pseudo-republican it is because you
supportcompare Clinton/Obama…..” It’s the only way you post would make sense. On that assumption, sorry to burst your bubble but there really isn’t one iota of difference between the three which I will point out without questioning your patriotism (something you swarm of McCain syncophants haven’t done).socialised healthcare: Is this really an issue? It’s red meat for the “rats” but there is no real momentum to nationalize healthcare during the next administration. That being said, let’s not forget that McCain wants big government to regulate costs instead of the free market.
anti-life: McCain’s record on abortion is spotty. Among other things he wants the feds to fund embryonic stem cell research even though this is essentially unborn life. McCain is your typical politician wanting it both ways. Romney’s response that this is a matter for the individual states to decide is far more cogent and legitimate than the canned DC answer that comes from Juan McCain. Let’s not forget that the DNC platform is “opposed” to abortion too.
anti-marriage: Romney is opposed gay marriage. McCain is not.
anti-military: Not even going to dignify that one beyond saying that rhetoic abounds about supporting the troops. McCain wants to limit influence of Al Qaeda and Iran instead of supporting a free Iran. Where McCain fails in supporting the military is his personal vendetta against Secretary Rumsfeld, his opposition of the Boeing tanker contracts because it hurt his state, and his comments about the tactics employed at GITMO and his suggestions that waterboarding is a criminal act. There is more to being pro-military than supporting the troops and McCain is clearly against the military establishment as it currently exists. He refuses to expound on what he would do to the military but there is little doubt from the way his words about “wanting international credibility” that he and Clinton loathe the military in equal measure when it comes to the details.
pro-Islamist: Not quite sure what to make of this claim. Show me one legitimate politician that is on the record as being pro-Islamist. You’re going have to prove that Juan McCain has a different position than his fellow Democrats.
pro-surrender: Likewise, none of the Democrats actually use the word surrender.
pork barrel sniffing: Oh Please! McCain is a career politician. He’s bullied through almost as much pork as Ted Stevens or Robert C. Byrd. His very public spat with the Air Force over the Boeing tankers had less to do with policy than the fact his constituents weren’t going to get any of the pie if the contract went to a Illinois-based company.
tax hiking: McCain wants to punish the rich and joined the Democrats in voting against the Bush tax relief plan.
protectionist: Clinton’s spouse enacted NAFTA.
highhopes on February 4, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Mitt just doesn’t like actually taking a position and sticking to it.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Willard “Mitt” Romney = Master of The Ultimate Flip-Flop Jutsu!
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Exactamundo.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 10:10 PM
You may be right. Bottom line, one is just as conservative as the other from what I can tell. It’s just that Mitt is not an a-hole like McCain. Maybe that’s why he’s losing. To answer your earlier question, I would hold my nose and vote for Mitt. Since casting my first presidential vote for Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1984, I have never voted for a Democrat and don’t intend to start now.
myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Twenty four hours and twenty-six minutes: COUNTDOWN TO MODERATION
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 4, 2008 at 10:15 PM
What bothers me most about the contract with America clip, is Romney’s outrageous willingness to work with scumbag democrats on anything.
myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:17 PM
au contraire mon ami.(Mitt just love the French)
Why is that the other Candidates loathe Willard?
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:19 PM
So who should we respect more?
Somebody whose views evolve over 15 years of experience and thought or the guy who hasn’t changed one bit in 15 years?
The guy who spent those 11 of those years in the private sector and the remaining four as a successful governor of a state ruled by the opposing party or the guy who has spent that time in the same public-sector job.
The guy who has proven he can reach across the aisle compared to the guy who has a long record of joining the guys on the other side.
John McCain- Right for 1992, wrong for 2008!
Go Romney/Thompson!!!!
highhopes on February 4, 2008 at 10:21 PM
It’s called, “reality”. Anyway, I think his point was mostly that you need to give people a face-saving graceful exit and not make them feel like losers…if they lose.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Why vote for a guy that had a total political transformation just for the 2008 Presidential Nomination?
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:22 PM
It matters not. What matters is El Rushbo hates McShamnesty. Rush and I are the only true conservatives anyway.
myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Mitt looks French.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM
LOL, Rush, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, Tammy Bruce, Etc. will all need to go to therapy together.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Um…. McCain-Feingold(the guy who still wants impeachment hearings) CFR legislation.
McCain-Kennedy (enough said) amnesty bill.
Gang of 14 which shot down GWB nominees.
As I just posted in a slightly different context, there is a difference between reaching across the aisle and joining the other party. I would suggest that, on balance, Romney has been bi-partisan while McCain has been a turncoat traitor to his party.
highhopes on February 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I feel much better now. They’re both RINOs
myamphibian on February 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Actually the Gang of 14 got lots judges confirmed.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:33 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/603zrznu.asp?pg=1
How would you like President Hillary Clinton With the Nuclear Option?
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Wake up and smell the profit, moron.
NemoParticularis on February 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Il est evident qu’ils sont verts de jalousie, n’est-ce pas?
/see ya.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM
LOL’s!!!!!!!!!
BWWHAHAHA!!
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Buy Danish, Jealous of what exactly?
Willard is the only one that doesn’t seem happy with his life.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Reagan used to be a democrat, so I guess Regan was against Regan priinciples at one time. Geesh, this is such old news. But to an uninformed electorate, maybe it’ll matter.
JustTruth101 on February 4, 2008 at 11:12 PM
O the troll-mucus
It is mildly amusing to see McCain talk betrayal
MCPain has betrayed people on a host of issues long after Tsongas. No need to print the list since it goes right over the heads of pol-ops
However the best newest McPain betrayal is the slush fund otherwise known as his foundation, which pays salaries to campaign members using dollars donated by the likes of Soros. These employees then work on the McCain campaign as unpaid volunteers. Donations to such a ‘foundation’ are not limited like campaign donations are under campaign financing laws
Laughingly, public interest groups including foundations are limited from running political information ads before elections due to McCain Feingold
I caught a few seconds of Rush today and he hit a home run, basically that critics who say we will put in a DEM if we don’t vote McCain are saying it is more important to vote for someone who will win, than someone who supports your views.
To the RNC: Your game will not work this time. I have no need to vote to keep you guys in business. You do not represent my interests. You represent my detriment.
This is not the Perot election. This is the understanding that the RNC pol-ops do not support my needs. Not Bush, Dole, McCain, Graham, border buster governors or any other liberal RINOs and pol-ops clinging to the intestine of the beast.
McCain cannot win without the conservatives and he and you know that. Dems have real choices and will not vote McCain. If McPain loses he will jump for joy for he will have kicked the arse of his nemisis: the conservative base
Polyps are not always excised, but periodically examined for carcinoma
entagor on February 4, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Vote John McCain. He got it right in ‘92!
The problem is that he is getting it ALL wrong now and for the last 7-8 years.
If you can ignore McVain Feingold,Kennedy,Lieberman,Global Warming and Juan Hernandez all because of something he did right 15 years ago, maybe you should just not vote.
America1st on February 4, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Reagan wasn’t against Reagan-Bush.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 11:49 PM
My logic is sound regardless if you believe in a republican or democrat or whatever. If you want the best chance to win the general, that choice is mccain as of now. I emphasize “as of now” because this could all change.. tomorrow.
That’s not based on any sort of.. policy basis. Who would make the best republican candidate and who would actually have a better chance of getting elected are two different discussions. On a policy side im obviously going with romney, but what good is great policy if the guy can’t win an election?
triple on February 4, 2008 at 11:53 PM
There are a million and one things to be said against McCain. I wish there were more ads out there showing him for what he really is. Most people are so clueless.
McCain’s new ad saying “true conservative” is truely a joke. This guy has to go.
Conservatives R Us on February 5, 2008 at 3:09 AM
triple on February 4, 2008 at 11:53 PM
What good is it to elect a guy who might win, but is a Democrat? You might as well vote for Hillary if you vote for McCain, the end result the same, a Democrat in the white house ( even if McCain wins ).
Conservative Voice on February 5, 2008 at 3:16 AM
Gee between McCain (who created the add) and Mitt. Is it any wonder why conservatives are willing to leave the Republican party?
Or maybe the party left them.
F15Mech on February 5, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Chakra Hammer = Michael Moore without the fake movies, carrying a load of never ending $hit.
MB4 on February 5, 2008 at 3:41 AM
You’re right Chakra Hammer, why should I vote for a man who was shoving amnesty down out throats last summer, and now says he never supported amnesty, despite the fact his name is on the bill?
That was an amazing political transformation, going from a blowhard Shamnesty Senator to a blowhard “It’s not really Shamnesty, It was never Shamnesty, the earth is flat, there are four lights!” Shamnesty Senator.
Btw. Deroy Murdock must be really stupid if he’s just writing a hit piece about the Vietnam incident now. I know you like self-promotion Deroy, but that’s a bridge too far.
BKennedy on February 5, 2008 at 7:25 AM
Fair question. In answer, when McCain sued the FEC in 2005 to try to force them to regulate and control all internet political communication; and now wants the job that would involve selecting FEC Commissioners (the only thing that stopped him last time); he became worse than Romney.
Now, you might not like free speech. You might think shutting down political speech from “unapproved” sources is ok.
But McCain has shown he’s worse than a guy who had a political transformation. McCain is both unwilling to change his mind on his “hot topics”, and one of his “hot topics” is silencing non-approved speech.
That will never get my support. Now maybe, if we’re lucky, he’ll select FEC Commissioners who disagree with his main point… but betting on that outcome? Not exactly a risk I’m comfortable with.
gekkobear on February 5, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2