Romney endorses McCain

posted at 1:16 pm on February 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

Predictable, but nonetheless interesting for two reasons. One: Would Mitt have dared to do this had Palin not jumped in to endorse McCain first? Romney’s wary of antagonizing tea partiers who are already leery of RomneyCare; he won’t be their candidate of choice in 2012, but if he stays friendly with them, he can count on most turning out for the general election. Absent Palin, he’d be called a dirty RINO for this endorsement, but thanks to her he’s on “true conservative” terra firma.

Two: If Palin does run in 2012 and if, as expected, the race turn into a centrist elitist/righty populist armageddon between Mitt and her, whom will Maverick side with? Today’s endorsement makes that decision marginally harder.

“For years, I’ve been an admirer of John McCain,” Romney said in a statement this morning. “Then we became competitors. Today, I’m proud to call him my friend.”

Romney also said, “It’s hard to imagine the United States Senate without John McCain,” and added that the country needed McCain in troubling times.

“I am constantly reassured by Senator McCain’s continued involvement in the affairs of our nation, and I am honored to support him,” Romney said.

“Governor Romney is among the brightest and most dynamic leaders in our Party, and I am proud to have his support,” McCain said. “I look forward to working with him to advance our shared vision for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America.”

Speaking of centrism versus righty populism, we all knew that Maverick would eventually hit Hayworth for his flirtation with Birthers, but I’m surprised it’s started this early. Probably smart to do so, though: Narratives take time to build and stick, as the results of the CPAC straw poll illustrate only too well.

“Equal justice under law: Doesn’t that include this president and his birth certificate?” Hayworth asked on the July 15 show, according to a recording the McCain campaign is sending to reporters.

“Mr. Hayworth can run from his record, but he can’t hide,” McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said of the clip. “We welcome Mr. Hayworth attempting to shift positions on this issue, but he can’t obscure his real record as he backtracks. Facts are stubborn things, JD.”…

“As a talk show host, it was J.D.’s job to provoke discussion, including on this issue since people were calling in about it,” said Jason Rose, Hayworth’s senior advisor. “Questions were asked when that topic was in the news. Those questions have been answered to the satisfaction of jd and most of america. The issue is closed.”

Rose also pointed to comments attributed to McCain in “Game Change,” a best-seller about the ’08 campaign in which the GOP nominee lambasts his fellow GOPers. “Frankly, I think Senator McCain’s birthing of profane and outrageous comments about Republicans in ‘Game Change’ are far more interesting,” Rose said.

That would be these comments, I take it. Exit question: Did McCain move to soon in hitting him on Birtherism? If he had waited until the end of the race to bring it up, he would have looked desperate (especially if it was close), but by pushing it out there now, I wonder how long it’ll take for people to get bored with it to the point where it loses its sting. Especially since Hayworth is already backing away.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

John McCain is an a$$hole.

I’m sure everyone reading this can think of 3 examples, here are mine:

1. Not defending his running-mate (Gov. Palin) from internal rumormongering both during and after the campaign

2. Ditching his disabled wife (Carol Shepp)for Cindy “Beer Baroness” Hensley

3. Calling responsible citizens who want current immigration laws fully enforced “liars“

omnipotent on February 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM

4. Gang of Fourteen.

5. McCain Feingold.

6. Treating Obama with kid gloves….

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Predictable and disappointing. Sara thinks she owes McCain something and I’m sorry she feels that way. As far as Mitt,why!? So he will get his endorsement come 2012? Who wants it? Keep this up, and Republicans will encourage the Tea Party to field a candidate. OY!

whsiii on February 23, 2010 at 2:14 PM

That way, he harms nor helps either.

AnninCA on February 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Really? He refuses to endorse the person he chose as a running-mate and that doesn’t ding Palin? Ha.

If a competent politician were to take that route it would hurt the running mate. However, since we are talking McCain it gives Palin a 3-point bump assuming anyone decides to cover McCain statements once he is out of office and MSNBC goes under/gets new management.

alexwest on February 23, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Mitt with no honor at stake nor any reason what so ever decided to endorse McCain. ROFLMAO……..

He endorsed McCain. LOL

I can see Palin endorsing out of loyalty and honor but Mitt the man that ran agaisnt him, attacked him, said he wasn’t the best man for the job endorsed him…..

Maybe we should nominate Mitt then at least we can laugh everyday at his boneheaded moves………..OMG he endorsed McCain…….lol

unseen on February 23, 2010 at 2:15 PM

When anyone says:

“It’s hard to imagine the United States Senate without (insert name here)”

That means it’s time for that person to go.

THIS MAKES MY HEAD EXPLODE!!!

johnnyboy on February 23, 2010 at 2:15 PM

neurosculptor on February 23, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Please refer to above post as my reply to you. Forgot to quote you.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

What did you think I meant by “eligibility question”? I meant “Constitutional eligibility”. I wasn’t addressing anything else.

neurosculptor on February 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Two: If Palin does run in 2012
She’s not going to run…

ninjapirate on February 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM

yeah keep drilling that chicken

unseen on February 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Don’t think your getting Flake with Hayworth.

Voting records

Jasper61 on February 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM

6. Treating Obama with kid gloves….

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

This one really galls me.
I remember well the debates & public comments.
Unforgivable.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM

And? No reason he is required to do this from a seat in the US Senate. Start a PAC and get to it.

I think its funny that all the reasons people put forth for electing John McCain have practically nothing to do with representing the interests of the State of AZ.

alexwest on February 23, 2010 at 2:07 PM

I think it’s pretty obvious McCain won’t have the same bully pulpit without the Senate seat.

And I absolutely believe McCain would represent the interests of AZ better than Hayworth. That’s why I’ll be voting for him. I’m not even trying to argue why we should elect McCain here, though, just discussing why Romney would stick his neck out with an endorsement.

RightOFLeft on February 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I wasn’t addressing anything else.

neurosculptor on February 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Your reply seems like you thought I advocated letting the people decide POTUS & ignore the Const mandates for qualification-which I did not do at all.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM

“My friends…

… Mitt has suddenly become an advocate for all things gay.”

Seven Percent Solution on February 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM

eligibility question
neurosculptor on February 23, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Perhaps you thought my initial response to you was an attack-it wasn’t.
I was using what you said to state a point about who should be running for POTUS.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I was using what you said to state a point about who should be running for POTUS.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Or more appropriately, who has the RIGHT to run for POTUS.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Way to burnish your conservative credentials, Mitt.

misterpeasea on February 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

You mean the Mitt Romney who brought universal health care to his state, is pro-abortion, pro-Gay, anti-Ronald Reagan, pro-Affirmative Action, Mittens or the Mittens who see a pot of GOLD in giving lip service to the Fox News crowd in order to try to get the GOP nomination?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Conservative? No my friend, Mittens is very far to the left of John McCain and even may be more to the left of Obama.

Decider on February 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Progressive bipartisan Mitt endorses McCain. Does that make Mitt the bigger guy? Rather, that shows Mitt’s Brown Nose. I’ll scratch your back now if you scratch mine for 2012.

maverick muse on February 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM

“I am constantly reassured by Senator McCain’s continued involvement in the affairs of our nation, and I am honored to support him,” Romney said.

Lost any chance of getting my primary vote!
Good points above Sarah can be excused for loyalty and honor this is pure political pandering!
NO THANKS MITT OR McCain!

dhunter on February 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Absent Palin, he’d be called a dirty RINO for this endorsement, but thanks to her he’s on “true conservative” terra firma.

Allah,

i know you love Mitt but this is beyond reaching. Palin HAD to endorse McCain. wether she wanted to or not is beside the point. She HAD to. She gets a get out of jail free card on McCain.

Mitt(the loser to ron Paul at CPAC roflmao still) OTHO endorsed McCain on his own free will, with nothing at stake for no reason. with Mitt’s endorsement of McCain and his protege of brown going all Spector on conservatives Mitt is so toast with conservatives.

Mitt did if on his own for no reason WHAT_SO_EVER. he could have just stayed under the desk he has been hiding under for the last several months but no he had to come out and endorse McCain. The man he went to war with last year during the nomination process. Mitt is so clueless…If for some reason he wins the nomination he will lose in a landslide not seen since mondale.

he will lose the south, he will lose the midwest, he will lose the left coast, he will lose HI and AK. the only states he might pick up is the mountain west and some northeast states like NH. he will loss NY, VT, MASS, Conn, NJ, Maryland etc.

So Mitt might win 6 states in the general…

unseen on February 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

And I absolutely believe McCain would represent the interests of AZ better than Hayworth. That’s why I’ll be voting for him. I’m not even trying to argue why we should elect McCain here, though, just discussing why Romney would stick his neck out with an endorsement.

RightOFLeft on February 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Well, that’s why I would vote for him if Arizona Republicans allowed independents a chance to save their butts from disaster in the general election. Alas, I’ll have to wait until after the primary to vote against Hayworth.

RightOFLeft on February 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Mitt needs to be put out to pasture. Yesterday.

OmahaConservative on February 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Perhaps you thought my initial response to you was an attack-it wasn’t.
I was using what you said to state a point about who should be running for POTUS.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I didn’t think it was an attack, in any way. I just thought you were dismissing Constitutional eligibility. My mistake, Badger.

neurosculptor on February 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Hayworth looks like a used car salesman. No way is he going to convince McCain\’s elderly base to drop him.

Speedwagon82 on February 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

As for Romney he has been AWOL regarding the TP movement, his support of Reagan conservatism and his lack of opposition to Obama including his support of the takeover by GM by Obama.
technopeasant on February 23, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Baloney! Can we stick to actual issues and stop erecting straw men?

Mitt said something to the effect that he thought it was a good thing that Barry stood up to GM, but he did not support the “takeover of GM by Obama”, and he was against a bailout.

Buy Danish on February 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM

neurosculptor on February 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Nope. We are definitely on the same page.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I think it’s fair for McCain to hold Hayworth’s feet to the fire over the birtherism. It speaks to Hayworth’s judgment, and that’s a valid issue to bring up to voters.

AnninCA on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Especially since Hayworth is already backing away.

Not exactly:

“To bring up a topic and to talk about it is not the same as endorsing a point of view.”

Unlike Hot Air or McCain, JD believes it is OK for citizens to ask questions that have not been answered yet and that there needs to be an open process to verify a candidates eligibility.

Of course if Hot Air and others in the lamestream media had done their jobs and pressed for Zero’s college transcripts during the campaign the American public wouldn’t have to vet the elected President or seek to verify his eligibility.

Mr Purple on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Mitt’s cozying up to the major players in the Senate is not so surprising if you look at it from his perspective. If he wins, he will have to have experienced hands on his side in the Senate.

And Romney made his move after Hayworth had that bad interview on CNN where he conflated the birth certificate questions with identity theft. I don’t think Hayworth is a birther, but he didn’t come out loud and proud against the birther issue right away.

entropent on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I don’t know if anyone else mentioned this, but do you guys recall how horribly McCain behaved in the primaries in 08 in claiming that Romney wanted “time tables” for withdrawal from Iraq? McCain’s claims were so disingenuous, and even when McCain’s own quotes, expressing the same thing Mitt was saying, were relayed to McCain, he still kept hitting Mitt with it.

Weight of Glory on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

good grief, look who is going to the H’care Summit for the GOP:
(from the Corner)

Mitch McConnell just released the names of the senators joining him at the health-care summit on Thursday:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Senate Republican Whip

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Senate Republican Conference Chairman

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., Ranking Member Senate Help Committee

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., HELP Committee

Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., R-Okla., HELP Committee

Sen. John Barrasso, M.D.,R-Wyo.

Alexander, Grassley and McCain! We’re screwed!

james23 on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Isn’t that like Goldwater endorsing Rockefeller? Same difference.

manwithblackhat on February 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I have never forgotten Rush Limbaugh’s assessment of McCain’s intelligence: “He is not stupid.”

And Rush said it with conviction giving McCain due respect as a political animal. In other words, never underestimate McCain’s ability to survive.

McCain knows how to win elections against fellow Republicans; it’s just he hasn’t got the gumption to do the same against the Dems.

technopeasant on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Romney endorses Brown. McCain endorses Brown. Next, Brown endorses McCain. Brown endorses Romney.

Anyone see a pattern?

Country First on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Romney, in endorsing McCain, is essentially saying that by 2012 he doesn’t expect McCain to be a serious threat in the presidential election.

McCain, in accepting Romney’s endorsement, is essentially saying that by 2012 he doesn’t expect Romney to be a serious threat in the presidential election.

Which cancels each other out, one would seriously hope. And given that Brown has now shown his true McCain-Lite colors, another RINO is on the fast track to being discounted for consideration. Now all we need is for Gingrich and Palin and Huckabee to be eliminated, given that their only contributions to-date have been via vocal criticisms.

Which would clear the field over the next year for those who are actually actively doing the tough job of laying the groundwork for getting the Republicans back on track to fiscal responsibility.

KendraWilder on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

What a Clown: yesterday allahpundti blames Palin for McCain’s lame excuse making on the TARP (which allahpoundit supported); and today he blames her for Mittens’ endorsement of McCain. Tomorrow he will blame her for the Austrian Ski Team’s unusually poor Olympic performance.

Taking PDS to a new low.

james23 on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

If McCain did lose the Senate seat, I am sure that he would not behave like a gentlemen. ( more like the Scuzz lady)

mobydutch on February 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM

james23 on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

The best post you have ever written. Bravo!

technopeasant on February 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Mr Purple on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Truther!
/sarc
But of course, it is not proper to ask certain questions.
You are rocking the boat my friend. ;)

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM

After thinking about it, I would prefer Hayworth to McCain. He may be a bit eccentric but he’ll vote the right way, particularly on immigration.

Vince on February 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

The socialist GOP is beginning to circle the wagons against the Tea Partiers and conservatives. The GOP is setting itself up for a major downfall if they don’t come to terms with the new paradigm soon.

The Limbaugh triumvirate will not save them.

True_King on February 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Anyone see a pattern?
Country First on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Romney endorses Brown; Brown wins; We pick up a Senate seat in Massachusetts and are now in a position to block much of the Obama agenda?.

Buy Danish on February 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

james23 on February 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

I predict HA will turn into “Tear Palin Down” central by 2012, especially if the nomination turns into a three way race between Romney, Palin and Ed’s boy T-Paw.

Jerome Horwitz on February 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I think it’s fair for McCain to hold Hayworth’s feet to the fire over the birtherism. It speaks to Hayworth’s judgment, and that’s a valid issue to bring up to voters.

AnninCA on February 23, 2010 at 2:30 PM

well now we know what you think…
Personally i don’t care what anyone tells me or wants me to believe… the questions about Obama’s birth certificate are not “settled science” as far as I am concerned.
Furthermore, the constant lib-linking of “Birtherism” with “Trutherism” about 9-11 is really an insult to any thinking person’s concept of truth, not to mention very ddegrading and insulting to everyone (expect the asshat terrorists) who lost their lives on that day.

Asking questions about some future “foreign exchange student” d*psh*it’s passport when so much is not being revealed by him is in NO WAY AKIN to asking questions designed to foment dissent against the U.S. government in the ridiculous and infantile assumption that those scheming ccovert baddies (BushCheneyHitlerMcChimpieetc.) could ever pull something like ther Two Towers destruction off..
this as opposed to one single guy’s (maybe) attempt to obfuscate the truth about his birthplace, marital status of his promiscuous commie-mom or profligate Pop.

max1 on February 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I’m no fan of McCain, but he is good on cutting spending…

Vashta.Nerada on February 23, 2010 at 1:24 PM

And how many cost cutting measures did he undermine with that one “yes” vote on the $700 BILLION TARP bill? If my wife tried that with her purchases, I’d be divorced!

Conservatives have already divorced themselves from this washed up old progressive, but he keeps on ringing our doorbell expecting us to buy his song and dance.

He may have been a war hero, but that was a long time ago… before I was even born. He has since squandered his integrity by consorting with those who are willing to undermine our country in their lust for power.

He may not be a traitor in one sense of the word (acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign), but he sure seems close to another definition of the word (the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith).

dominigan on February 23, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Mitt said something to the effect that he thought it was a good thing that Barry stood up to GM, but he did not support the “takeover of GM by Obama”, and he was against a bailout.

Buy Danish on February 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Come on now Danish, if you followed Mitt in the 08 campaign, you know that when he was trying to nail down his win in MI, he was all for a federal bailout of the automakers and faulted McCain for

A January 13 NYT piece titled “McCain and Romney Tangle Over Job Losses in Michigan” tells the story:

Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts whose father was president of American Motors in the 1950s and ’60s, insisted that the auto industry can be revived and blamed Congress and Mr. McCain for ignoring Michigan’s problems.

“The question is, where is Washington?” Mr. Romney said, speaking to a gaggle of reporters across from a General Motors transmission plant near Ypsilanti, where 200 layoffs were announced this week. “Where does it stop? Is there a point at which someone says ‘enough’? Or are we going to allow the entire domestic automotive
manufacturing industry to disappear?”

[...]

In Warren, Mr. McCain said he would be “ashamed” to tell voters that the lost jobs would return to Michigan, but he vowed to take care of displaced workers through a promised job retraining program that would be offered through community colleges.

Only after the nomination and the general election was lost did Romney come out against an auto bailout. Classic Mitt-flop.

james23 on February 23, 2010 at 3:07 PM

If McCain did lose the Senate seat, I am sure that he would not behave like a gentlemen. ( more like the Scuzz lady)

mobydutch on February 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM

He would most likely display the type of grand mal hissy fit usually reserved for those folks who suddenly discover that their car is being repossessed on the show “Operation Repo”, except that you would probably get his daughter,Meghan ThunderThighs, thrown in kicking and screaming like a banshee as well.

If anything, it would be a great YouTube moment to watch over again and again and again.

pilamaye on February 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM

That’s dumb, McCain shouldn’t be hitting Hayworth with anything, if he wants to be popular with the Conservative Base, he needs to hit the LEFTYS. Just like Palin, and Just like Beck. He needs to draw some Liberal fire if he wants to be popular with the Conservative Base. I did watch Maddow taking some swings at John McCain, last night on her uh show, program, whatever thingy.

McCain is not going to make himself sympathetic to the Conservative Base by hitting a well known liked Conservative.

That’s just a dumb move…the enemy of my enemy is my friend John, FYI Hayworth is not my enemy or an enemy of the Republican party.

He really needs to remember some of his military training.

Birtherism is a Lefty Talking Point.
Hint who doesn’t want to Align themselves with the Left, when they are campaigning for Conservative support? This is Jeopardy but you don’t have to answer in the form of a question.

Dr Evil on February 23, 2010 at 3:11 PM

It’s no surprise here that Mitt endorsed McCain. Truth be told – they’re probably very close in political thought. McCain is done politically – but his BIG MOUTH will get involved in the next election in some manner. No one really wants McCain to go nuclear on them. Not Sarah Palin, not Mitt Romney. So all of this – from both Sarah AND Mitt – is just a bunch of “nice nice” for old man McCain so he doesn’t break out his anger on them in 2012 should either decide to run.

Now I would like to say this – here we have Mittens treading down a path that Sarah Palin blazed over a month ago. Mittens is constantly showing up LATE to the parties. Whether it’s NY-23, or the McCain campaign – Mittens only peeks his jellied hairdo above the weeds when he knows it’s safe to do so – when he knows the political winds aren’t going to mess his “do” up.

That just turns me off.

Now … on another note here … if McCain pulls this off and wins reelection – you can thank Sarah Palin – not Mittens. Sarah is endo’ing him – and campaigning for him. McCain will owe Palin more if he wins then he’ll owe Mittens.

And Sarah knows this.

HondaV65 on February 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM

If you’re Mitt Romney, the reason to endorse McCain is:
1) Either way, McCain is going to be reelected.
2) McCain is good on the economy and national defense, which will be Romney’s number one and number two issues.
3) In the Senate, McCain has juice.
4) Romney can plan three steps ahead.

RBMN on February 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM

I predict HA will turn into “Tear Palin Down” central by 2012, especially if the nomination turns into a three way race between Romney, Palin and Ed’s boy T-Paw.

Jerome Horwitz on February 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Allah has already been doing that for the last two years. I can already guess the author of a post by the slant of the title. But you’re right, it will probably get much worse…

dominigan on February 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM

My primary concern about J.D. Hayworth is his potential to have a “macaca moment” – especially on the issue of illegal immigration.

Terrie on February 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM

I predict HA will turn into “Tear Palin Down” central by 2012, especially if the nomination turns into a three way race between Romney, Palin and Ed’s boy T-Paw.

Jerome Horwitz on February 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

A way for Palin to avoid that is, blow everyone away with her debating skills, if she has them. Apparently she did very well in the Alaska Governor debates. If she can do the same against Mitt Romney, and whoever else is still in the primary, then she’ll get the respect she deserves. I recall, after her speech to the Republican Convention in 2008, everyone at HotAir was in love. It rests entirely on her shoulders to make that happen again.

RBMN on February 23, 2010 at 3:22 PM

This entire Romney, McCain, Brown thing should raise red flags and alarms. I think that once again that the elite will be choosing the next Republican candidate for the President of the United States.

mobydutch on February 23, 2010 at 3:25 PM

McCain also has more money than Hayworth. Hayworth lost his Congressional seat of 12 years to a Democrat. There is a large Latino demographic, in Arizona, will they come out and vote in numbers in November because they really don’t like Hayworth.

Dr Evil on February 23, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I don’t think the Republicans should give up any Senate Seats in November I think they need the ones they have and as many more as they are able.

Dr Evil on February 23, 2010 at 3:29 PM

I liked Romney. Unfortunately today he lost half of the tea-partiers. Yes, McCain was a war hero, but as a politician he was the absolute WORST!. He has stabbed Republicans in the back over and over again. Remember McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14? McCain WAS for cap-and-trade, he DID believe in the global warming hoax, he IS still for open borders. How can Romney support this? JD Hayworth is the real conservative, not McCain, so I’m sending my money to the Hayworth campaign. Sorry, Mutt and Jeff….excuse me, Mitt and John.

Mark7788 on February 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

This entire topic, from beginning to end, proves once again that all politicians care about is their own hide. I’m talking about all 3 of them!

sheesh on February 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Come on now Danish, if you followed Mitt in the 08 campaign, you know that when he was trying to nail down his win in MI, he was all for a federal bailout of the automakers and faulted McCain for
james23 on February 23, 2010 at 3:07 PM

What I recall is that Mac had given up on Michigan and stated that manufacturing was never going to come back.

Mitt spoke about investments in science in technology so we could compete with the “Asian Tiger” and said he refused to give up on Michigan. He never said anything about “bailing them out”. He wanted GM to declare bankruptcy so they could rid themselves of the union baggage and start anew, and prosper like Toyota and Honda.

Buy Danish on February 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Remind me never to travel to Arizona.

madmonkphotog on February 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Neoconservatives have progressively revised vocabulary definitions, having promoted the merging of its own brand of Marxism (progressive authoritarians) within the Republican Party, officially recognized as the party of neoconservatives now gratus Bush.

THAT is precisely why Constitutional Conservatives are smeared in the neoconservative witch hunt to asphyxiate the foundation of conservatism, leaving the neoconservatives to roost over the big tent permeated by progressive revisionism.

The Constitutional Conservatives decry the corruption of the neoconservatives who burden America with unconstitutional bureaucracies in the name of progressive efficiency that only accomplishes the opposite of what is promised. With its convolution exposed, the neoconservatives decry the bitter, clingers to the Constitution for being so damned fundamentalist about not agreeing to forfeit Civil Rights, or to at least shut up and let the sophisticates rule.

“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” is the Constitutional prerequisite for every POTUS. It always has been, and still is. You can’t negate the Constitution without the legitimate Constitutional Amendment. But look who supports illegal procedures, the neoconservatives along with the Marxist Democrats. Birds of a feather flock together.

Since Marxists are offended, since a party wants to elect a candidate whose parents were not both American citizens, then ignore and forget that Constitutional prerequisite. If you can’t ignore it, or Constitutional Conservatives won’t forget it, then BY POPULAR USAGE (again, SKIP the Constitutional protocol requiring amendment) revise its meaning to negate any meaning. After all, it’s so inconvenient and uncomfortable to uphold the Constitution. Especially since the Constitution is as old as Rousseau’s Socialism, FORGET THAT because only the Constitution is supposed to be out-dated.

Ask any neoconservative about “natural born citizen” and the best you’ll get is a “birther” flip-off. Ask a Leftist and you’ll hear “racist birther”. Fall in line with Marxist group think, good neoconservatives. Honor thy neoconservative evolution from Lenin; embrace the revision of the Constitution.

If neoconservatism is supposed to be so damned wonderful right now, where is the neoconservative intellectual and political brawn on Capitol Hill to not simply say “NO” to Obamarx, but to have now endorsed (if not produced) the united Conservative legislative bill to deliver in conference with Obama? Neoconservatives only sponsor and support progressive legislation that can “win” bipartisanship co-sponsors. COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.

Where are the Neoconservative legislative bills to rescind politically correct measures and authoritarianism? No, neoconservatives will only vote against PC if the bill is already expected to “win”.

On the other hand, Constitutional Conservatives sponsor anti-fraud bills to close corrupt loopholes. Rep. John Carter (R-TX) is the Constitutional Conservative sponsoring the military “whistle blower bill” to protect our military personnel from retribution when they expose terrorist threats to military security by saboteurs within the ranks. McCain has not sponsored legislation from the Senate to match Carter’s “Whistle Blower” protection against military saboteurs, and McCain is running for re-election. McCain smears those who support the Constitution, just as Bush called the volunteer Minute Men vigilantes for observing the national border and relaying information to border patrol officers.

That neoconservatives attack the conservatives is nothing new. It happened when Newt promoted the Contract With America to elect Republicans whose efforts were obliterated on Capitol Hill by the entrenched neoconservative Republican party powers in legislative efforts.

NO CONSERVATIVE REFORM WAS ACCOMPLISHED. Most from that generation of newly elected Republican legislators were defeated for not rescinding power from the corrupt, though it was the Republican party leaders who prevented the purging of government fraud.

DESPITE THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN CONGRESS WITH THE PRESIDENT, ONLY FURTHER NEOCONSERVATIVE EFFORTS WERE PERMITTED TO SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS THROUGH SOCIALISM.

9/11 presented neoconservatives the opportunity to create the DHS; as if another bureaucratic mammoth would coerce perfect communication between the intelligence community, the president and Congress.

As if the DHS would insure American Civil Liberties, while the DHS itself is an unconstitutional creation.

As if it took another bureaucracy to authorize (and require) the FBI and CIA to communicate status information regarding terrorists threatening our national security.

Ignorance from the Oval Office is no excuse. As with Obama’s first year in office, Bush’s administrative failures first year do not provide logical reason to excuse on the basis of what he inherited.

Excuses for failure to meet all official responsibility do not provide solutions, only cover up and further opportunities for officials to neglect duties and abuse powers.

Make note of the ownership’s established neoconservative cause, and the site’s advancing Alinksy attacks against Constitutional Conservatives. Take it from an atheist, from a Mormon, from a Vietnam POW. For shame to support the Constitution instead of your neoconservative leaders.

maverick muse on February 23, 2010 at 3:49 PM

During the potus campaign, Palin endorsed the public demand to vet Obama’s credentials, specifically the so-called “birther” Constitutional Natural Born Citizen prerequisite.

McCain got Palin’s endorsement for his re-election, accepting her supporters whether or not they accept McCain’s neoconservative agenda, whether or not they demand the supremacy of the Constitution.

Compromise with neoconservatives, and all you get is more neoconservative power. Neoconservatives are the PC socialists within the Republican Party.

maverick muse on February 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Keep Out of the Grand Canyon National Park, madmonkphotog on February 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

maverick muse on February 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Speaking of centrism versus righty populism, we all knew that Maverick would eventually hit Hayworth for his flirtation with Birthers, but I’m surprised it’s started this early.

Allah, I mentioned several times (I know you didn’t see the posts) that McCain was running ads for weeks, then he was naming Hayworth in ads weeks before Hayworth even announced he’d be announcing. As an Arizonan I’m not a bit surprised at this point but I certainly was when McCain began his barrage.

As for Romney, it’s more likely a “Me, too” with Scott Brown, not Palin. (That sounds snarky and I suppose it is but I did vote for Romney in the ’08 primary here in Arizona, fwiw.)

Also, fwiw, radio ads (I hear these all during Rush) featuring Palin speaking started this week.

KittyLowrey on February 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM

McCain!!! Talk about the biggest loser. No way this worst of the worst of the RINO’s is going to win the 2012 election. Really disapointed in Romney. McCain would have never been the 2008 candidate without the cooperation of the other loser clown Huckabe.

SANTA on February 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Instead of calling what the TEA partiers advocate “Righty populism”, why not call it “Righty Constitutionalism”? Thank you.

onlineanalyst on February 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM

“Equal justice under law: Doesn’t that include this president and his birth certificate?” Hayworth asked on the July 15 show, according to a recording the McCain campaign is sending to reporters.

McCain may feel that he has trumped Hayworth by citing this program’s provocative question, but didn’t McCain have to provide his own birth certificate in order to squelch the campaign to diminish his own eligibility? Wouldn’t equal justice require that his opponent comply with the same standard?

onlineanalyst on February 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Romney I’m having a hard time with you buddy. Last go round you said you were in it for the long haul and I and probably several others sent in our campaign donations since we were down to you, McCain, Huckabee. Then you bailed three days later. I let it go because you had already drained $8 mil from your kids inheritence.

Why in the world would you now endorse McCain if you were not endorsing his methods? We are tired of RINOs!!!! McCain’s stance on immigration alone is reason enough to disqualify him.

Can’t wait to see who emerges.

DanMan on February 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM

It’s very disturbing to watch both parties implode at the same time in America. America is going to lose big time because of this.

I pray every day for America.

Crux Australis on February 23, 2010 at 4:33 PM

In case y’all weren’t noticing, Spathi the Ronulan really, really likes Hayworth. Remember the other candidate the Ronulans really liked? Can we say, Debra Medina?

Sekhmet on February 23, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Spathi is also citing a post at thinkprogress to make his point. Be wary of spathi’s motives. He probably checks in to learn what the latest talking points at commondreams are.

onlineanalyst on February 23, 2010 at 4:38 PM

“It’s hard to imagine the United States Senate without John McCain,”

I’m trying REALLY hard to imagine no more amnesty bills to fight.

THREE tries in just two years! Give it a rest!

fred5678 on February 23, 2010 at 4:39 PM

After four years of Obama, we could do a lot worse than Romney.


I’m hopimg that after four years of Obama we could do a lot better than Romney. So far, Mitt seems to be running a sleath campaign.

Fred 2 on February 23, 2010 at 4:41 PM

If Palin does run in 2012 and if, as expected, the race turn into a centrist elitist/righty populist armageddon between Mitt and her, whom will Maverick side with?

With Romney, of course. Romney’s doing pretty much what Nixon did circa 1967: cultivate the muckety-mucks in the party and worm the way to the nomination.

ddrintn on February 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

if, as expected, the race turn into a centrist elitist/righty populist armageddon between Mitt and her,

If that happens, Mitt is dooooooooomed.

ddrintn on February 23, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Buy Danish on February 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I remember watching that MI speech of his & I got the same thing as you did-no promised bailouts or acceptance thereof.
He talked of rejuvenation which I guess to some might smell of a bailout, but that is not what Mitt meant.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM

With Romney, of course. Romney’s doing pretty much what Nixon did circa 1967: cultivate the muckety-mucks in the party and worm the way to the nomination.

ddrintn on February 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

I am fearing this may be true.
There were some good things about Nixon, but I’ll never forgive him for opening up China to us.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 4:57 PM

My primary concern about J.D. Hayworth is his potential to have a “macaca moment” – especially on the issue of illegal immigration.

Terrie on February 23, 2010 at 3:19 PM

So, if ILLEGAL ALIENS, are offended? F’ them. McCain is an anti-birther acting as though citizenship is a freebie hand-out like Obama. Send them both home. Hayworth wants to kick out illegals? I’ll help!

Jeff2161 on February 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

BTW, any sob-sisters liking illegals ? Most NORMAL americans do not have ILLEGAL nannies, ILLEGAL landscapers or, ILLEGAL chauffers. That’s a Democrat thing. Hire U.S. or move to MEXICO.

Jeff2161 on February 23, 2010 at 5:02 PM

Why was McDipstick running ads against Hayworth before he even decided to run? McCain must be SCARED of being home with the 2nd wife and daughter.

Jeff2161 on February 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Jeff2161 on February 23, 2010 at 5:04 PM

I would think, from my own experience knowing LEGAL mexican immigrants, that most legal immigrants from any country resent the illegals here.
My girlfriend in HS,the daughter of legal Mexicans (& they all spoke mostly spanish in the home), said her family called the illegal Mexicans (this was in Tyler TX) ‘wetbacks’.
They despised them.

Badger40 on February 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Up to now I was only leaning against voting for Romney. Now I’m definitely not voting for him. Sucking up to McCain so that McCain will support his candidacy in the future is pointless and stupid. If McCain can’t get himself elected, how’s he supposed to help get Mitt elected?
A birther Hayworth is better than an aisle-crossing geriatric who’s still trying to trade on courage and honor he used to have.

SKYFOX on February 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Remind me never to travel to Arizona.

madmonkphotog on February 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Your loss. It’s a gorgeous, fantastic state.

KittyLowrey on February 23, 2010 at 5:24 PM

At least Mitt could have waited to after primaries to make sure McCain won. Now regardless of the outcome in August, Mitt will be tarred with the RINO brush.

Mitt, aren’t you the won with tons of advisors. Who advised you to make this decision? David Frum.

technopeasant on February 23, 2010 at 5:29 PM

A way for Palin to avoid that is, blow everyone away with her debating skills, if she has them. Apparently she did very well in the Alaska Governor debates. If she can do the same against Mitt Romney, and whoever else is still in the primary, then she’ll get the respect she deserves. I recall, after her speech to the Republican Convention in 2008, everyone at HotAir was in love. It rests entirely on her shoulders to make that happen again.

RBMN on February 23, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I recall after the speech Mitt’s boys starting attacking her the next day leaking stories. i recall about 4 days after the convention speech Mitt’s friends in ther media Parker, NRO started the process of tearing her down.

As far as her debating skills. The whole point of the all out blitz is to stop Palin before the primaries and the debates. Mitt and the rest of the mayo cucumber crowd do not want THAT WOMAN to be in the running come 2011

unseen on February 23, 2010 at 5:32 PM

How many of you leftisit “birther”-smear-name-adopters are willing to admit that you believed that man produced carbon dioxide caused that multi-trillion-dollar, economy and freedom crushing scam that would have made several commies like obama into billionaires, you know, that con of the millenium called “global warming”?

And how many of you thought that those who knew it was a scam from the start, just by looking at the players, who were such a disgusting assortment of liars, abortion lovers and thieves; who saw the billions these grifters were going to put in their own pockets; that these people, many of whom you now call “birthers”, were also to you, AGW “deniers”, ’cause that science was settled, don’t you know.

Funny how even a behemoth like AGW can be toppled when just the simple push of button can reveal to the world the secret documents proving the outrageous and intricate conspiracy to defraud that these criminals are engaged in.

But, because berri is such a bastion of truth, integrity and honor, with an immaculate track record of associates, and constitutional regard, no lies or fraud could possibly be hidden in his simple everyday documents that he has litigated to the tune of a cool million to keep from being seen.

And the sad fact is, that anyone who could raise over half a billion to be elected, (no candidate as EVER raised such a staggering sum of money) and has a puppet master filled with such hate for America who helped berri raise much of it from illegal foreign donations, has surely by now scrubbed every document, but the fact remains that he was born with dual citizenship and as an adoptee of Lolo Soetoro, could not attend a Muslim/Indonesian school in the police state that was Indonesia at the time berri was there without being a Muslim and Indonesian. His school records there indicate that he was both. Where is the record in the USA that he had renounced his Indonesian citizenship (or did he use it to play the system, obtaing grants as a foreign student), and even if he renounced it, being a citizen of Britain and Indonesia (an Indonesian citizen past the age of majority, who could only hold Indonesian citizenship, as Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship) would preclude berri from natural born U.S. citizenship which is required to hold the office of the Presidency.

Anyway, don’t all post at once to admit that you smear-merchants who don’t believe berri is hiding anything are the same smear-merchants who believed in AGW. Probably still do. Another thing that I have noticed is that many of you smear-merchants are also pro-aborts. Hmmm. Looks like you have some ‘splainin’ to do to the “conservative” part of your split personality.

Every American has to show these records during their lifetimes – and no American with half a brain would spend over a million to hide them unless something would really take them down if they were to be seen. And even though there has been a blackout of this issue with the exception of smearing, a poll recently taken showed that a significant number of citizens were aware of the issue, and wondered why the docs couldn’t be viewed. And don’t ask me to find the poll, do your own homework – it came out within the past month of two.

At this point, I think the records are scrubbed and that berri’s legal expenses to hide the records may well be coming out of our tax dollars – I haven’t researched that yet, has anyone else here done so?

And even though berri’s records that we have seen and by his own admission acknowledge dual British and an Indonesian citizenship, and NOTHING is done about it, points to the fact that we have become totally corrupted, it does not bolster the smear merchant’s argument that berri is innocent of a presidential usuper’s scam, equal in scope to the scam that berri is still running, with our money of course, that of AGW.

tigerlily on February 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

I recall after the speech Mitt’s boys starting attacking her the next day leaking stories. i recall about 4 days after the convention speech Mitt’s friends in ther media Parker, NRO started the process of tearing her down.unseen on February 23, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Who are “Mitt’s boys” and what specifically can you say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you know for a fact they leaked?

My memory is that Parker praised Palin’s convention speech, and only began to retreat after the Couric interview. Which that had nothing to do with Mitt.

Buy Danish on February 23, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Yea; Ya gotta be careful when you eat lunch with McLame. He’ll sneak some “hash” into your food. Romney’ll wake up some time soon.

Cybergeezer on February 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM

At this point, I think the records are scrubbed and that berri’s legal expenses to hide the records may well be coming out of our tax dollars – I haven’t researched that yet, has anyone else here done so?

tigerlily on February 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

.
tigerlily, as always, very good points! As for Obama’s legal expenses- at the very least he was using DOJ lawyers the last few times in court. Besides that being on the public dime, it was a blatant conflict of interest.
.
Don’t give up on Obama’s being ousted. Not everyone is corrupt. At the very least, if our system doesn’t oust him, his “friends” will. When someone like the ObaMessiah falls off his pedestal, they tend to fall hard and make a big mess.
.
Obama has been exposed as an ACORN-loving, inexperienced, yet arrogant, failure. His house is falling in on itself and soon the rats who escape will begin to give him up.
.
Obama’s puppetmasters wanted progressivism to rule our country. Obama has gotten that so wrong that even a billionaire like Soros has to realize he’ll starve to death when the only thing that’s left to eat in the world is his money.

NightmareOnKStreet on February 23, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Why on earth endorse him? McCain despises Romney. What is more pathetic than a man who not only can’t fight back against his enemy (as Romney couldn’t in 2008) but then makes pointless entreaties to him?

rrpjr on February 23, 2010 at 6:57 PM

Frum endorses Romney, Romney endorses Mccain. Scott Brown is a protege of? The black spot for the beleaguered progressive leaning republicans running in 2010 must at least be exposed. Present the voting records of McCain and J.D. Hayworth here at HotAir side by side and match them up. Put the ones that address the same issue or legislation on top. Grade them individually on a scale of one to ten, one being progressive and ten being conservative.
If McCain has 50 items, grade them all and divide by 50. If Hayworth has 15 items, grade them all and divide by 15. We’re supposed to be moving toward a more conservative representation in congress. Let’s see who is the real conservative and not a sudden mover to the right type of Johnny come lately. I know it’s an exersize in futility but those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat the same mistakes without a sense of ironic futility.

A Romney endorsement for McCain is appropriate. They do have more in common with each other and yet still have a few notably iterated flexibilty differences. Romney is more agile when it comes to taking postion and then doing what some might consider here as the best high board flipper since Gregory Louganis won all those Olympic gold medals. Romney is the progressive republican version of another Massachusetts Senator. No, the other one. Let me give you a hint. I was for it before I was against it. Okay, I’ll give another hint, his initials are JFK.

Americannodash on February 23, 2010 at 7:09 PM

NightmareOnKStreet on February 23, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Yes, in berri’s world it’s eat or be eaten, and he very well could be on the menu soon, as his useful idiocy runs it course. Small consolation though, because the center just won’t hold, and we’re all going down with the ship unless we can restart our manufacturing/energy producing engines and bring ourselves back from the edge. To do this we really do have to clean DC totally.

tigerlily on February 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Expect the deeply dug in progressive country club Republicans to spend a lot of time trying to prop each other up during the primaries.

So far, I do not see Palin in the progressive camp, but we will learn more over the next few months.

Freddy on February 23, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Romney obviously wants McCain to endorse him when the 2012 election nears.

DanStark on February 23, 2010 at 8:13 PM

OK Mitt, that clinches it. You’re toast as far as I’m concerned.

disa on February 23, 2010 at 8:57 PM

The best evidence yet, as if anyone needed any,

career politicians are morons… No matter which side they play.

franksalterego on February 24, 2010 at 7:21 AM

Idiot! Let’s see how Romney (if he makes another run at it) fares in the Arizona primary election.

kens on February 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2