Redstate

but are you willing to keep the same standard when you're dealing with Romney? If we're going to whitewash McCain's past mistakes, let's be consistent and focus on what Romney is proposing today and not on statements made over a decade ago.

Over and over and over again. I have stated that we have had our battles and it is time to move on. I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee, and I think if he isn't he would make an outstanding Secretary of Commerce. He is a committed family man, an accomplished private sector executive, did what nobody else could do with healthcare as Governor, and he single handedly turned around the Olympics. I personally would have hoped McCain would have let the "timetables" thing go after Florida, although I don't completely disagree with his point... Ron Paul was right, the argument was silly. It is time to come together.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

...You are dead on...

Go Huskies

The best harbinger of future conduct is your past conduct.

Based on John McCain's conduct toward conservatives and conservative ideals, if he were applying for a mortgage in 2005 (the height of the housing boom) he couldn't get a subprime loan with a 50% down payment and verified income.

Listening to Presidential candidates has turned into a 12 Step Meeting. "Hi, my name is [fill in name], and I've been sober for two days..."
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

can't we listen to his speech at CPAC and see what he has to say before we bring up the fact that he hasn't been there in past years, and beat him to death with it? According to Fox News McCain is now the pick of half of Republicans. It. Is. Over. Continuing to tear him down only helps HRC, in my view. That been said, I certainly can relate to the frustration conservatives have.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

I'll be willing to believe him if, and ONLY if, he lays out specifics.

For instance, on the judiciary nominations, were he to say that he would have a committee headed by Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada who were going to short list nominees for him, and that he would, in no uncertain terms, NEVER under any circumstance consult with the Senate before he makes a nomination, I'll listen intently. I'd also like to hear him say that he'll demand that the Judiciary Committee hold hearings and send nominees to the floor for an up or down vote in [time frame] days.

On immigration, we'll complete the southern wall, we'll upgrade border security and we'll enforce existing immigration law before we discuss a "path to citizenship" or legalizing illegial aliens in any manner.

I'm not holding my breath.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

and that he would, in no uncertain terms, NEVER under any circumstance consult with the Senate before he makes a nomination

Really? I hope he'd be like President Clinton that way,

McCain (to a few Republicans and Democrats), "Here are the names of people I'm thinking about, will any of them be easier to confirm?"

Lieberman responds first, "No way is Brown making it through, but McConnell will probably go as Roberts' nomination went and be confirmed."

Brownback says, "No way were backing someone who is unknown. We're happy with McConnell too."

etc.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

He's been in bed with the Democrats and the Republican idiots on the Judiciary forever. Just why does he need anybody to tell him who "his friends" will vote for or aganist. If he doesn't know now, he'll never know.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

that would be an excellent ad. Good idea.

Interviewer to man on the street: Did you know that Mitt Romney rejected Ronalnd Reagan and claimed to be an independent, quote "not wanting to go back to reagan-bush" and that he vowed to protect a woman's right to choose?

Man on the street "Well, I figure he'll say anything for a vote, so I'm not surpised."

I mean, seriously... granted, I'd rather just have Roe overturned and let the chips fall where they may, but that sort of an ad sounds like it would have the potential to backfire, especially considering that McCain in the past has been no friend of religious conservatives...

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

the term of the greatest freaking President in the history of man. Yes, I do. Do I think it should determine whether or not he is the nominee. No, I don't.

I don't think the point is that McCain should actually run this ad, but rather that both candidates could spend time throwing bricks from glass houses... it isn't going to get us anywhere. They should stop. Both of them. Move on.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

It's interesting again that virtually all of the critiques of Mitt Romney are over his words while virtually all of the critiques of McCain are based on his actions.

It's telling, no?

Perhaps because Mitt didn't accomplish anything as governor worth mentioning, besides a failing big government healthcare plan and raising hundreds of millions in "fees".

Yes, that is telling.

ignorance or bias.

I have no delusions that Romney is the perfect candidate. But to say that Romney has no conservative record at all is simply inaccurate and misleading. What's even more impressive is that he was able to accomplish as much as he did while running an overwhelmingly liberal state. When one fairly takes that into consideration it's hard not to be impressed that he was able to accomplish as much as he did. Here are a just a few of the good deeds from an admittedly mixed overall White Paper on Romney from the Club for Growth:

"During his 2002 campaign for governor, Mitt Romney pledged to balance the budget without raising taxes and touted his fulfillment of that pledge throughout his term."

"In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the state's income-tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0% - a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006..."

"Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002. Governor Romney also signed legislation that provided property tax relief to seniors and legislation establishing a two-day tax-free shopping holiday in 2005."

"Average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%."

"Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash 'nearly every part of state government' to close a $3 billion deficit."

"Romney attempted to cut down on government spending by streamlining many duplicative and wasteful elements of Beacon Hill. ... Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch's press positions, saving $1.2 million."

"He also used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the state's $1.2 billion rainy day fund."

"Governor Romney tried to deregulate the overregulated healthcare insurance coverage."

"As governor, Romney pushed for important changes to Massachusetts expansive welfare system. Although federal welfare reform passed in 1995, Massachusetts was woefully behind, relying on a waiver to bypass many of the legislation's important requirements. Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts' welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system."

"Romney's anti-regulation efforts reflect an intuitive appreciation for the free market and its important role in promoting economic growth. While many of his proposals were rejected by the State Legislature, he demonstrated strong support for private enterprise in a state where regulation is a way of life."

"From his 1994 Senate race, to his gubernatorial campaign in 2002, and throughout his four years as governor, Romney was a strong proponent of tort reform..."

"Though some of his largest undertakings were ultimately crushed by liberal opposition, Governor Romney deserves praise for attempting to change the relationship between government and private enterprise for the better. These efforts include:

* Vetoed an increase in the minimum wage from $6.75 to $8.00, proposing a 25-cent increase as a compromise, and arguing that "there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs"
* Pushed to revamp the Pacheco Law, a union-backed measure that makes it nearly impossible to privatize or outsource state services
* Aggressively pushed to deregulate Massachusetts' "Soviet-style" auto insurance industry. Massachusetts is the only state in which the government mandates maximum insurance rates and requires insurers to accept every applicant
* Called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school
* Proposed measures to eliminate civil service protection for all municipal workers except police and firefighters and exempt low-cost public construction jobs from the state's wage law
* Proposed easing decades-old state regulations on wetlands
* Proposed easing pricing regulations on Massachusetts retailers
* Signed a bill streamlining the state's cumbersome permitting process for new businesses
* Eased regulations for brownfield development
* Vetoed a bill limiting the ability of out-of-state wineries to ship directly to Massachusetts consumers, calling the legislation "anti-consumer"

There's more, both good and bad, in the full report here:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/media/uploads/070820-white-paper-romney.pdf

For the intellectually honest, additional references to Romney's good deeds could include:

In each of the four fiscal-year budgets that crossed his desk, Governor Romney used the line-item veto power more than 800 times.

*WALL STREET JOURNAL'S PAUL GIGOT: "Was Governor Romney willing to use his veto pen to do that in Massachusetts?" BEACON HILL INSTITUTE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAVID TERCK: "He most certainly was. He vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in spending." (Fox News' "Journal Editorial Report," 3/31/07)

*In 2006 Governor Mitt Romney vetoed a bill that would require the state to develop prekindergarten education programs for every Massachusetts child age 2 to 4, saying the proposal was too costly and unproven.

*In 2004, Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants.

*In 2004, Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed A Moratorium On Opening New Charter Schools.

*In 2003, Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed A Provision That Would Have Weakened The Work Requirement For Welfare Recipients.

*In 2003, Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed A Provision That Would Have Renewed A Prescription Drug Tax.

*In 2004, Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed Retroactive Pay Increases For State Employees

Again, he was able to accomplish these things while at the same time taking a bold stand opposing same-sex marriage and looking for a conservative compromise on stem-cells while sitting smack-dab in the middle of Ted Kennedy's backyard.

When you compare all this with the spotty record of a certain "maverick" Senator from conservative-leaning Arizona, I'm more than comfortable stacking Romney's "deeds" up against McCain's any time.

"The fact that someone as bright as Mr. Romney doesn't recognize this Beltway reality risks a Presidency that would get rolled quicker than you can say Jimmy Carter.

All the more so because we haven't been able to discern from his campaign, or his record in Massachusetts, what his core political principles are. Mr. Romney spent his life as a moderate Republican, and he governed the Bay State that way after his election in 2002. While running this year, however, he has reinvented himself as a conservative from radio talk show-casting, especially on immigration.

The problem is not that Mr. Romney is willing to reconsider his former thinking. Nor is it so much that his apparent convictions always seem in sync with the audience to which he is speaking at the moment. (Think $20 billion in corporate welfare for Michigan auto makers.) Plenty of politicians attune their positions to new constituencies. The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy.

Governor Romney experimented with his consultant-centric approach in the Massachusetts laboratory, and the result was the "universal" health-care program the state adopted in 2006. As he tells it, the experts crunched the data. As he doesn't tell it, his initiative became a petri dish for the latest liberal health-care theories."

After reading that list, I think you've proven that Romney governed as a moderate Republican. And I now offically accept him as such. Job well done, cbs. Sincerely. There were several fiscal issue successes (if you totally ingnore the hundreds of millions in "fees" which somehow were left off the list) but I don't see any social issue laws "propsed", let alone accomplished. Why did his social conversion happen half-way through his only term, when he knew he would run for President. Why is he trying to pass himself off as THE conservative choice, rather than the one term moderate that he is?

All the McCainiacs on here (and I would include you as well until I know better) say that we who are opposed to him should stand loyal to him for party unity - that he will govern as a conservative, because we'll hold his feet to the fire. Yet, he represented freakin' Arizona and he still pulled his stuff.

Look at where Mitt Romney governed, though. Massachusetts. Been up there before? I have-after all, my wife is from there, and I therefore spend a decent amount of time up there. The statement that Massachusetts is liberal is like saying a Saint Bernard has a slight saliva issue. Since 85% Democrat legislature doesn't quite illustrate it for you, let me help. 33-5 in the Senate (2 vacancies), and 141-19 in the House. It's the only state Nixon lost in 72, and it was nearly lost by Reagan in 84. Let's just say conservatism is a harder sell up in those parts. Yet, he was able to fiscally (and in a couple of ways, socially) govern as a conservative, and get some good things passed. And as for the bad? Don't forget even Reagan was fallible.

All I'm trying to say is that Mitt Romney had a reason to govern as a moderate. McCain has had no reasons to legislate as a moderate. So, when it all comes down to it, why is it that McCain is the good one, and you're willing to excoriate Romney upon the alter of purity?

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

DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.

When was the last time Mitt Romney took a trip their by the way?

have been there multiple times. So what?

I'm betting the troops would rather they put that money in a war funding bill, get it to them on time and stay the hell out of the way.

Traveling under tight security, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday wrapped up an unannounced, one-day trip to Iraq to visit troops from Massachusetts, and warned against a ``cut and run" pullout from the war-torn country.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/25/romney_m...

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So there it is, a toss up between Katie and Al Franken for President, assuming that's the sum of qualifications.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

that he is a conservative when he needs us, not a Republican.

this front-page post by oddis is one of the silliest i've seen at redstate in a while...

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

As I've said before, McCain is winning the nomination without much conservative support. (The Fox poll going into Super Tuesday has him at 48, Romney at 20, Huck at 19. It's possible McCain will win all the Southern states up, as well as the big coastal ones).

OK, Let's play you game. Here's a prediction on how this is going to play out

He's winning right now because of the MSM support of him and Moderate/Liberal voters crossing over to vote for him. We know this man. We've seen him operate. He'll keep talking about how Conservative he is, hoping to pull enough conservatives to cobble together with his Moderate/Liberal brethren, and when he's got the nomination he'll run as what he's always been.

This might work on paper if you think Conservatives will turn out and vote for you and you can add Moderate/Liberal support to the base to win the election. It also works on paper if you ignore the fact that the MSM and the cross over votes he is currently getting will be GONE as soon as the general election. Undoubtedly as with Boob Dole he will have that deer caught in the headlights look on his face when his MSM buddies turn on him and will stumble along during the general election campaign looking for an issue to run on that will go nowhere. He will run as Boob Dole ran in 1996 by Pandering to moderates and the MSM while trashing the base of his party. He will bounce around on issue after issue al the while pleading with his former allies in the MSM to help him and will not know how to handle it when they tear him apart on every issue because after all....he'll be the Republican running against their real darlings Clinton/Obama. He will be stunned on election day when discouraged and demoralized Conservatives stay home and his normal base of support goes to the Dems.

He won't win the election with a demoralized conservative base and there will be more than enough discouraged Republicans who will stay home after his incompetent and confused campaign winds to an end to leave him lost and bewildered as Boob Dole and the rest of the Rockefeller Republican Establishment were in 1996.

Meanwhile we'll spend at least 4 years under a Democrat president and we will have the "Maverick Senator from Arizona" tho thank for it.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

He's ten times the man you are.

Romney/Pace 2008

I've mentioned it before, but apparently he thinks calling a guy who sacrificed as much as Bob Dole did for his country "Boob" is good humor.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I respect and honor his service and sacrifice in world war two but a have nothing but contempt for his tenure in the leadership in the Senate and as a candidate for President!

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!

You can't possibly look at his campaign in 1996 and conclude it was anything more than a sick joke and I defy you and anyone else here at Red State to tell me what he was running on or why he wanted to be President.

My overall point is that we are about to revisit 1996 becasue McCain is Dole and Dole is MaCain...They are appeasers of the Democrats.

To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!

Go Mike Go!!!