Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures: McCain Campaign Regurgitates MSM & DNC Lies About Romney Record
By jjfuller72 Posted in Archived — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
McCain's deeply flawed immigration bill has been a recent "flash point" for criticism. McCain has obviously taken the attacks on this horrible legislation a little too personally and has wrongly punched back on the personal level (similar to his personal attack on Romney's conviction during the 2nd debate that he switches positions "during even numbered years".)
From a Newsweek article:
Referring to Romney's stance, McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."
Then followed his "varmint" comment which was an obviously planned line fed to him from someone in the campaign.
So, what's so desperate about attacking a cheif rival? The attacks, on the surface, speak of an general unease in the McCain camp about their own failings and Romney's continued successes. But it's not just the attacks, but the substance of the attacks and the actual accusations being leveled. McCain's campaign aides are sensing the fear of a Rising Romney and have resorted to DNC-like charges at Mitt's apparent lack of core convictions.
From Newsweek recently regarding the varmint comment:
To which John Weaver, a top McCain aide replied: “It was a joke and, by the way, Mitt Romney should be mocked! There isn’t a single issue in politics he hasn’t flip-flopped on."
From a Mother Jones article another top McCain aid said:
"Mitt Romney has been consistent in one regard: that nearly every position he holds now is opposite of what it was when he was governor of Massachusetts."
That same article also had the following zinger:
He [Romney] previously held all of the same positions as Giuliani -- he's just trying to lie about them while Giuliani is standing for what he believes in.
This is a segue into the deeper theme they are trying to lay. A smattering of recent quotes is enlightening:
Foremost is the charge that he's a campaign convert to conservatism after running as a more moderate or liberal candidate in Massachusetts.
Even some conservative commentators like Deroy Murdock (a big-time Rudy supporter), get in on the game from time to time.
Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.
Bill Maher recently said "If Mitt Romney were a movie, it would be "Say Anything." (I'm sure he wouldn't apply that same critical humor to his buddy Bill Clinton, eh?)
The overall image being portrayed of Romney (and don't ever think these lines of attack aren't driven by the media moguls of the MSM) is that he's a man with no convictions, who will say or do anything if it is politically expedient. However, their only other "dig" against Romney is not just his religious affiliation, but that he's unabashedly a devout and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--somehow implying that he's TOO dedicated and true to his core convictions, namely his faith and his family. It would be in their best interest to decide on one line of attack. If they keep pounding both of these drums even the average American voter will realize they are being sold a false bill of goods. We won't be buying it guys!
I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. He was actually far more of a conservative than even a moderate. Below I'll put in the image again of one of his 1994 campaign flyers and let you judge. Aside from the well documented (AND WELCOMED!!) shift on abortion he's been rock solid as a conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan)
I'd like to see McCain, his aides, and the DNC explain their position that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" when he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer. They're busy enough spinning their own problems, so I probably shouldn't "pile on" right now!
Very interesting point you make here. I also think that Romney ran as a fiscal conservative in MA and he delivered. Social issues in a liberal state like MA are "campaign time gotchas" for any Republican candidates and Romney was finding his way along in dealing with social issues ("diffusing bombs" where necessary and standing firm where needed.)
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Can we admit that Romney has flipped/flopped? When McCain bust Obama's chops we're for it; when it's Romney's, we say it's personal. Look, like him or not, McCain is trying to win a nomination. My big concern for McCain is this immigration position; his assinine belief that a fense won't matter. Remember his comment to the effect. Like, building it was a favor to the frothy mouthed base, who just didn't get it. But my big concern for Romney is that he really is just another Northeast Liberal is sheep's clothing. However, one thing is true, for me, unless Fred gets into the race, then the Republican I vote will really be a vote against the Democrat. Fred is the only candidate I could vote for proudly; the rest are really the lesser of two evils imho.
He has flipped on abortion, but never has changed position on Guns, marriage and immigration. Generally it's people (like McCain) who make flips where they don't exist.
Romney has always been for Traditional Marriage
Romney has always been where he is on Guns.
Romney has always been against discrimination towards gays.
Romney has always been for stricter laws against illegal immigration while working to promote legal immigration for qualified citizens.
If you bothered to read the campaign flier you would see Romney was a strong conservative in 94.
That's why I won't accept your request, Romney has been just as consistent as Fred, who once supported legalized abortion ( until March's FNS interview), CFR and acquired his red pickup just for his campaign. Not that any of those make him ineligible, but hey lets be honest about all of it.
Fred is a very good guy, and he might just be well qualified, but so far I have seen nothing other than his willingness to blog that separates him from the pack. I would think Brownback and Huckabee would be much more solid in the job as President.
http://michiganformccain.blogspot.com/
"In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
-John McCain
...what in Gehennom is a McCain aide doing speaking to Mother Jones?
"To all those whom I have not yet offended: Please stand by, and I will work to remedy the situation as soon as possible."
Patiently waiting for a Fred Thompson / John Engler ticket.
So now an examination of Mitt Romney's past positions - which have been available to anyone with access to Lexis (or, in the case of his 2002 positions, the internet) - is "regurgitating MSM-DNC talking points." That's an interesting attempt at a frame shift; you guys will have to let me know how it all turns out.
Especially since the first people to "dig all this stuff up" were conservatives in Massachusetts.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
And found one where you say Romney is the guy you vote for if you had to at that moment. I thought that was interesting.
And I think he said that Brownback "had no chance" in this race.
Interesting.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
The deluge became too much. It became a matter of not just examining whether he was pandering on abortion, but rather whether he had any core principles (besides getting elected) whatsoever. I wanted to be able to get up in the morning and look my reflection in the mirror in the eye without flinching. So I support SSB instead.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
(Before I go and accuse Romney of anything, let me say that I fully anticipate the arrival of Romney's immigration plan)
This is just a sample of why the average Joe conservative looks at Romney and thinks Massachusetts flip flopper.
Since the Immigration Plan, Romney has said all of these things:
The day the immigration proposal was announced:
“I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate.”
(Romney For President, “Governor Mitt Romney On The Senate Immigration Agreement,” Press Release, 5/17/07)
One week later:
“In fact, [Romney aide Kevin] Madden concedes, there are parts of the compromise bill that Romney supports.” (Jonathan Martin, “The McCain-Romney Battle Comes Out Of The Shadows,” The Politico, 5/24/07)
At the South Carolina debate:
ROMNEY: “My view is this: people should have no advantage by having come here illegally.”
CHRIS WALLACE: “But you are not telling them to go home, sir.” ROMNEY: “I am going to tell them to go home...” (Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/15/07)
11 days after the South Carolina Debate:
“I don’t think that we’re going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That’s not what I’m talking about ...” (Brendan Farrington, “Romney Says His Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t Intolerance,” The Associated Press, 5/24/07)
Take a stand and stick with it. You don't like the Immigration Plan? Come up with your own solution and let's discuss policy.
Is Romney has by far the most detailed policy driven platform. From Iran, to spending a nd vetoing, he is clearly put stuff out there that your guy can't even think of without the whiff from the oxygen tank.
What is even more funny is you have absolutely nothing of substance in your quotes:
the day the immigration proposal was announced:
“I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate.”
(Romney For President, “Governor Mitt Romney On The Senate Immigration Agreement,” Press Release, 5/17/07)One week later:
“In fact, [Romney aide Kevin] Madden concedes, there are parts of the compromise bill that Romney supports.” (Jonathan Martin, “The McCain-Romney Battle Comes Out Of The Shadows,” The Politico, 5/24/07)
He does strongly oppose McCain plan. Why? Because McCain's plan provides the unending z-pass, or "Amnesty." There are parts he probabaly does agree with, but this is non-negotiable part. Romney has always been against Amnesty.
UWhat is unfortunate is McCain's inability to wrap himself around why so much of the GOP is disgusted with this latest DC sell out of his. There are certainly plenty of things to like about McCain, but this is not one of them.
I think there are plausible arguments to made that Romney has flip-flopped on some issues, and maybe there's one I haven't seen that can be made on illegal aliens.
However the fact that a McCain supporter could believe this collection of Romney quotes is evidence a "flip-flop" tells us more about the cartoon world that amnesty-plus-reward advocates see the immigration debate. The fantasy caricature they cling to (because they can't address the real arguments) is that if you want to solve the illegal alien problem the choice is either immediate Z-visas as a reward for entering without our consent vs. rounding up all the illegals and putting them on a bus to Mexico.
The day the immigration proposal was announced:
“I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate.”
(Romney For President, “Governor Mitt Romney On The Senate Immigration Agreement,” Press Release, 5/17/07)
One week later:
“In fact, [Romney aide Kevin] Madden concedes, there are parts of the compromise bill that Romney supports.” (Jonathan Martin, “The McCain-Romney Battle Comes Out Of The Shadows,” The Politico, 5/24/07)
No contradiction there. I like some parts of the bill, like giving preference to immigration applicants who won't be a net burden on American tax payers (though not strong enough IMO). That is in no way inconsistent with my strong opposition to the bill as a whole - even with the few good parts, the bill is far worse than the awful status quo.
At the South Carolina debate:
ROMNEY: “My view is this: people should have no advantage by having come here illegally.”
CHRIS WALLACE: “But you are not telling them to go home, sir.” ROMNEY: “I am going to tell them to go home...” (Fox News Republican Presidential Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/15/07)
11 days after the South Carolina Debate:
“I don’t think that we’re going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That’s not what I’m talking about ...” (Brendan Farrington, “Romney Says His Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t Intolerance,” The Associated Press, 5/24/07)
Again, no inconsistency. I reject the bill's aim of rewarding entry without our consent by giving the law breakers immediate legal residency, while foreigners who respect our laws are still waiting in line for permission to enter.
And yes I support telling illegal intruders to go home, but trying to individually apprehend them all ship them home is an ineffective strategy which I and most amnesty-plus-reward opponents don't favor. It's almost exclusively the advocates cheap green cards for illegals who bring this idea up. Depriving the illegals of an incentive to stay, when they can't find work or get government services, is a far more effective approach.
Since I am a huge supporter of Rudy I want Romney to knock McCain back into the pack.
That being said, Mitt is a huge flipper who makes John Kerry look stalwart in his beliefs. Mitt would be a disaster going up against Hillary Clinton. We would lose 30 states..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
And for what it's worth he flipped in the right direction. At least that's what I think from seeing his 1994 election flier.
PS: Do you still believe we should all give up and go home if Rudy fails to win the nomination?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Generally, when accusing Mitt of flip-flopping, the idea is to point out how this casts doubt on his true conservative credentials. That he was once wrong, and is now conveniently right all of a sudden.
What's the point of a Rudy-man doing this? The pride that your candidate has been proudly wrong his entire career on so many things, and is still wrong? Something like "Rudy supports taxpayer funded abortions, but what's important is that he's consistent"?
Give me a "flip flopper" any day.
If your guy is so big and bad why can't he "knock McCain back into the pack"? You need Romney to do your dirty work? I'm not following your logic.
Also, you say "Mitt is a huge flipper who makes John Kerry look stalwart in his beliefs." Did you even read the post or are you stuck in denile and repeating the overblown "flip-flopper" meme about Romney? With a comment like that I think you prove my point to everyone here . . . that, against reason and evidence, the "flip-flopper" charge will be blown-up/amplified/trumped-up etc . . . by those with an anti-Romney agenda.
Thank you for this service.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Personal attacks are not good for the country; the President must have the good of the country at heart; ergo candidates that engage in personal attacks are not suited for the Presidency.
On the related matter of Governor Romney changing some of his positions: abortion and probably gun control, let me offer a possible reasonable explanation. Now I know that my guessing as to his motivations is just a few shades of respectability shy of pop psychology, but what the heck…
The Governor spent much of his life as a business executive--a very busy and successful one. Now people in that world (I have lived there – not at the heights of the Governor – but there) with that kind of intense focus on their business, often care deeply about the really big geo-political issues like terrorism, the economy, the role of the government in R&D, and the like. They are forced to care about these issues because of their jobs. If they have any time left over to consider the issues that don’t really affect them day to day – issues like abortion and gun control – it’s easy to see how they could bring less expertise to the table, less focus, and less critical thinking.
If however, this same businessman moves to politics, and finds that he has to have equally deep and well thought-out positions on these morality issues, he may well find himself coming to different positions than his previous less rigorous efforts on the matters may have brought him to.
Any significant “change of heart” has to be seriously looked at, to be sure, and questioned. But which if us reading this has not changed their mind on many important issues over the years?
Besides, the real issue is the forward-looking one: what will this candidate 1) try to do, and 2) be able to do, as President?