Redstate

Slick willard?

Change his position? Yep. Lies? Post them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/11/the_skinny/main3043569.shtml

Huckabee did strongly support the surge all summer when Romney was backing away. In all fairness, I think Huckabee has a point.

Also Huckabee said that Romney had talked about a withdrawal timetable. Romney denied that.
Watch:
http://ktracy.com/?p=755

Just maybe Romney is the liar...again?

Show me where Mitt lied.

at about the same time Huckabee was expressing doubt on the surge as seen above, includes the following:

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

Text of full press release here ==> http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Iraq_Statement_1_10_07

In addition to rendering Huck's attacks on Romney moot on this issue, Romney's press release exhibits two important characteristics lacking in Huckabee's shoot from the hip foreign policy quip:

1) Romney made his statement AFTER actually bothering to ask those with credibility on the matter (generals, military experts, and troops) for their qualified opinions.

2) Romney made no quibble about where the troops came from. The generals put together a sound plan and asked for the boots on the ground. Romney, like president Bush, was wise enough to trust them. Who did Huckabee think would bear the burden of further extending our military? If the plan involved national guard and reserve call ups we should junk it regardless of its viability, because they are just too burdened as it is? Straight out of the liberal echo chamber ALL LAST YEAR.

Romney may have reserved judgment as to the success of the surge during the summer, deferring to General Petraeus' assesment, but he supported going forward with the surge from the beginning.

It looks like he did get off his duff and found out for himself.

That is what leaders do, not like some of the would be crowd.

...that the majority of the electorate has a memory.

Thinks about it.

Too true.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You HAVE to remind the public about the holes in your opponent's record, because nobody else is going to do it, and the public doesn't remember what a guy was saying 6 months ago or last year, much less 5 or 10 years ago.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

That's not negative advertising, and I'm tired of people saying it is. That's critiquing your opponents' records.

Negative advertising is stuff that is completely off-topic, name calling, or just completely disingenuous, like "Rudy Giuliani had three wives" or "Mitt Romney is a Mormon."

What Romney has done is not only laid out his vision and experience, but also critiqued the records and vision of Huckabee and McCain. Find one ad of his that doesn't stick to something of substance. You won't find it. And, on the ads that people have put out of Romney-when they stick to the issues and record, even when it's critical, I have no qualms with it. It's called an election, and you've got to vet the candidates properly.

And, Zuiko, this isn't directed at you. You've been pretty good, but yours defended negative advertising. I'm saying, to everyone in general, that it's not negative advertising. It's called comparison of facts. Get it straight.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

The reason I use the words "negative advertising" is because most people apply that label to any advertisement you run that so much as mentions your opponent. If we were limited to what those people consider legitimate, positive advertising, we'd have a real problem with candidates just making up whatever they like about their record and getting away with it. It's not like we can count on the MSM to always call them on it. They got their own agenda.

Negative, or comparative, if you prefer, advertising does perform a legitimate and valuable function so long as it is substantive and accurate. I think we are in agreement on that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm just hoping that some of the people on here would consider that when they accuse people of running it when they're not.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

Problem is, do New Hampshire voters ever read these things? From the way it went in Iowa I wonder if primary and caucus goers even take the time to think about it, or anything else for that matter.

It's just in the form of echo chambers, memes, and branding. That's why Fred is "lazy" and needs "fire in the belly". Romney is "plastic" who is a "flip flopper". The electorate may not remember the details but they do remember the brand.

the attention span of a flea.

It cannot remember anything unless it is bombarded with TV, mail, radio, and internet ads to remind them of these facts.

Romney Republican

and you're being far too hard on huckabee (and i say that as a critic of huckabee)

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Does it only apply to lies under oath?

Isn't that just the letter of the law?

What about the spirit of the law?

Should Bill Clinton be allowed to lie about his "record" of fighting Bin Ladin just because he's not under oath?

Romney Republican

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

The common theological position is that, if telling the truth will further the direct spread of evil (i.e., telling the Nazis where certain Jews are hiding), then you shouldn't tell the truth. However, Huckabee's apparent lies directly benefit no one but himself and his supporters.

Please he is trying to cold read the electorate and tell them whatever he thinks they want to hear. Somebody should hand him a crystal ball and a pack of Tarot Cards.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"The surge is apparently working" . . . is what Romney said before the reports came out. McCain, who was privy to more information at the time took a sanctimonious stance that it isn't "apparently working . . . it IS working".

Fine John. But that was a cheap shot because Romney was just stating his position based on his limited information.

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).

all summer when we most needed republicans to step forward and fight for the war

saying things like the surge is "apparently" working indicates romney's willingness to follow the polls, even on national security

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

All Romney was saying was that he wanted to her Patreaus (sp?) report first, which hadn't happened yet. That is completely reasonable.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

...actually bothered to find out for himself instead of sitting on his tookus waiting to be spoon-fed. Sorry, Priestcraft man -- that just don't wash.

Oh, and jjfuller? Check your facts -- Romney refused to "support" the so-called surge at the time, saying that it was up to the President, not up to him.

Look, all of your guys pretty much suck on Iraq and foreign policy. Trying to play "gotcha" when your candidate is just as bad (take a clue: he is) is a pointless waste of precious time and resources.

But you ignore that and and instead attack Romney for what he coulda/shoulda done. By Hucks response about the Guard he didn't support the surge. MSNBC says that Mitt does when they ask Huck the question. Pretty hard to get confused about that.

...is because there's nothing to argue :-)

1) That quote you have on Huckabee has a conditional "if" based on Guard numbers. Since then, Huckabee has made clear many times that he supported the surge (most notably in a debate scuffle with RP).

2) Mike Huckabee claimed to support the surge when Romney didn't. If we are talking about full unqualified support, this is true. Romney did not give his unqualified support to the surge (see link above which suggests that he was not solid on the surge) in the summer and fall.

3) Do you think that Romney is a liar for saying that he did not support timetables?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mitt+Romney+timetables&btnG=Google+...

Romney lie?

I suppose next your going to suggest his attack ads in Iowa distorted the truth?

Please huckabee is just better at faking sincerity than Romney
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

have been involved from the get go. What conditional "if" bails him out? "If" we don't use the Guard and Reserve there is no surge. Now if you want to call Huck a flip flopper for jumping on the band wagon later be my guest.

As for time tables, Bush and Petraeus have set goals for troop draw downs. No one knows for sure how or when it will happen but it's what we all want to achieve. That's victory no?

That quote you have on Huckabee has a conditional "if" based on Guard numbers

Sorry, but we are a TOTAL force. Active, Reserve, Guard. Everyone knows they're on call to fight until the mission is finished.

Are you saying that Iraq was worth fighting for with active troops only? That, if we had to turn to our Guard again in order to win, that it wasn't (isn't) worth trying to win?

I fully concur that a second round of involuntary mobilizations would have been indescribably hard on America's Guardsmen/women. But, so hard that it would have justified abandoning Iraq and Iraqis to the jihadhis?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

that you are so unbiased with regards to Romney. Seriously, I suspect your hatred of Mitt rivals that for HWSNBN.

But, with your whole 'research' line, try the fact that McCain is on the SASC as it's ranking member, and also is close friends with many of the senators on the intel committee. Could he possibly, conceivably, maybe have more access to the information than the ex-governor of a state who has never had the need to know on military issues?

But, then again, maybe Romney should have jumped the gun and said it was a success when he hadn't talked to the people. After all, that's what we should want in a president: a guy who doesn't try to find out information, but simply calls it from his gut.

Get real.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

...clouds your own judgment far more than any antipathy I may have towards him clouds mine. I don't hate Romney at all. I don't believe for one minute that his "conversion" to conservatism was in any way real, but that doesn't mean I dislike the man -- something I think you and the other supporters of Mitt (and of every other candidate that I criticize -- which, if any of you ever paid attention, you'd all see is all of them) mistake for hatred of an individual, or for support of his opponent(s).

However, in this case, you've got some of the right information, but you've drawn the wrong conclusion.

But, with your whole 'research' line, try the fact that McCain is on the SASC as it's ranking member, and also is close friends with many of the senators on the intel committee. Could he possibly, conceivably, maybe have more access to the information than the ex-governor of a state who has never had the need to know on military issues?

Sure, absolutely. In fact, I would go a step further from your sarcastic "possible," and say it is "definite" that McC had access to as much information as he wanted, straight from the area of operations, and that his security clearance was far, far higher than the Governor of Massachusetts's was.

Where you're wrong is in the false conclusion you draw.

But, then again, maybe Romney should have jumped the gun and said it was a success when he hadn't talked to the people. After all, that's what we should want in a president: a guy who doesn't try to find out information, but simply calls it from his gut.

You assume that being a member of the federal government is a requirement for being able to actually have knowledge of foreign affairs. There are plenty of places Romney could have gone had he actually been interested in assessing the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially vis-a-vis the so-called "surge" (one thing I actually do hate is when people use that term to refer to the 2007 policy).

Heck, I knew what was going on there. Do I look like a Senator to you -- let alone one on the Armed Services or Intel committee? Look, the bottom line is, especially in the age we currently live in, information is always available to those who seek it.

Based on your statement about McCain (that he "is close friends with many of the senators on the intel committee"), you seem to be asserting that Mitt Romney, who hopes to lead the country and the government, knows nobody in the Congress he must work with to enact policy. That's a pretty sad statement on its own, but is irrelevant to the issue here.

The fact is (to reiterate the above), information is available. All you have to do is care enough to seek it out and evaluate it -- or, in the case of a Presidential candidate (especially someone whose supporters constantly claim is especially effective at surrounding himself with the best possible advisors and employees), HIRE SOMEBODY TO GATHER AND/OR EVALUATE IT FOR YOU.

Get real.

I would submit to you, my friend, that you are directing that statement at the wrong individual in this exchange.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

But hey, I'm the one who's "biased." Good one.

The General has been very careful all year about statements of success. Romney was not out of bounds by using the word "apparently".

the man couldn't take a firm stand on whether he wanted to fight the war to victory or not. "surge" or no surge, he could have been arguing that we needed to win the war even if the new strategy failed. but no, he hid behind bush, and then behind petraeus.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

"the man couldn't take a firm stand on whether he wanted to fight the war to victory or not. "surge" or no surge, he could have been arguing that we needed to win the war even if the new strategy failed. but no, he hid behind bush, and then behind petraeus."

With the Democrats screaming that the war was lost and that Petraeus was a liar (General BetrayUs) before he even gave his report, Mitt's response in that debate was not only the correct one--it was the best one.

I had wanted to see him and the rest of the Republican field take this a step further and completely turn on the Democrats. I think we missed a great opportunity to absolutely light into them for declaring our defeat before the report was even given. The Democrats showed a complete lack of respect for our head military leaders, and we should have made that very known.

Declaring victory and the surge's success before the report was issued was just as faulty as what the Democrats were doing. It splits the argument into partisan factions. The correct action was to let General Petraeus annoint the Republicans as the winners of the argument, not to split the thing in half before the definitive word even arrived.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

but he should have argued that we needed to try to achieve victory, regardless whether the new strategy worked or not.

hinging one's support for the war on one report by one general is silly.

either it's important to achieve victory or it isn't.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Nobody but Bush, Cheney, and Bill Krystol had the guts to endorse the surge before last November.

The Surge has worked. The Democrats are, ironically, demoralized by the success of the Surge. Can we celebrate a win for once instead of pointing fingers at people who didn't jump on board early with a strategy that Pentagon leaders only gave a 30% chance of success?

Romney Republican

What Romney was doing in that debate is exactly what all the Republicans should have been doing regarding the surge. He, like McCain knew that the initial reports said the Surge was working.

But if you recall, the Democrats were calling the Surge a failure and calling Petraeus a liar before he even gave his report.

The proper avenue for handling that issue was to declare that no position would be taken on the Surge until our Commander in Iraq delivered his report, and that all the squackers on the side were uninformed baboons with an agenda. That's exactly what Romney did.

McCain did not go that route.

It's one issue where I really wish the Republicans had vigorously attacked Harry Reid. He was horribly wrong on that issue, and we had him acting completely irresponsibly.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

that the Surge has succeeded, despite their attempts to talk it down.

I can't wait for the fall debates!

Romney Republican

admission! All the Democrats hem-hawd around the question and did not admit that the surge was working.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I agree that the Democratic candidates didn't say the surge was working. Instead they tried to move the goal posts.

Last Spring they were whining about the level of violence, the number of Iraqi deaths and the number of our soldiers killed. Now that the surge has dramatically reduced all of these, they want the goal post to be progress in the Iraqi government.

Charlie Gibson as one of the Democrats... :^)

Boy, you are right about the moving goalposts!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

They even had graphics to show the huge improvement in the numbers from the reduction in violence. That surprised me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The word on the street is your looking for super heros.

For making me laugh.

Romney Republican

.

11th Amendment? Sovereign Immunity?

the 11th commandment about not attacking other republicans...

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

sef: What does "too slick" mean? That he is organized, or that he greases his hair, this is just blathering crap.

About time we had some politician treat the job as a job, and make real corporate decisions based on outcome and effectiveness not graft, touchy feely, stupid fiscal ideas and debt. Down with earmarks. I don't see any corporations putting these really dumb earmarks in their budget.

The big flip-flopper is McCain, waffling on every conservative core issue from taxes to immigration (granted not abortion)
I can count without thinking 15 flips. The worst is he is unapologetic for his McCain-Kennedy crap. He says he gets it but he doesn't have a clue because he is part of the problem, not the solution.

I think you are running in some deluded state of what a big tent GOP might look like. It might look like Huck at times, and it might look like Rudy at times, but Mitt and Fred and just about in the middle. Ron is floating from side to side and McCain runs around the outside edge.

Romney is an inauthentic, disingenuous, political Hack.

SLICK--in the sense that he will do, say, and be anything to get elected. He would be the worst thing to ever happen to the GOP if he got nominated.

I am sure he is a great man. But, I hate him as a candidate.

Mitt is also:

- Strategic
- Brilliant, just look at where he ranked in his class
- A family man
- Knowledgeable on all the issues
- A fiscal conservative
- A social conservative
- A proponent of a strong military
- For continuing the GWOT
- Successful at turning around businesses
- One of the very few people who has solved the healthcare crisis for his state
- Presidential
- An outstanding speaker
- A problem solver
- A man of faith
- A critical thinker
- A turn-around specialist
- A business legend
- A man who will appoint conservative judges
- A man who wants to solve the illegal immigration problem
- Faithful to his wife
- Honest
- A great debater

And on, and on, and on...

I think he might have a couple of good qualities that wouldn't embarrass the GOP if he becomes our nominee.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

I try to tell you over and over again -- but no one seems to be listening --- didn't Iowa teach you anything.

The "family man" or "family issues" will be the decision making issue for a small slice of the electorate. Most of these are evangelicals who did not buy off on Romney in Iowa.

Otherwise, the "family man" thing does not work as it appears who have no accomplishments of merit other than working in dad's campaign and impregnating their wives.

I realize that Mitt and Ann are proud of their children -- but to the middle class voter they look like just some rich kids living off of daddy's fortune.

When Mitt talks about his wonderful family and what a great job Ann did raising them (and the daughers-in-law-- I still wonder why the sons married woment that still required raising -- is this some Mormom thing about marrying the 14 year old -- this is what was in the news David) the middle class voter thinks, yea Mitt and Ann it must be a lot easier to raise the kids when you have gobs of money I wonder how the kids would have turned out if you were raising them in the real world.

This is what Huckabee tapped into in Iowa.

Are you guys that tone deaf?

Romney leaves the middle class soccer mom and blue collar Reagan Democrats behind.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

So, to sum up your post, Romney doesn't qualify as a "real" family man because despite faithful devotion to his wife of 38+ years, etc. etc. he is

A) A Mormon

and

B) Wealthy

Nice. Talk about giving things a rest . . .

Your "marrying 14 year old" comment is ignorant and bigoted. You are referring to groups that have no affiliation with the LDS church. Watch it - you won't be the first I've had to report for comments like this that then disappeared.

I was just listing Romney's good qualities in response to the post above. Yes, he is a good family man. That's just true, not a policy position. Give me a break

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

A totally low class comment.

is this some Mormom thing about marrying the 14 year old

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Thanks for your thorough and well-supported analysis.

What kind of Republican were you hoping for? Bob Dole?

Romney Republican

He's pretty non-corporate.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Did Romney say what medical procedure? Goodness, the man was making a point with a nice round number. I went to the hospital last year with the flu, and my bill would have been about 400$ if I didn't have insurance...

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

It isn't a big deal but i guess to Mitt, everything is not expensive. It does show a big of where he is coming from and that just adds to the peception that he might be out of touch with the average American.

Since I am a career hospital administrator I can say with authority that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are hundreds of procedures for less than $1,000.

Examples - Colonoscopy, endoscopy, lumbar injection, not to mention just about any type of procedure performed in the ER.

On another note, he wasn't talking about a specific procedure so I don't see why you are saying this a big deal. Now you're being petty.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

I just realized that you said "major", in that case I agree with you; however, Romney did not say major. It's a moot point either way.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Ha! I bet there are more than a few General Practitioners who'd like to know that they've been missing out on all those $10,000 basal cell carcinoma excisions and the like.

I can tell you right now that they aren't getting anywhere close to that amount of money....

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Nice try Michael. He was clearly saying that he supported the surge and Romney opposed it.

He was wrong. He didn't say-- Well, there were times I had my doubts, as I know you did. At one time we both opposed the surge, or at least expressed skepticism.

Noooo. He spouted a misleading attack and you are trying to spin it.

Is it in the AR water?

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

he chose his words very carefully. He said he supported the war before Romney did, and he supported the surge when Romney didn't. He can make a reasonable argument that there were times where Romney was not as supportive of the surge as he was, and that's what he meant by saying he did not support it when he did. I think calling him a liar for what he said during the debate is taking it a little too far. The real liar was Romney when he said he never described McCain's plan as amnesty. Dude, that was a lie if I ever heard one in my life. If I was McCain I would bring one of Romney's mailers to the debate tonight, and demand an apology.

and she is most definitely NOT on crack.
And DUDE, you really don't have the cred around here to be smacking around one of the token women oldsters.
Just sayin'
__________________________________________________________
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore

I tolerate becker when he calls him Bubba jr. but only because I like becker and Franz scares me.
Huckabee has his faults, but he is NO WAY comparable to the real Slick Willy.
And I say that as one that served Slick all sorts of yummy treats in the Chancellor's box while poor AR was rotting from within.
________________________________________________________
"It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." ~Professor Dumbledore

Plus, if you actually are dumb enough to think that this is "dirty politics", just wait 'till the general. Once the Clinton Machine gets rolling Huckafraud will look like he's been hit by a steam roller.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

...you make a point that I agree with.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's just frustrating that it seems things are lining up for him
w/out people really thinking it through.

Laura Ingraham for president!!

Profanity, insults and the like are not smiled upon here.

Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!

You've been here long enough to be aware of our profanity policy. Don't let it happen again.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.