Endorsing John McCain (And why not?)
What has this to do with Ronald Reagan?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | McCain | Republican nomination — Comments (80) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The choice is no longer of which man; rather, it is of what actions.
Over at NRO, radio talker Mark Levin invokes Ronald Reagan when attempting to really conservatives to the cause of Mitt Romney. He talks of the heartbreaker in '76, when the future President lost the nomination to the sitting President – in my best Carvey-doing-Brokaw voice – Gerald Ford.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president.
I was eleven in Pennsylvania on primary day, working the polls for a local Republican candidate. With a gleam in my eye that morning, I beseeched voters to "remember to write-in Governor Reagan." Perhaps it was my age and sublime cuteness which brought a different reaction from folks. I was told that the governor was the "change we needed" and "an honest man who would stand up for America." The revolution was underway, and it made me smile, though my heart would break that summer Kansas City when the CBS reporter told the viewing publican that my man Ron would be "too old" in 1980. Of course, I didn't know it, but he was almost instantly planning his 1980 run.
But what does this, what does Ronald Reagan have to do with Mitt Romney? Read On for our answer. …
A: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. He enters the picture elsewhere.
We all know what Mitt Romney is saying now, as opposed to what he said before, and before that, and before that… and so it goes. With Ronald Reagan, we knew what we were getting; with Romney, we get the right words said to the right audience at the right time. That and a federal bailout of the automobile industry and the largest proposed demand-sided "stimulus" package which won't stimulate will get you, if you throw in some money, an ice cream cone from lefty ex-hippies Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. (Folks, I'm not dissing the ice cream. Perhaps if someone would have taught me how to make ice cream at Penn State, as happened with Ben & Jerry, I'd be able to fund my own Presidential campaign and none of you would need to ask who is the real conservative.)
McCain has been accused of lying when he reported that Romney discussed a Timetable for withdrawal from Iraq while others were talking about winning the war with the surge. It is documented, and this is how it was reported at the time: Here, from ABC News, April 3, 2007: Romney Embraces Private Iraq 'Timetables'; And here, from The Hill newspaper, April 4, 2007: Romney advocates non-public Iraq benchmarks ["timetables and milestones"]. Now, McCain, on Meet the Press with Tim Russert Sunday, differentiated between Romney's call for a timetable for withdrawal and that of Hillary, who had a date certain for beginning the withdrawal and thus was advocating surrender.
There is the specious argument that McCain has not won any primaries by a huge margin. Romney hasn't won any which was contested or in which he wasn't seen as Governor George's son promising to save the automotive industry with taxpayers' largesse. These primaries have all been tight in this uptight, condensed primary season, and Romney has outspent everyone anywhere with very little to show for it. Let's see what happens Tuesday.
To be sure, John McCain is not consistently conservative on every issue; in fact, he's remembered by many conservatives for the issues on which he is somewhat wacky. But that being said, he is certainly more conservative than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and quite possibly he remains more conservative than Mitt Romney. And for a Republican to be Hillary or Obama, he'll need to win a large number of moderates and non-Republicans. John McCain has shown that he can do that.
I am putting aside whatever bad feelings John McCain has generated in my heart. (Life is way too short for that sort of corrosive contempt as it is. Trust me.) I am a Republican, and my party is not a few primaries away from nominating the late Nelson Rockefeller or the bloated corpse of his ideology. It's John McCain, possibly the only Republican in the field – save a hypothetical, energized Fred Thompson – who could successfully stand astride Hillary's inevitability and shout: "You're going to do this my way, you little creep, or I'm going to…"
Ronald Reagan would not have endorsed Mitt Romney. In fact, I'm pretty sure Ronald Reagan didn't leave a Hari Seldon vid for us to view. John McCain will be our nominee, and there are certain indicators which lead me to believe that Ronald Reagan would want Republicans to back the Republican. Let's do it, okay? If it's going to be Hillary Clinton, it is personal.
The actions will become clear as the race becomes focused.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Novak Proves McCain Said It — Comments (156) »
Endorsing John McCain (And why not?) 80 Comments (0 topical, 80 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
As I've stated previously, THE DEMS ARE WRONG. Why is everyone worried about them? THEY'RE WRONG We should be worrying more about who in our party will lead our nation rather than what the democrats are doing and how can we beat them. We all know THEY'RE WRONG
Folks, this should never have been about worrying about the other side. THEY'RE WRONG.
Newt's list said most Americans are conservative. Congress approval is lower the George Bush's, why? THEY'RE WRONG. You know who's in congress? Yup, John McCain.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
you offer no convincing arguement whatsoever that "Ronald Reagan would not have endorsed Mitt Romney" (not that it would even be humanly possible...), nor any arguement to support the presumption at this time that "John McCain will be our nominee."
WHY NOT endorse McCain? The answer lies at the beginning of the piece: Marl Levin's article online at NRO says it best (I'll paraphrase): McCain FLIP-FLOPPED on two HUGE isses - taxes and immigration. He accuses Romney of cheap shots, but is truly the one himself to use them.
If McCain can be stopped, voters in the primaries should do their level best to do so. (I ahve to wait 'til the 12th...sigh)
Ronald Reagan did not endorse ideological ambiguity. Ronald Reagan would not have endorsed attacking before the gate was even open.
John McCain has the support and the momentum in the February 5th States right now, Romney has very little time left to take his shots, so this one is all but over.
Romney, it seems, has been stopped. He has not won a primary in which he's been challenged. (Besides Michigan, but he had wayward son status and promised the moon.)
If it goes the other way, of course, I shall have to write another note supporting Mitt Romney. Sincerely.
And only one large one, it is not accurate to say there is momentum in McCains campaign. The coasts are the blue areas not red, remember? All of the primaries have been in embedded democratic territory. If everyone is going to vote based purely on the outcomes of previous races, I shiver at the thought of the mindlessness in our election process and understand why Ben Frankilin said, "if we can keep it."
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
To say that McCain doesn't have huge momentum is simply not facing reality.
He just won South Carolina (which is the standard for every GOP nominee) and Florida.
He just got the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, heading into New York, California, and New Jersey.
He just received the endorsement of the Governor of California.
Where's Mitt's momentum? He has only won caucuses in Wyoming and Nevada that were virtually uncontested, and a primary in his home state that also happens to be a pretty reliably blue state.
Big deal. He wouldn't even be in this race at this point if he weren't self-financing.
to Republicans? Yeah, BIG endorsement. Rudy? Sure, John picks up 2 delegates. NYT? Priceless.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
and yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger's endorsement does carry considerable weight in California. This state has enough delegates to make that matter a lot.
As will Arnold's endorsement in the general election.
Rudy's endorsement pretty much guarantees McCain wins New York and New Jersey.
Where again is Mitt's momentum? He hasn't won anything since his gold medal in the Silver State caucus (uncontested, that is). He's lost two huge primaries since then.
Keep dreaming. Mitt will very likely be out of this thing on Wednesday.
McCain was leading Ruy in New York and New Jersey in some polls. McCain might put New Jersey into play for November, and some good breaks could turn New York are way as well. (Not, per se, likely, though.)
I'm still struggling about whom to support. The thing is, I know where McCain stands. I just don't like where he stands on many issues.
As for Romney, like Jesse Jackson once said about Bill Clinton, "There's no there there." From his $20 billion "stimulus package" for the automobile bill industry in Michigan to his push-polls in Florida condemning McCain for his vote against the prescription drug boondagle (quite possible John McCain's greatest vote in the Senate), he just does too many things to remind me why I cannot trust him.
I will support the Republican nominee against but, at this point, I cannot endorse either of the candidates. In that, I think I am not too different from many people here.
Is it too late to start a draft Fred Thompson movement?
And you don't know what Ronald Reagan would have done. I do know this, he would never sit by and let McCain take over the party. I became a conservative Republican because of Reagan.
And frankly, their are a lot of similarties between Reagan and Romney. Remember, Reagan wasn't always a full blast conservative. He came to it over time. He was a Democrat and a Union leaders before he became a governor of California.
And as far as the Time table thing goes, McCain was talking public time tables a year ago. But his were public
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/30/mccain-considered-benchmarks-in-ja...
And McCain can't win, he is very much like Ford, but will be facing a much tougher competition than Carter.
I fear for my nation and my party if McCain is the nominee.
a "believe Levin or me" piece. I was using him as a starting point, an opening example of a certain anti-McCain hysteria afoot.
I did not say Reagan would have endorsed John McCain; rather, that he probably wouldn't have endorsed Mitt Romney over John McCain. HOWEVER:
Read Ronald Reagan talking to CPAC in 1974. He opened:
There are three men here tonight I am very proud to introduce. It was a year ago this coming February when this country had its spirits lifted as they have never been lifted in many years. This happened when planes began landing on American soil and in the Philippines, bringing back men who had lived with honor for many miserable years in North Vietnam prisons. Three of those men are here tonight, John McCain, Bill Lawrence and Ed Martin. It is an honor to be here tonight. I am proud that you asked me and I feel more than a little humble in the presence of this distinguished company.
Ronald Reagan had reason to admire John McCain. Romney, on the other hand, waited until after the President's death to accuse Ronald Reagan of having been "adamantly pro-choice." It seems like a no-brainer.
And remember, it was Romney who claimed the posthumous endorsement of the President at last night's debate.
And remember, it was Romney who claimed the posthumous endorsement of the President at last night's debate.
You took this completely out of context. It was in response to the question, who did you think Reagan would have endorsed.
And Frankly, I don't know how old you are, but I think Reagan would be right beside Rush, Levin, Hannity. I was part of the Reagan revolution. I know what Reagan stood for, and I don't think Reagan would want his party to head the direction it is going now.
But I don't want to take this any further. As I don't want to thread jack.
but Mitt Romney and his dad were no friends of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. Not at any point in Reagan's life.
His dad was a big rival of Reagan's throughout the late 60's and early-70's. They agreed on very little, if anything.
It was George Romney who walked out on Barry Goldwater at the 1964 convention. It was Mitt Romney who demagogued Goldwater to the Log Cabin Republicans and accused Goldwater of trying to turn the GOP into the John Birch Society.
I had two family members who were friends and appointees of Reagan when he was Governor. They couldn't stand George Romney, and neither could any of Reagan's other colleagues.
Before you say that Mitt is not his father, we already know this. We also remember that Mitt never wanted anything to do with Reagan or what he stood for in the party until it served his purposes of running for the party nomination. He did everything he could in Massachusetts to distance himself from Reagan and Goldwater.
If you don't believe me, go read Drudge today and see who Nancy really likes in this race.
Lessee, Thunder. I told you that I was eleven on Pennsylvania's primary day in 1976. I turned twelve a few weeks after the general election. My first Presidential election vote was in 1984. You do the math.
It is pointless to say who President Reagan would have endorsed, I admit, but Romney did it anyway last night. This bothered me.
Now, Ronald Reagan would not have been with Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, and Mark Levin. I have a TIME magazine article from 1966 which will explain why.
It is pointless to say who President Reagan would have endorsed, I admit, but Romney did it anyway last night. This bothered me.
Romney breathing seems to bother you. Your objectivity regarding this subject is out the window. You talk about looking past hate and doing what is best for the party? Well, start with Romney.
But I don't see an endorsement. This is 1974. Vietnam was still fresh in everyone's mind, along with John McCain. Doesn't do it for me.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
"And frankly, their are a lot of similarties between Reagan and Romney. Remember, Reagan wasn't always a full blast conservative. He came to it over time. He was a Democrat and a Union leaders before he became a governor of California."
Hold on there, bud... Reagan did switch, over decades of time. But Romney switched his stances over less than four years. Plus, Romney switched to help himself win an election; Reagan switched to a conservative ideology that was not in much favor at the time.
I find it interesting that McCain has been able to gain celebrity and political endorsements, while Romney has pretty much been left out of that loop. Romney is right, he is not a Washington insider, but in this case it is hurting him a little bit. www.christianpoliticalresponse.com
John had Roosevelt's endorsement.... All these endorsements point to the fact that he IS the establishment. I don't see one McCain supporter providing ANY evidence of disciplined, conservative leadership after HOW MANY years of service?
It's time for him to retire and write his memoirs.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
Considering that you think South Carolina is some sort of a Democratic stronghold because it's on the coast (FYI, they have only ONE Dem statewide office holder), do you really think you could recognize a conservative issue if it was presented to you?
I have stated quite frequently throughout RedState that my conservatism consists of limited government and strong national defense. Everything else are issues put forth by those that do not know how to exercise their liberty or freedom.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
look at who is endorsing him. The New York Times, Arnold, Governor Crisp, Howard Baker, Etc. Where are the true conservatives that are backing him? I won't vote for him. I'll vote R on the rest of the ticket, but I'm writing in Fred's name if McCain gets the nomination.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
like Tom Coburn? or Phil Gramm? Sam Brownback? Jon Kyl? Jeff Flake? Mitch Daniels? Tom Ridge?
If you close your eyes and never look for them, you can't find any. I guess you'll be supporting him now?
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
is that Romney's critics lambast him largely for some less than conservative rhetoric while McCain supporters are asking conservatives to give him a pass for his less than conservative record.
And no, please don't throw McCain's ACU rating at me. The areas in which McCain has been a leader (remember, he's not merely a manager) are generally in a non-conservative direction.
I kinda think the bolding gave my arguments a little more authority than they might otherwise merit.
However, I think your question holds up well even in regular type.
For an answer, I think Romney did not have people offering to give him a pass because of his unconservative positions because he insisted that he was the real deal. Also, his supporters would have taken such an offer of support as an insult of their candidate.
Given that Romney served only one term as a liberal-turned-conservative governor, all we have to go on is his rhetoric.
If Romney "served only one term" than we do in fact have a record to review. That plus his record in business and the Olympics and you actually have some pretty good things to judge Romney on apart from his rhetoric.
If some of you could take off your "I hate Romney" glasses for even just a minute and actually look at that record you would find more than a few solid conservative initiatives and policies forged against an overwhelmingly hostile liberal crowd.
However, I won't get my hopes up that many of you will actually start doing that now. I've been around here long enough to realize that asking some people to give Romney a fair shake is simply going too far.
I just don't trust him due to his all too recent conversion on abortion, gay rights, gun rights, the Reagan legacy, corporate bailouts, immigration, and on and on... That being said, if he is the Republican candidate, I'll still vote for him with the hope of a more credible VP on the ticket.
See, Mitt Romney said things that went against the conservative mainstream while he was trying to become the governor of the most liberal state in the country. And then after he did, he goverened as a Republican and a moderate Conservative.
John McCain, however, said things that went agains the conservative mainstream while he was actually the United States Senator from Arizona, and he acted as a person that nobody in the Republican universe could trust.
That explains why Ben Domenech thinks he should be President. Because Mitt Romney is the flip-flopper, naturally!
It makes sense!
not to mention the fact that McCain did those things with absolutely zero constituent pressure to move leftward. In other words, he was promoting liberal ideas not out of a sense of representing the interests of his state, but rather, because he personally supported those liberal ideas!
But heh, we can trust him. Remember, he's a leader. For patriotism. Not for profit.
The Republican Party really needs to decide if no good deed should go unpunished in Mitt Romney's case. I hope they will. I know from living here and seeing his successor in action that they should be giving him more credit than some of them are.
If you really examine Romney's record as Governor, it's very tough to say that he didn't govern as a Republican and a moderate Conservative here. I've always thought that once he had the opportunity on a wider stage he'd be even better, and nothing he's said so far has changed my opinion.
As a former resident of the Commonwealth, I think it's a stretch to say that Romney "governed as a Republican and a moderate Conservative".
IMO, he governed as a politically-indistinguishable invertebrate until (about midway through his term) he settled on the decision to seek the Presidency. It was at that point that he began trying to establish his conservative bona fides -- but did so by making wholly symbolic, never-had-a-prayer-of-actually-working, challenges to the Massachusetts courts and legislature on high-profile social issues.
I say this not as a McCain supporter, mind. I just don't want to see us applying too much lipstick to a pig as we try and coalesce around the lesser evil, this primary season.
And yes, he raised user fees but he never raised taxes. He also balanced the budget in this state and if you look at his *record* and not the *rhetoric about the record* you'll see that he fought very hard for Republican and Conservative principles here, in this most liberal state in the Union.
He fought the uphill battle here and he succeeded, and that's why I think he should be the President. He said the most scandalous things when he was *running* for governor, and he's since apologized very directly on abortion. How many politicians in America have ever, ever uttered the words: "I was wrong." while running for higher office? Romney did.
Now, he's a very optimistic guy and he smiles a little too much, but I think he's a better candidate than McCain on the merits.
I smile a lot when I'm talking with my friends but that's because I really am an optimist at heart. It took more than a dozen years to realize that, but I am. And I think Mitt Romney is also, but not a charlatan. We could use a President with a good disposition. I like his personality because of that, not in spite of it. It says that internally he's trying to find the best outcome, that he's trying to do his best given a set of relatively grim options, and that he's undaunted in that. Somehow I appreciate that the older I get. I like him.
I like him against Obama because Romney can match the Obamarama feel-good stuff with actual experience, and Obama cannot match that. And Romney can do it with a smile.
(at least if people on this blog would stop using Democrat talking points against him)
Sorry, kowalski, but I have looked at his record. I lived his record for his entire tenure as governor. And I stand by my characterization of him as a guy who only started pandering to the right when he decided for certain that he was going to run for the presidency.
The "raised fees but didn't raise taxes" defense of Romney is laughable in the extreme (the cost of my LTC increased threefold), and the technocrat/policy wonk case for him takes a big knock when you recognize that his signature accomplishment as governor, his healthcare plan, is rapidly turning into an enormous fiscal rathole. His tilts with the Massachusetts courts and legislature over gay marriage and Catholic Charities were certainly high-profile, but were sound and fury signifying nothing.
Again, this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of McCain. It's just recognition that Romney, good man though he may be, is not Sean Hannity to John McCain's Alan Colmes, or something.
Mark Levin is an angry, humorless horse's ass, which is an opinion formed long before he launched his anti-McCain jihad.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
That about sums it up. I decided this not too long after he got involved in the commentary circuit.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
you could describe McCain that way. And many people have.
...but how strongly I can support McCain I fear will actually now come down to who his running mate is in the hope that, if elected, he may only serve one term. Having his comment on Alito confirmed by Novak really bothered me. It is only the thought that a less conservative SC nominee is a lot more conservative than what his opposition would nominate that keeps me from rejecting him completely. Reagan may not have left a Hari Seldon video but he might have thought of McCain as "The Mule".
"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"
on McCain's alleged Alito remark? I don't know.
What has galled me most about McCain lately has been his stance in opposition to drilling in ANWR. That's a big deal, something for which it is worth fighting, but McCain has refused to consider it, comparing it to drilling in the Florida Everglades.
It's a big issue on many levels, but McCain is generally right on taxes. He's right on abortion. He's very good on Iraq, except for his childish Rumsfeld references.
Nah, he's not Ronald Reagan, but he wasn't the one pretending to be. He's an imperfect Republican, and my mind sometimes thinks of him as "Wild Thing" for his staunch maverickiosity. (I coined that word just now, but I do neither expect nor desire it to stick.)
We had a bigger laugh when we considered all four of the frontrunners that year might have been "Manchurian Candidates."
why could he not stop the Republicans from spending? You would think this would be easy for such a man.
I think many more than you believe will not be voting. There are many conservatives that are Independent, like myself that pick and choose the candidates they fall behind because the party loses it's way. Remember, being a conservative is a principal, not a party. Many of you say it's squishy, fine, I say it allows me to vote for the truest candidate. I donated to Fred, that's it. I will NEVER vote for McCain, and will think about Romney or Huckabee if it comes to that. If people like McCain, fine, it's their vote, same for the Paul people and anyone else. I have stopped voting just to win, that has just brought us to where we are today. When people want the right person, they'll wake up and vote for them. I'll sleep easy no matter who is elected because I did what I believed was right. If this is the best we can do, oh well. If no is ever going to put their feet to the fire than this will go on indefinitely.
We have heard how the distinguished senator has served for 4 DECADES. Where is his leadership? If he was the leader that the McCain supporters claim he is, where was he in directing the party? Why didn't he foresee the outcome of the last election cycle? Where was he? Probably chewing some no goood &^%$#@( $%^3 ?!@#$ &&*^!!! ?!># person out for not voting for him in the 2000 primaries.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
4 DECADES? McCain was first elected to the House in 1982. That is not even close to 40 years. So in your last couple of comments you have proven you don't know which states are red and which are blue, and you don't know how to count. You're giving the right-wing a bad name.
Call me a sore losser, a cry baby, spoiled, someone who doesn't play well with other, dumb.
But if John McCain gets the Republican nomination, as I anticipate he will, I will vote Democrat in the General Election. I will not just sit it out... I will actively campaign to bring as many fellow Republicans, fellow Conservatives, and others along with me to the polls.
Why? To voice my opposition to the Republican Party as it discounts the Conservative Principles of the Party... the Reagan-coalition. All legs of the coalition - social, fiscal and national security conservatives.
And the Republican base wants the borders closed... and no amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Like Dole... Johnny will be the whipping boy. And I intend to blog, contribute, and campaign against him. It is a matter of principle. When conservatives stand by our principles with the Constitution in hand, we win. But I refuse to sit on the sidelines and let the Republican Party be marginalized by compromising these principles; in trying to get along with the left's agenda.
And after 4 years of a Democratic White House (and Congress)... we will see who the Republican Party comes back to. (Too bad about all the conservative causes that will be lost during these four years... especially the justices and the loss of a war... but hopefully it will be a wakeup call to the Republican Party establishment.)
After four years of Hillary or Obama, possibly two or more Supreme Court appointments, a lot of blood and treasure spent in Iraq thrown away, increased taxation, perhaps Hillary Care Two jammed down our throats, and various other Democratic victory sponsored nightmares being reality....you'll be glad you helped bring that about to prove a point?
I'm glad you only get one vote. Of course, if you want more than one, you'll be voting for the people who'll let you do it.
Write in Fred Thompson's name. Maybe if enough conservatives do that - McCain will still lose but maybe it will send a message to the Republican Party Blue Bloods that we conservatives are not just going to fall in line behind who they want.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
I strongely support McCain. Certain writers here have layed it out better what I could have.
I will say this in 1980 Phil Crane was touted as the true conservative as Reagan had raised some fees and taxes as Governor plus he had signed an Abortion bill.
I say in this new era give McCain a chance to continue the Reagan legacy.
Four years of Hillary or eight years of McCain. Conservatism has a much better chance of coming back sooner with four years of Hillary.
Blue State by Birth, Red State by Choice
Personally I can't even guess who he'd endorse between McCain and Romney. He might have instead decided to run himself :-)
But would he endorse the nominee? I have no doubt of that. That's why I'm going to back the nominee myself.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
For like the 100th time, yes we know, we should all hold hands and dance around maypoles for McCain. Nevermind that when you tell people to leave McCain alone you trash Mitt Romney incessantly.
When you trash Mitt, you can kiss a nice chunk of Republican Conservatives goodbye.
I don't need to repeat that McCain will almost certainly cause a large amount of voters to sit this one out - including me.
YES, I am taking my marbles home, being a crybaby or whatever you guys like to say about people who don't goose-step for McCain.
Notice how nobody is mentionaing that while we're all supposed to fall in line behind McCain, this is the exact argument that Republicans have been making fun of Democrats and black voters for decades.
I won't fall in line. Waaa Waaaah waaaaah!
I explain why I think it would be a good idea to support the nominee.
I'm not trying to lead a STOP BOGEYMAN! campaign; my ego isn't wired that way.
When someone discounts Romney, they "can kiss a nice chunk of Republican Conservatives goodbye." I don't think so; remember, to most conservatives, Romney was not the real deal. And most of them did not even hear of Romney's trashing Ronald Reagan.
We're going to have our hands full beating Bill & Hill, should they triumph in Demland. (Barry will be, perhaps, even more difficult.) There are many things for which a conservative should like John McCain: Iraq and abortion spring first to mind. I shall concentrate on that and, after all these years, I can summon Reagan's optimism. It's one of the most valuable things ever given to me by a mortal man.
Write in Fred's name. McCain will still lose and we can send a message to the republicans.
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing." Fred D. Thompson
Come on, McCain has screwed conservatives so many times it's not even funny any more. I will support the nominee, but I will do everything in my power to make sure that McCain isn't the nominee. His blatant lies about Romney's stance on the surge are just the latest in a long line of examples of why I and many other conservatives do not like him
Jim C
Thinking Right
was not a blatant lie. Romney said what he said, and it was reported the way McCain indicated: Here, from ABC News, April 3, 2007: Romney Embraces Private Iraq 'Timetables'; and here, from The Hill newspaper, April 4, 2007: Romney advocates non-public Iraq benchmarks ["timetables and milestones"].
On Meet the Press last Sunday, McCain differentiated between Romney's talk of a timetable and Hillary's by indicating that Hillary's talk of a timetable was a call for surrender, in that it included a date certain for withdrawal. Romney's, by implication, was not.
What should Romney have said to Robin Roberts? Try: "Sorry, Robin, but we Republicans want to win this war. Timetables are for liberal Democrats and, frankly, the media."
What Romney did was not sinister, I don't think, but it was not the strong report he would later claim.
Mark
The thing is McCain is right, and so is Mitt, but for different reasons.
McCain was a b*** to the wall supporter of the surge from day one, show no quarter, full steam ahead.
Mitt when this quote came up was hedging at best. He was supporting the President, but at the same time appearing to also "Speak to Power" by pointing out that the President should be holding the Iraqi government's feet to the fire. Mitt was right in the sense that the President should do that sort of holding feet to the fire, but do it in private, but wrong in that he was placing a hedge bet so that if things went wrong Mitt could point to where he "told the President the truth".
Who's braver, who's got more courage?
I'd say McCain went all in, Mitt put a foot in both camps, and a train called McCain just hit him. McCain staked his presidential future on that bet, and won, Mitt not so much.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
necessary, we shouldn't advertise it to our enemy. Romney should have said that no timeline was necessary. But like I said in a comment in a thread a few days ago, basically what you said, it was a calculated political risk.
Sure, he does it then, but before then he was pretty explicit the other way. And then we have his comments in the debate:
MCCAIN: Well, of course, he said he wanted a timetable. Before that, we have to understand that we lost the 2006 election and the Democrats thought that they had a mandate. They thought they had a mandate to get us out of Iraq.
And I was prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary in order to stand up for what I believed in.
Now, in December of 2006, after the election, Governor Romney was won't weigh in. I'm a governor."
At the time, he didn't want to weigh in because he was a governor, I was out there on the front lines with my friends saying, "We not only can't withdraw, but we've got to have additional troops over there in order for us to have a chance to succeed."
Then in April, April was a very interesting year (sic) in 2007. That's when Harry Reid said the war is lost and we've got to get out. And the buzzword was "timetables, timetables."
Governor, the right answer to that question was "no," not what you said, and that was we don't want to have them lay in the weeds until we leave and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, "timetables."
"Timetables" was the buzzword for the...
ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote, Senator?
MCCAIN: ... withdrawal. That...
So his claim there doesn't fly, because he contradicted it both before then, and very explicitly after then. Disgusting and dishonorable.
It's not just the liberal positions of McCain (anti-tax cuts, pro-global warming nonsense, pro-amnesty, etc) but his attitude towards Conservatives that has eliminated any chance of my voting for him in November. There's that demented glee that McCain shows in spitting in the face of the base of the party that just makes no sense to me.
Even today, McCain is flanked by two liberal RINO's in Rudy and Arnold...at a friggin global warming event. You can't try any harder to alienate the base than that.
I would have had no problem holding my nose and voting for a guy I disagree with much of the time in Huckabee if he was winning since he, at least, seems to truly want to unite the party and not throw the Conservatives overboard and go back to the sickening "blue-blood" Republican days.
This is just a bizzare primary season.
I agree. I hope it hasn't torn us apart. Remember, the movement is a heck of a lot bigger than the McCains, Rudys, and Romneys.
But we do know what his son Michael said.
"As I watched McCain and Governor Romney go at it during the debate at the Reagan Library I was struck by the huge gap that separates McCain -- whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious -- and my dad, Ronald Reagan, who had nothing but the deepest affection and respect for the American people."
As they say, read the whole thing and weep.
I live in California and so my vote won't count anyway. I'll be writing in Ronald Reagan's name come election day. I've always want to vote for him (was 9 in 1984), so here's my chance.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
Politics is about choices, not perfection.
The fact is, if Republicans win in November even in this historical moment, it will totally demoralize the Democratic party of death for years to come; might even make them embrace conservative principles out of sheer self-preservation. That alone is worth a McCain presidency, however un-ideal.
Democracies by nature cannot self-destruct in four years. It takes decades for that to happen. Win in November, and achieve small goals that McCain can accomplish in 4 years like cutting govt spending and keeping the terrorists on the defensive, promoting life, invest in energy technologies, build the border fence, and in the meantime we prepare for 2012.
Don't give the Democrats hope. Bury them now. We can do it. Don't blow this chance. If the idea of McCain's presidency starts getting to you, just imagine the look on your liberal pundit-of-choice's face if they lose in November.
This article at NRO is right.
The anti-McCain hostility expressed by some posters here is understandable given that he has espoused some positions that conflict with traditional conservative thinking. I disagree with him on a number of things: handling illegal immigration, the campaign finance law, and global warming/drilling in ANWAR. I agree with him on national defense, cutting spending, and getting the deficit down. He wasn't my first choice, but of the ones who ran & remain in the race he's my preferred candidate. At this time national defense is my number one priority, and I think McCain is better on this issue.
Gov. Romney worries me because he's changed his positions on numerous big issues in a fairly short period of time. Maybe it's all genuine or maybe it was a conscious choice to position himself better to appeal to conservative voters. Either way, I find he's starting to grow on me and if he gets the nomination I'll support him.
The primary process is the logical place to sort out the potential candidates and select the final nominee. If the guy you wanted doesn't get the nod, then you may have a tough choice to make. Do you accept a candidate you may have deep disagreements with in order to support the party and what portions of its philosophy the nominee agrees with? Do you sit home and let other people decide who gets to be President? Do you vote for the Democratic nominee in hopes of punishing the GOP primary voters so that they see their error in nominating the wrong guy?
Who really gets punished if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama get elected? We faced a similar choice in 1992. Personally, I won't risk another term of the Clintons or turn the White House over to a charismatic but unqualified Senator Obama. One of them may ultimately get elected, but he/she won't benefit from my voting choice.
You got a (snide) Sullivan link.
And, belatedly, you are correct in your assessment. McCain is NOT Rockefeller reborn.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
...but it's going to be like Michael and Freddo in the Godfather.
McCain put much distance between himself and conservatives; his own doing, not ours. The timetables characterization was disshonest, irrespective of what ABC News and The Hill say.
I am not that foolish to vote against McCain, which would coronate Hillary. Nonetheless, if past is prologue, I have very little expectation of McCain advancing the conservative agenda as POTUS. Hey, but who knows, I could be surprised.
By the way, I will also wait untile Tuesday for the dead to be brought out.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report