Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Like JFK Said Of Nixon, "No Class"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Growing Noses | John McCain | Mitt Romney — Comments (126) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Tuesday night, John McCain won big and looked like a big man doing so.
Wednesday night, John McCain looked small.
I suppose that I can understand if McCain is feeling upset over the fact that he was the target of a number of negative ads from Mitt Romney. But after watching his performance during the debate at the Reagan Library, I can't say that I feel all that sympathetic. Maybe I should, but I don't.
See, the problem stems from statements McCain has made arguing that Romney wanted timetables to be agreed on that would have short-circuited the reconstruction effort in Iraq. McCain claimed that Romney's calls for timetables would have brought about a precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and thus, he sought to lump Romney with Democrats who want to use timetables to bring the troops home. It is true that Romney did say that timetables were needed. However, his quote deserves to be flushed out:
Well, there's no question the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but they shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone.
Analyzing Romney's words isn't difficult if you have a basic command of the English language. Romney very clearly said that the timetables "shouldn't be for public pronouncement." And the reason he believed--and believes--this, is that he didn't and doesn't want the insurgency and the terrorists in Iraq "to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until [American troops are] going to be gone."
Read on . . .
Want more? Here is the full video. And yes, I know that this is all over the Internets (and earlier here on RedState), but it bears watching again:
Just to be absolutely clear about this, there is no way that any fair minded person could watch Romney's comments and conclude that he was using the word "timetables" in the same way that the Democrats were using it and with the intention to bring about a precipitous withdrawal. The quote above and the video could not possibly be more explicit on the topic.
Romney's position is entirely consistent with the mainstream Republican view on this issue. But McCain, like a grumpy old man who decided that he ought to see just how far he could push a lie, tried to argue that because the word "timetables" was a "buzzword" for precipitous withdrawal, Romney was for precipitous withdrawal because he used the word "timetables." Never mind the context, which made absolutely clear that Romney was not for short-circuiting the mission in Iraq. McCain was and is bound and determined to prove that Romney wanted to use timetables to bring about precipitous withdrawal and he won't let anything like inconvenient facts stand in the way. I mean really; saying the word "timetables" in an interview doesn't mean that you agree with Harry Reid on the need to pull American troops out immediately. Does that actually have to be explained? If it's the rule that the mere utterance of a word symbolizes the worst kind of identification with that word, then I suppose we can have all sorts of fun with McCain. Surely, he said words like "bad," "evil," and "stupid" in the past. Therefore, John McCain's ethics are beyond questionable and his IQ is in the low two digits.
See? I can play this game too.
I really don't like writing this but McCain is lying. These are lies. They are being told by a liar. And a bad one at that; again, anyone can tell that McCain is blatantly misrepresenting Romney's position on this issue. And this is being done by the candidate in the driver's seat for the Republican Presidential nomination. One wonders what McCain would do if he felt he was behind. This is reprehensible.
McCain tried to cover this up by arguing--in addition to the above fatuous nonsense he seeks to peddle to a public he must deem genuinely imbecilic--that Romney was reticent on the surge because in December, 2006, he took the position that he could not comment on the surge as the Governor of Massachusetts. Paul Mirengoff swats this argument aside:
. . . this in no way supports McCain's claim that Romney supported withdrawal. No one disputes that McCain was way ahead of Romney (and nearly everyone else) on the question of how to succeed in Iraq. What's now in dispute is McCain's ability to tell the truth about this subject.
If McCain were smart, he would have just stuck with the argument that he pushed for the surge while Romney was reticent. But McCain, at least on this issue, is being tremendously stupid. He has sacrificed a potentially legitimate critique of Romney's position on Iraq by blatantly and shamelessly telling falsehoods. It does not help, of course, that McCain, in addition to all of this, chose to parade his ignorance of economics and business and his contempt for businessmen and capitalists by stating that Romney worked for "profit" and not patriotism, and by painting Romney as a cold-blooded job-killer as a venture capitalist. Ted Kennedy paraded these dishonest tactics back in 1994 when he defended his Senate seat against Romney. Why does McCain think that Republicans will applaud him for stealing a page out of the Kennedy playbook?
Ronald Reagan, whose library hosted the debate, was a man of grace, dignity and genuine good humor. McCain is the anti-Reagan. He is dark and bullying and his behavior was appalling. If he becomes the Republican nominee, I will support him because his ideas will be closer to mine than will the eventual Democratic nominee's. Too bad, however, that if McCain runs in the fall, I will be voting against someone this November rather than voting for John McCain.
Oh, and by the way, should McCain actually descend from Olympus to read this blog post: Enough with the constant Rumsfeld trashing. We get it. You don't like him. Guess what? A reliable source tells me Rumsfeld doesn't care. Also, clean up your own act before casting stones.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Sen. McCain's Ongoing Olive Branch — Comments (138) »
Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them 126 Comments (0 topical, 126 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I will not coalesce around someone who flip flops on positions in the middle of a debate on issues and governs to the left of Huckabee.
If Romney wins the nomination, he will have to work to get my vote.
Take the (insert metaphor) blinders off.
I will vote for Romney, but it will take a group of horses to pull me into a McCain vote. Yes, I'll take a conservative flip-flopper over a liberal Republican any day...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
What exactly is a conservative flip-flopper?
I would think if you admit that he changes with the wind, you'd acknowledge that he isn't conservative.
governing a blue state. Plus, conservative values and progressive values are fundamentally different. Having Progressive values is like having a closet full of fancy clothes; you can wear the outfit that suits the event. Conservative values are a single pill that when taken is internalized and unchangeable, and can be seen in everything one does; not by what one shows others, but by the works one accomplishes. A look at Romney's life and works are all the proof we need to know his core.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
Well at least your not going to coalesce around McCain either then. McCain flip flopped on securing our borders just last night. This summer he was pro-amnesty but now he just wants to build a fence. The best answer he comes up with when asked if he would sign his own immigration bill if he were president is "it will never pass the congress". To take a page from your book Sen McCain, the correct answer is "NO".
Okay, so will the real Mitt Romney step up?
In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal--and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad. At the time, Romney said, "I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Immigration.htm
The thing is, if you knock Senator McCain for his stance on immigration or 'lying', then do the same for the Mittster. Last night, he said that immigrant students should finish their year in school then go home. But just 3 years ago, he said they should get financial aid.
Put a finger in the air and see where the wind is blowing.
And this is the candidate that some conservatives want to follow?
Last night, he said that immigrant students should finish their year in school then go home. But just 3 years ago, he said they should get financial aid.
This is pure unadulterated BS. And you know why it is BS? Because he vetoed the bill that would have done exactly that. Saying that "I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state ..." is not the same as saying they should get financial aid.
It is only human to feel for these kids. I am as four-square against in-state tuition for illegal immigrants as anyone but that does not mean it does not tear me up that kids who through no fault of their own are put in that situation.
Why is it so difficult for you RomneyNots to comprehend that there are *some* people, who are capable of looking at both sides of an issue without it being a sign of latent moral torpitude?
"Why is it so difficult for you RomneyNots to comprehend that there are *some* people, who are capable of looking at both sides of an issue without it being a sign of latent moral torpitude?"
It's not looking at both sides - that's a tremendously lacking virtue today and quite a strength. It's supporting both sides that make me queasy. I'd rather someone support the opposite side and me KNOW it than for me to hear what what I want to hear and not know if you really mean it.
It's not looking at both sides - that's a tremendously lacking virtue today and quite a strength.
Which is precisely what Romney did. He simply acknowledged the consequences; that many children (because the children of illegal immigrants are indeed still children) would have their lives made harder. It's the out and out truth and it's not something you can fairly fault him for.
It's supporting both sides that make me queasy. I'd rather someone support the opposite side and me KNOW it than for me to hear what what I want to hear and not know if you really mean it.
And yet, when the time came, he vetoed the bill. He sided with the law. I don't see what else he can do to prove he has taken one side over the other that has more meaning than that other than slitting his wrist and signing the veto statement with his own blood.
Voting for anyone else is a vote for McCain.
But what is a vote for Mitt? Whatever Mitt's deeply held convictions happen to be this week?
Maybe so. But if John McCain is such a liberal republican that he is utterly unacceptable, it stands to reason that a man that ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for Senate would be, at the very least, just as bad.
If I vote for Mitt Romney, how do I know I'm not getting Mitt Romney 1994, Mitt Romney 2002, or even the Mitt Romney that wanted to bail out the auto industry in Michigan two weeks ago?
Because he says he's a conservative now and he means it for real this time?
... the Mitt Romney that wanted to bail out the auto industry in Michigan two weeks ago?
Really, is it necessary to employ hyperbole to such a point that it crosses the threshold into falsehood? Did you even read the speech?
Romney ran even with Kennedy on abortion, and with the Contract with America on everything else.
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
... is a fundamentally different undertaking than running in state like, say, Maine. How many of MA's Republican governors in the past 16 years actually finished both terms without bailing for more fertile ground?
Romney's platform in 1994 was practically identical to the Contract with America - the problem was that marketing it as the "Republican Contract with America" would have led to more than the 10 point drubbing Ted Kennedy ended up giving him.
The GOP brand is nothing short of toxic in Massachusetts - governing as a Republican facing such an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature must have been a &%$@+|! nightmare.
but you do know you get liberal immigration, joint bills with Ted Kennedy, and more than likely, liberal judges for the future. I would vote for the unknown rather than the McCain known...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
We always look to the words of politicians instead of looking to there votes to determine what kind of leader they will be. All politicians will say what they think the voters want to hear to get elected, but there record is evidence of where there convictions really lie. They are all flip floppers.
there is no way that any fair minded person could watch Romney's comments and conclude that he was using the word "timetables" in the same way that the Democrats were using it
I disagree with this statement. If we all were to take the way back machine we would remember that core elements of the GOP were shaking the their boots after the loss in November - and to be straight with you - I took Romney's comment the same way McCain did.
The strategy was laid out by Asa Hutchenson I think - and the point was we would have a private time table from which to withdraw with if things were not achieved.
The idea, of course, was shot down.
Let me also add this, I shed no tears for Romney who lied about everyone else on the campaign trail at some point or time. As Rush would say about others complaining about negative ads being ran by Romney - suck it up, its a campaign and you should expect this.
In fact I would take things a step further and note that all those who are attacking McCain at this moment are them selves breaking Reagan's 11th commandment.
The truth is, we hear more negative about McCain, Huckabee, Thompson and everyone else except Romney, who is getting a pass by Hannity, Limbaugh and NRO.
I dont get it either, because in my eyes the man is the Republican version of John Kerry while presenting us with no new ideas or vision - just cheap shots at rivals. That in its self is not Reaganeque if you ask me.
What is wrong with time tables and mile stones? Even Gen Patraeus in his testimony to congress in September talked about how he and his staff discussed time tables and benchmarks with Malaki and the Iraqi government. The point of the surge was to give the Iraqi's oppertunity to reach certain goals in order to establish a working government. There were milestones laid out outlining what success was. The President said out commitment wasn't open ended. If the Iraqi's can't get there act together to secure THERE country and meet those milestones then we shouldn't continue to give them our support. We don't need to enable there failures. At any stage of a war there should be a time table for success so you can bring your people home
I don't know, I can't make sense of what he was trying to say. Timetables are ok if they are secret? Sounds like he was hedging his bets at the time. "I don't favor a withdrawal, but I'm for timetables, but not overt ones...secret ones!" And what happens if those timetables aren't met?
Seems pretty clear to me that Romney was leaving himself some wiggle room for later. I don't totally agree with Senator McCain here, but I'm not buying Romney's explanation.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Its vintage Mitt. Just like he said he would sign the assualt weapon ban that never got to Bush, but would push for no new legislation.
He flip-flopped in the same sentence and really didnt answer the question on whether or not gun control legislation would pass.
Based on his record and his answer I would have to say yes - if Democrats would send him a bill.
... I can see why you'll be completely confused as to what he was trying to say. Of course it also helps if you have already decided to disbelieve everything he says and constantly read between the lines for "hidden" meanings. Possessing the determination to attribute the most uncharitable interpretation to what he's saying would also be a great help.
Every war (or business) plan employs timetables and milestones. i.e. By the 3rd of July, we should have reached Point A. If not, fallback to Z by the 5th of July and advance to C ... In other words, contrary to John McCain and RomneyNots; timetable != withdrawal.
I don't think there's any need to explain why keeping such timetables a secret is so important.
Since you "can't make sense of what he was trying to say," let me explain to to you.
"I don't favor a withdrawal," means "I don't favor a withdrawal."
"I'm for timetables, but not overt ones...secret ones!" means "Plans should include timetables. Timetables are simply a chronology of goals and a means to determine whether or not we are meeting those goals effectively. They're called 'metrics,' because they allow us to measure our progress. Because they indicate what our overall strategy is, and what tactics we might employ to achieve victory, they aren't for pubic consumption. Although we want to know how we are progressing against our schedule of goals, we certainly don't want our enemies to know that, and we therefore must keep them secret. You know, like we didn't announce the date of D-Day, and we tried to mislead the Germans into thinking we'd try to land somewhere else when it did happen."
This is all standard project management terminology, taught at all the military academies and at every business school, probably even at law schools. A war is one GIGANTIC project. It can't be left to itself to just wander along to whatever conclusion it might come to.
"And what happens if those timetables aren't met?"
Then you know that your tactics haven't been effective and you change tactics, maybe even change leadership. Maybe you come up with a "surge." And maybe you just adjust the timetable.
When you drive from Chicago to LA, there's more than two thousand miles along the way. If you plan the trip to reach St. Louis in 8 hours, but it takes a full day, you don't just stay there, or turn back, or just keep plodding along. You might adjust your plans to eliminate some sightseeing. You might take a plane; you might take a train. Or, you might just drive faster, knowing it will cost more than you had first planned.
I hope that helps.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
When asked, he was describing what he assumed Bush and Maliki were doing behind closed doors. Planning for time lines and goals to get the violence under control and get some laws passed.
Romney was supporting that approach. Nothing more nothing less.
Mountain out of a mole hill and we all know the rest of the story.
Let's see, Romney lied, McCain lied, what...politicians lie? Give me a break...both are lousy lairs, who are you going to believe? Hey, they are politicians so what do you expect? No reason to get riled up about either...just vote for the one that can win.
Is'nt that the object? No principles involved, vote for the one that can win.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The true words of someone with no real political convictions. Voting for McCain simply because the polls in the media have determined he has the best shot at beating the Dems is the silliest thing I have heard. How accurate have the polls been this year? They haven't. When McCain was asked last night why Ronald Reagan would endorse him, one of his answers was because he sticks to his convictions. He has said that many times before. McCain's convictions are amnesty for illegal immigrants, voting against the bush tax cuts, federal funding for stem cell research, and the list goes on. If your willing to vote for that record as long as your voting fot the winner, you're going to love November if McCain's the candidate becuase both McCain and Hillary share the same views.
I don't mind his attack on Romney on this point, but I did mind his backhanded attack on Romney for cutting jobs in business, and for being successful in business.
I was also very sorry that he made such a poor attack on Romney's economic record in the beginning, which Romney easily and compellingly defeated.
He will have to do much better than this if he becomes the nominee and debates Clinton or Obama. He can't let himself become personal and petty because he doesn't like the other candidate.
And Clinton or Obama will attack McCain much more severely and unfairly than Romney ever has.
Start practising, Senator. Politics ain't beanbag.
for the recognizing that he defamed Romney incorrectly, but you also lose 10 points for thinking that he won with his defamation of Romney. Good Luck in the election.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Where did I write that I thought that McCain "won with his defamation of Romney"?
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
So words were twisted to make some campaign points. Mr. Starched Shirt Romney is now crying that he was unfairly hit. Cry me a river. The dude spent $100M+ sliming his opponents and now he runs around sobbing because he got hit back?
This was a long time coming.
Here's a question Romney's team might want to ask about the rest of the Republican candidates: Why do they hate us so?
Visit The Scratching Post!
It's okay to lie about Romney since he engaged in negative ads as well.
Try reading around this site and you will find that there are plenty of occasions that I have taken Romney to task for his words. Because of last night's debate, now it's McCain's turn to be taken to task.
Oh, and one more thing: Two wrongs don't make a right. Hope that helps.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
and RS less. No offense to the directors here but this is more edifying and intriguing (and optimistic) than anything I've read here yet. From her lips to God's ear.
As a FredHead, the McCain vs. Mitt stuff here is mindnumbing anymore. I'd give a whole heck of a lot for our nominee not to be either one.
Voting Fred on Feb. 5th.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I even wrote a piece endorsing him. Will you read us now?
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
That comment he made about Mitt's money just made me wince. He just seemed so, what's the word, unpresidential, last night. We saw the petty, arrogant McCain and it brought back so many of the reasons I don't like him.
A smaller point. He is not a good debater. He is neither smooth or articulate. He is going to get creamed by Hillarious or Obama. Bob Dole redux.
this household has decided he's already starting on the road to senility. Only Hillary is less pleasant to see and hear.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Last night McCain looked like Hillary going after Obama by throwing out cheap shots and petty barbs at Romney. Apparently McCain feels he needs to sink into the gutter to win. I am troubled by McCain's sleezy, dishonorable performance last night. Until last night, I always viewed McCain as a man of honor. Now I'm not so sure.
I also noticed that McCain got his facts wrong several times. When Romney pointed out some of McCain's errors, McCain wouldn't concede the point but would start talking about a different issue to avoid having to admit his error.
In a two-man debate with Hillary, I fear McCain would get savaged. I think Romney would do much better in a debate against Hillary. He has a better command of the facts and puts across his ideas more clearly and succinctly.
Romney's not my first pick, but I feel even more strongly than before that if I have to pick between McCain and Romney, I'll take Romney.
I'd also take Huckabee over McCain. Speaking of Huckabee, I thought he did quite well last night.
Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm
Not only will he have more practice by then, but I think he has more trouble reacting well to attacks from party members than from members of the opposing party.
And indeed I find this quite human. It is much harder to stay calm when attacked by someone on your side than when attacked by opponents.
I'm not excusing how McCain behaved - merely trying to explain it. I think there is reason to think he will not be petty when confronting Clinton or Obama.
He has trouble reacting to attacks from members of his own party because he is not a republican! Unless you mean that he is going to learn more eloquent profanitites....
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
This might help cure you, though...
http://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/2008/01/spoiled-brats-against-john-mccain...
It's bad enough we had to endure a president that lied and didn't know the definition of "is". I was an officer in the Air Force and integrity was and is the foremost attribute of any leader. John McCain should know this, of all people.
Let's keep Mitt out of this for one minute and remember, John McCain lied. He is a retired officer and should know ALOT better. He has disgraced his service.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
I wish we would all stop saying "he's not a Republican."
Of course he is. He has a membership card that says so. He's just not a committed conservative.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
says more about the accusers than the targets. Stop it already.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
I didn't see you getting on the soapbox here when people were decrying the liberals for BDS. If you think so little of the people who call people on MDS then the only logically consistent position is to fault those of us who pointed out BDS.
And I doubt that's your position.
Maybe you should stop it already.
The point for me on this matter is that people calling McDS are not only conceding that the next 4-8 years will be every bit as hyperpartisan as the last 16, they are actually taking the lead in bringing about this state of affairs.
Shame on you. Shouldn't we at least *desire* a world in which political DS'es of any sort are a thing of the past? Why actually buck for more by being the first to call it, in the primaries, before your guy is even nominated much less elected? Is that already all you got left, at THIS early stage?
Calling DS to defend a sitting president is one thing. But calling DS in a primary, against your own party, is not only another thing entirely, it is an extremely bad sign for your candidate. If you feel you have no choice but to call DS against half of *your own party*, what the hell do you think the other party is going to do?
------------------------
"Put your faith in God. I know *I'm* going to..."
-Taniwha
This is the same John McCain who shows up at every other event. The good John appears rather infrequently. As a matter of fact, the MSM will play up his meltdowns after he secures the nomination. I noticed the first left-wing hit piece yesterday on McCain's age. Temperament columns soon will follow.
This man, who was supposed to mitigate congressional and senate losses, in the end will cost us seats. Given I think McCain is all but inevitable at this point, paint me unhappy with a stupid party establishment that finds such tirades cute while they nauseate a weary electorate.
you're talking like limbaugh, beck and all the other crazy radio hosts.
mccain, bad. romney, good.
if you think mccain is this way at other events, you have never watched a speech by him, nor a townhall meeting, nor read a reporter's interview.
and I supported him until then. The best quote about the senator I ever heard came from someone who actually is his friend: "John is a great guy six out of every seven days." There will be plenty of seven-day weeks between nomination and the general election, and if this man can't be kept under control the media will run with each and every outburst. If you believe otherwise, you have totally deluded yourself.
That is simplistic and uninformed. I suspect for Rush, Mitt is 1% better than McC. None is really acceptable. Personally I find all the remaining candidates on both sides fatally, I say fatally, flawed. I blame the internet.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
because I'm not a fan of that medium. This is about settling and choosing poorly. For all I know, McCain might go through nomination to the general election and comes across as Mr. Congeniality. The odds are, though, he will devolve into a snarling, angry outburst at some point and that will be televised at each and every turn, juxtaposed with a very calm Hillary crying ever so gently for the camera.
As to Romney, he was a pillar of reason by comparison last night. I never thought I could say anything positive about the governor, but as I have watched him and contrasted him with other candidates it has become painfully apparent he is the calmer, more telegenic, and better communicator of the lot. I say "painfully" because I believe this process is all but over.
...knowing full well that he can get away with it. Already, the press narrative is that he was giving that meanie Romney just what he deserved.
In the general, though, I don't see either Obama or Clinton as a particularly good debater. Obama dodges too much and Clinton seems to have the same sort of Janus-like behavior that Al Gore exhibited in 2000. Not sure either one would mop the floor with McCain, but I don't see him particularly trouncing either one, either.
"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
Those of you defending McCain do so at great peril. One must always plan on winning and, therefore, also have a timetable for the handing over of security and withdrawel of forces. Are we just to fight, fight, fight and then one day say, "My gosh! We won! Now what do we do?" C'mon, be real.
Your standing up for a liar is indicative of the state of the union today. Thankyou for driving us one step closer to the edge.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
To make matters worse, McCain supported benchmarks in 2007.
WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.
Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain's thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.
McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.
Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."
Straight talk, my rear end.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I think you summed it up very well when you said that a McCain nomination would result in a negative vote against ultra liberal tax and spend socialism. I would much rather be able to cast a positive vote for true conservative principles that a Romney nomination would allow. I hope McCain's performance at the debate last night will finally wake people up to the way the man truly is. He is a mean old man!
As much as I detest his policies, Obama is a young good-looking black man that is one of the best speakers I have heard in a very long time. I just can't see a mean old man being able to pull out a win over a young vibrant man. If Obama wins the democratic nomination then there is no way McCain stands a chance. Romney, on the other hand, would have no problem standing toe-to-toe with Obama and presenting himself as the right candidate for positive change in Washington.
I don't know exactly what Romney meant when he talked about secret time tables between Bush and Maliki. It should be noted that Romney has been saying for many months that we should stay in Iraq until the job is done. But, even if Romney was saying we should have secret time tables with Mr. Maliki, what on earth would be wrong with putting Mr. Maliki on notice that we're not going to allow him and his fellow Shiites to play us for suckers forever? Does McCain want us to just give the Shiites an open-ended blank check? How long does McCain want us to expend blood and treasure to do the Shiites job for them?
The main purpose of the surge was to give the Shiites more time to bring about political reconciliation with the Sunnis. The Shiites have done almost nothing that we've asked them to do in this regard. That's because they don't want to reconcile with the Sunnis.
And did anyone notice that last night McCain said he would *not* sign McCain-Kennedy? But when he appeared on Meet the Press recently he said he *would* sign McCain-Kennedy if it came to his desk. I think that's called a flip-flop.
Also, McCain now says Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and he's said this would be a positive development. But in 1999 McCain said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations." I think that's called a flip-flop too.
To be fair, McCain's voting record is largely pro-life, and he's been very good on supporting conservative judges. But if McCain's going to attack Romney for changing his mind on a few issues, the Romney folks should point out McCain's contradictory statements on Roe v. Wade and McCain-Kennedy.
Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm
He CO-AUTHORED legislation that he wouldn't sign into law? Am I to believe that McCainiacs would support someone that wastes everybody's time and money on legislation that no American believes in, except the Dems, and that he ultimately would not approve?
I work in a corporate environment and I would be fired for spending time and energy on a project that I finished and then didn't implement. Be real.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
If you noticed, when he was asked if he would sign it, all he would say is that it wouldn't come to his desk. He didn't say he wouldn't sign it. He chided that Romney should have just said, "no," when it came to timetables but then he would not "just say no" when came to whether or not he would sign his own bill. The question should have been restated to ask him if he would sign any immigration bill that included a "pathway to citizenship" (amnesty) for those currently in our country illegally. Then when he said no ask him why he wrote a bill that he would not sign if President? I can't figure out why those who are currently here illegally should not be disqualified from ever becoming naturalized or citizens because they are criminals!
and to your comment. You're spinning the point by injecting Romney into this. Romney is not the one who lied, nor CO-AUTHORED a bogus piece of legislation that most Americans don't believe in. This just proves that he is part of the OLD establishment that wastes government time and money on things that will never come to fruition and is merely a way of pandering for votes. Very dispicable and it's time for him to retire.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
The timetables exchange was disgusting and revolting, but at least we knew it was coming. I'd come to expect that out of McCain. But even with all the disdain I have for him, I literally could not at first believe my ears (I had to play it back) when he dropped the "He bought and sold companies, and people lost their jobs" line. I cannot think of a more petty, baseless, John Edwardsesque smear than this. I would just love to hear any reasonable defense of what possible good reason he had for this ridiculous line beyond petty class warfare. It was a drive-by shooting of the worst kind.
only wanted "to make abortion safe, legal, and rare." Mitt and his good friend Ted Kennedy were pro-choice all the way. At best, this was no better than Clinton's position who seemed to think abortion was at least bad. I'm also having a hard time finding information where the Mormon church came out as being pro-choice. If Mitt didn't take his faith seriously until he was running for President, is there anything else we should know about?
but maybe a quick explanation would help. It is very easy to be a member of the LDS Church and not be pro-life. The Church does not mandate a particular political position. It is easy to think that abortion is morally wrong, but to also believe that the government's role isn't to tell other people what you belive is morally right or wrong. Please don't use the LDS faith to criticize someone's political position. And while we are at it, Mitt is deeply committed to his faith. He served as a Bishop (leader of a congregation of 200-400 people) and he served as a Stake President (leader of 5-10 congregations). Each requires a significant time commitment and each is a volunteer position. He also pays 10% of all his income as tithing and gives other donations as well.
Besides all that, (and to end any threadjack) he NEVER supported pulling the troops out of Iraq.
As to the rest of this diary, I couldn't agree more with the fact that John McCain lied.
"And a special thank you to the citizens of Massachusetts: You are paying all the taxes, creating all the jobs, raising all the children. This government is yours. Thank you for letting me serve you. I love this job."
Michael Dobbs did a little fact-checking on the debate here. You're right, Pej, in the sense that McCain went too far. But at the same time, Romney got wobbly at least from April thru June 2007, opening himself up to interpretation and criticism as noted here.
1. McCain, 2. Thompson, 3. Giuliani, 4. Romney
Wow, after reading/watching the fight above...well, can we just find a new candidate and start all over again? You guys really think this is going to fly come general election time? I am already hearing local conservative talk radio hosts speak of not voting in the general if McCain is the candidate. So really, can we just start all over again?
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
We don't do revolutions, not unless we have a king hiring mercenaries against us and things like that.
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
Not really pushing Sen. Thompson (not that I wouldn't like that though), but man this just isn't working. These guys have been campaigning for how long? And we still cannot find a viable candidate that everyone agrees with? This really is not our year. Too divisive.
I know this is not popular, but at this point, a brokered convention might actually be a good idea. Not for the reason you would normally have one, but because it might introduce someone we can all agree on and actually get behind.
--roxer
"Where I stand does not depend on where I'm standing."
--Fred D. Thompson, 2008
But I anticipate we will in the near future. McCain will sell out to the UN, EU, NATO and any other acronym you can think of. Liars cannot be trusted.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
Ok, I can believe McCain was being disingenuous when he first said that Romney favored "timetables", although being somewhat biased, I can also believe that it was just really really bad oppo research.
But here's the thing. Romney actually said,
"Well, there's no question the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but they shouldn't be for public pronouncement. "
I saw nothing wrong with that...until I heard Romney say in the debate last night that he was never for any timetables, secret or otherwise.
Really?
Couldn't he have just stood by his original quote? But no, he's the guy who realized timetables was a dirty word so now he's disavowing it all together.
Annoys the heck out of me.
-----------
"Fred's my conservative guru, but McCain's my President."
<<
That's a bad comparison. There's a huge difference here. Romney's attack ads were essentially correct. Some of them were selective, but the basic point was correct. But McCain is just outright lying about what Romney said. It seems clear from the transcript of Romney's words that he was not advocating a time table for withdrawal. It's not clear if Romney was talking about political or military goals, or both, but even in that interview that McCain is quoting, Romney said he would *veto* any bill that withdrawal time tables. So it's simply dishonest of McCain to claim that Romney advocated time tables for withdrawal.
Some of Romney's ads have been selective, but not one of them has been an outright lie. That's the difference.
And if McCain is going to boo-hoo about attack ads, one wonders if he would push to outlaw them in an enhanced version of McCain-Feingold. There's nothing wrong with attack ads as long as they're not intentional lies.
Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm
Ok, let me try this again:
So words were twisted to make some campaign points. Mr. Starched Shirt Romney is now crying that he was unfairly hit. Cry me a river. The dude spent $100M+ sliming his opponents and now he runs around sobbing because he got hit back? This was a long time coming.
That's a bad comparison. There's a huge difference here. Romney's attack ads were essentially correct. Some of them were selective, but the basic point was correct. But McCain is just outright lying about what Romney said. It seems clear from the transcript of Romney's words that he was not advocating a time table for withdrawal. It's not clear if Romney was talking about political or military goals, or both, but even in that interview that McCain is quoting, Romney said he would *veto* any bill that withdrawal time tables. So it's simply dishonest of McCain to claim that Romney advocated time tables for withdrawal.
Some of Romney's ads have been selective, but not one of them has been an outright lie. That's the difference.
And if McCain is going to boo-hoo about attack ads, one wonders if he would push to outlaw them in an enhanced version of McCain-Feingold. There's nothing wrong with attack ads as long as they're not intentional lies.
Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm
A more substantive post today:
It's my contention that John McCain cannot win the party's nomination on his own merits and he never could, and he knows it. The sad fact is that we've got a field of candidates in which the authentic example of conservatism in the Reagan mold has now cashed in his chips and dropped out of the race. What we're left with is a guy who had positions contradictory to those of the Conservative and Republican mainstream in media statements while he was running for governor of Massaschusetts, and we have another guy who actually *took* contradictory positions to the Republican and Conservative mainstream while he was a real, live Senator in Washington.
McCain knows that he can't win the nomination in this circumstance without playing dirty pool, and that means everyone is going to get dirty -- including the people who support him. His statements about Romney's position on "timetables" is just one of the things he's done to obfuscate his own record in Washington as U.S. Senator, and as a person who most Republicans until the last month or so felt was *not to be trusted*.
The mind reels that people on this blog now consider him to be the "savior" of the Republicans in this election, after having spent the better part of the past six month borrowing Democrat talking points to use against a member of their own party.
We don't need Rush Limbaugh or anyone else to tell us that -- all we need to do to verify that is search through the archives here at RedState and read how much McCain's infidelity to the Republican Party (as an actual U.S. Senator, I will add again) gave people here on this blog a case of the vapors.
John McCain very plainly and very enthusiastically took it upon himself to give the shiv to the Republicans whenever he thought he could get a moment's worth of publicity out of it -- at the national level -- in the past eight years. At this point there are some Directors of this blog who are now painting that as a *mark of character*.
Again, the mind reels.
John McCain has never had the basic decency to even say to the Republicans whose support he's trying to solicit that "He was wrong" on any of the issues he was wrong about. The most he's had to say about immigration, for instance, is that "Congress didn't do it's job..." -- spreading the blame around.
On the rest of his record, John McCain has never apologized. And why should he? His lack of fealty to the Republicans has gotten him where he is today. If he apologized for the positions he's taken in the past eight years, he'd lose half of the Independents who are supporting him, and then he'd be an also-ran in this race.
So it's possible thats he's not lying and just stuck on single track logic. Piaget would probably have a lot to say about McCain's use of logic, but any intelligent person recognizes it for what it is, and him for what he is. It is also good to note, since I'm borrowing from Piaget here, that the majority never make it to formal operations. If you look at McCain's education and past, it could be that he never has and never will.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
I also think that one of the reasons so many stalwart Republicans are wringing their hands over Mitt Romney and predicting his doom over the blows of the Democrats' "singsong sledgehammers" is that they know that they've screwed the pooch with their own electoral rhetoric up until this point:
They've conditioned their own voters to respond to the "flip-flopper" characterization a little too well. They also don't fundamentally believe enough voters are smart enough to make the distinction between what compromises a candidate for Governor in the most liberal state in the United States had to do in order to get elected and govern effectively and the statements and actions that a *real U.S. Senator* did while he was in office as a Republican, at the federal level.
In other words, they know their own voters, and they know that what has happened is that the Democrats are going to use the "flip-flopper" gambit against them after all this time, and they're worried that their voters aren't intelligent enough to *check the source*.
And why would they do that? After all, the anti-Romney tirades here on RedState have been barely-reconstructed class-warfare and identity politics tirades that have preemptively done the Democrats' work *for them*.
I never thought I'd see it on this blog. Six months ago the Directors should have taken a strong stance that they were going to endeavor to slap those arguments down when they were used against *any* Republican candidate, but instead they've *appropriated* them and *strengthened* them. In the process they've taken great pains to ignore Mitt Romney's actual record as governor of Massachusetts and used every opportunity to lay the foundation for the Democrat attacks against him.
Unbelievable. I never thought I'd see it here on RedState.
It's:
"Vote for John McCain, because our voters are too stupid not to believe the Democrats, particularly after we've helped them."
If they had slapped down those inane arguments then Fred Thompson probably never would have gotten as far as SC, or possibly even gotten in the race. Oh well, we have what we have and hopefully it will be enough.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
And if it comes to pass that this ridiculous way of killing other Republicans in the cradle dictates that John McCain is the nominee, I'll vote for him. I told people a long time ago on this blog that I was once a leftist/liberal but I'm never going back.
So I will vote for McCain and I'll actually support him if it comes to that.
And I'd actually like to think I'd do it more honorably than he has while he's bulldozed his way into the catbird seat. At least I'd never use class-warfare and identity politics against him. He deserves better than that after having sat in the Hanoi Hilton.
I just wish some of the Directors of this blog weren't so terribly frightened of, ahem, *HILLARY CLINTON* and (chuckle) *BARACK OBAMA*. That the only way they could advance McCain was to decide to use Democrat talking points to tear down one of the most successful Republican governors in the United States, a guy who sure, said some things while trying to get elected here in Massachusetts but actually *did* govern as a Republican and a moderate Conservative in this most lobsided state in the Union, and who as an entrepreneur and a businessman and a father and a husband has been a terrific example for *any* Republican in this country.
But let the chips fall where they may. I can't unsqueeze the toothpaste back into the tube.
and I'm your huckleberry or perhaps it is you that is mine. We've been shot down or wounded but we are not out.
Glad to see you're feeling better. Good work.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Along the lines of your thought, IMO, he doesn't even realize he is lying. There is a screw loose. And if he becomes the man in power, that scares me. At best we will suffer only stubborn thick-headed incompetent muck-ups. At worst it's FUBAR.
But I expect he will be found out in the general. I may bet against the odds -- and my own intrests -- on this in the futures market
Thank you Pejman for your excellent diary. I also appreciate that so many other regular contributers have echoed your rational assessment of this incident. However, reading through the comments it is apparent that there is still a group who hate Mitt Romney so much that they refuse to view this through any lense other than their hatred of the man. Ironically, this group is accusing those of us who think McCain was lying of McCain Derangement Syndrome (MDS).
They seem to think the majority of posters on this site (including many of the most rational: Pejman, Robert Hahn, itrytobenice, etc.) are afflicted with MDS because they see the truth about this incident. They seem to think that many in the media are also afflicted since so many agree that McCain was intentionally misrepresenting Mitt Romney's views. Several in the media have even gone as far as declaring that McCain was lying.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is widespread, obvious, and indisputable. McCain Derangement Syndrome is rare. Arguing that he is lying in this instance in most certainly not a symptom.
There is term for accusing others of having your problem. It is called "projection."
this beats being mentioned on Rush...
the majority of posters on this site (including many of the most rational: Pejman, Robert Hahn, itrytobenice, etc.)
I am in the presence of giants!
Pfthbbbbbbbbbbb!!
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Heh.
Seriously, the posts/diaries written by the three of you were the most clear, concise and accurate regarding John McCain's abuse of the truth.
I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made that Romney played it close to the vest, offered no support to the president, and otherwise kept one foot on the way out the door on Iraq all the way through about September 07. He's been a follower on this issue, whereas McCain has been a leader on Iraq since even before Bush was in office.
He should have stuck to that. This timetables nonsense is just ugly and embarrassing and wrong.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
This blog has zero credibility when it comes to supporting McCain's stance on the surge, because for months and months and months Donald Rumsfeld was an Official Hero of the Republic here and McCain was a maverick and a Zinni-esque doubter of GWB.
I don't know how you think you can sweep the past three years of that under the rug. I notice that Strieff has been virtually silent in the past few weeks, and so has Academic Elephant. But I do know that anyone who criticized Donald Rumsfeld over "lack of boots on the ground" got smacked down here pretty hard, including myself.
So now RedState is endorsing the guy who three years ago if anyone had supported him openly here would have been annihilated.
Why? What's changed except people's fear of the Democrats?
That right here, on this blog, I can reference posts by both Streiff and AE saying that McCain was full of crap and that anyone who doubted Rumsfeld's strategy was a traitor.
Now that Donald Rumsfeld has resigned, and Karl Rove has resigned, and McCain is the front-runner, that wisdom has retroactively been redefined as conventional wisdom. But for almost a year here on this blog if you said that Rumsfeld had made mistakes, you incurred the wrath.
So what's changed, Dan? And why is it suddenly so obvious that McCain was prescient?
The statements on this blog by two of the senior editors are in direct contravention of McCain's current statements and not surprisingly they've kept their mouths shut while you accuse Romney of "keeping one foot" somewhere or another. So who is the coward?
Maybe it's too painful for certain editors of this blog to admit that they were wrong when they said the things they said.
has nothing to do with the primaries and everything to do with a new job.
Check my Maryland blog redmaryland.blogspot.com if you want to see my posting history over the past two months.
I do, however, support McCain for the reasons given in Ben and Dan's posts and do so without changing my view on McCain's manifest wrongheadedness on a lot of issues.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Fine and well, Streiff, but people on this blog who were saying that Rumsfeld made mistakes (including me, if you'll remember), especially in terms of troop levels, were treated like heretics here on this blog. Now one of RedState's directors is supporting the guy who is arguing that he was right about that all along. It's a lot to swallow.
I don't see your point here. I know AE and I are still Rumsfeld fans and would hasten to point out that Petraeus' appointment, according to Fred Barnes, was made by Rumsfeld.
I take it from your objection that you haven't read either Ben or Dan's posts.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Listen, I know you guys aren't clairvoyant but attacking Romney over having "one foot somewhere" or other is just plain unfair. If I had mentioned two years ago that the primary problem with the American effort in Iraq was that we didn't have enough forces in place I would have received a tremendous broadside of criticism for doubting Donald Rumsfeld.
Now that McCain is the putative nominee, that's conventional wisdom, and you're attacking Romney over it when *this blog* was the very place in the Conservative/Republican Universe where for several years Donald Rumsfeld could do nothing wrong and John McCain was the maverick gadfly.
I say again, it's a little hard to swallow. I have nothing but good things to say about Petraeus' appointment. That wasn't an issue at the time. What *was* an issue was the troop levels and whether Rumsfeld had underestimated them. And people who said that he did were castigated. Now RedState is endorsing the guy who has said it all along.
For most of the time I've been here on RedState I've conspicuously avoided saying anything negative about Donald Rumsfeld because I knew that according to this blog he could do virtually nothing wrong. But now Ben Domenech is supporting a guy for President who has said virtually nothing but that.
And you think that it's strange for me to recognize that fact?
and I don't intend to argue it with you. But if you think Petraeus's contribution was the concept of bringing troop strength up to where it was during the invasion and the December 2005 elections I suggest you rethink how correct your views were.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Listen, I don't know everything you know. The only thing I'm saying here is that John McCain was no friend of this blog for several years and suddenly...
I don't think that's very fair to Romney. I mean, at least people should admit that there was, in fact a wide difference in opinion when they're supporting McCain. If the blog is going to be consistent, it should recognize that for a long time McCain's words were anathema here. At least as much as Romney is now being criticized for, quite selectively.
As a Romney supporter and given my own personal history I don't hold grudges, and I'm not afraid of admitting when I'm wrong. In fact I take the ability to admit I was wrong as a positive character trait, as long as the cause of that mistake can also be identified.
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
We may have to retroactively admit that Sir John was right about calling for more boots, but the way he went about it -- blasting Rumsfeld along with the Dems and the MSM -- stunk then and stinks now.
And I think there's a pretty compelling case to be made that anyone who thought John McCain was wise about this war and who didn't think Donald Rumsfeld was the brightest bulb in the marquee, going back over the last several years was a pariah here, at least until now.
And that's what's really curious. Because up a year ago if you had said on this blog that you thought John McCain was right and Donald Rumsfeld was wrong and argued it forcefully you would have been shown the door.
How times change.
This is the heart of integrity. He has authored a bill promoting amnesty. I've read he has an "immigration director/advisor" to help accomplish that.
His actions are clear, however, his words speak another, ergo, he's lying. Which is it and does it matter to you? If it does, how can you trust him? I would like to hear from a person not suffering from MDS and explain why integrity is not important?
I've believed Bush for eight years. I remember his speech before we went to war and according to the intelligence at the time, going to war made sense and still makes sense. I believed Bush 43 and Ronny. I don't believe McCain. Try selling me if you can.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."
Someone should expand on this:
"If McCain were smart, he would have just stuck with the argument that he pushed for the surge while Romney was reticent. But McCain, at least on this issue, is being tremendously stupid. He has sacrificed a potentially legitimate critique of Romney's position on Iraq by blatantly and shamelessly telling falsehoods."
It's worse than that. McCain is sacrificing the good will of all of us who support other candidates, primarily Romney, by treating the campaign as if it were for 8th-grade class president--not important enough to be ethical about.
By telling outright lies about Romney, he puts us in the position, should he win, of having to decide whether or not to support someone whom we know is not a StraightTalker. We have to weigh everythng he says to determine if it's partly true, all true, or not true at all. We're going to have to swallow our own ethical standards to vote for a Republican who we know has lied about another one and who has treated us like the idiots he thinks we are. Just because the Democrats are worse on the issues, some of which McCain has refused to TalkStraight on himself.
And he is tearing apart the Republican party while he's at it.
To be fair, I ask if someone will provide a link to those "negative ads" that Romney published in NH against McCain. I haven't seen them. Did Romney say anything as factually inaccurate about McCain as "Romney wants to withdraw from Iraq"?
If he's nominated and he runs against Hillary, we'll have two candidates who will say anything to get elected.
And if he runs against Obama, the DEMOCRATS will be able to brag about how clean and ethical their candidate is compared to McCain, and they'll have plenty of examples of McCain's nastiness to prove their point.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
Or -- and as in my case I think this is even worse than thinking he is a liar -- "support someone" who has a screw loose.
"If he's nominated and he runs against Hillary, we'll have two candidates who will say anything to get elected."
Your characterization is dead on! It shouldn't be overlooked that McCain will be at a marked disadvantage in this scenario because the MSM will not miss a single opportunity to point out the rRepublican's disingenuousness while ignoring Hillary's or Obama's.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
I thought they were pandering to him or he was pandering to them -- whichever MDS line you prefer?
Because the media knows that now the surge is a success, their candidates (that would be Clinton/Obama) are going to have to do some reconfiguring and triangulating and generally shifting on the issue. Saying the surge was a failure and you always opposed it is not going to fly in the general.
As a result, Clinton/Obama will be down as supporting the surge after they opposed it -- or whatever. Well, if I had trusted the President I would have supported it, but he lies so I did not support the surge etc. whatever. well, i supported the surge/petraeus, just not the actual implementation...
And of course mcCain will be all over that, because the heart of this little dispute between McC and romney is that McCain fought in the Senate, on the campaign trail, and in the media for the surge while the Defeatocrats mounted 41 votes in 2007 to terminate it before it failed (or succeeded.) He knows the details of those votes intimately. He knows the language the Dems used, the arguments, everything.
He knows that the word "timetable" was and is a DEMOCRAT CODE WORD for withdrawal/surrender in Iraq.
This is the point he's making against Romney, who would have been wise to explain that he used the word by mistake or something, and simply reiterate his support (however tepid -- and it was pretty tepid till the surge succeeded) for the surge. Instead it's a big issue, one that Romney will not win on.
For the record, I think Romney simply misspoke or said more than he wanted to in this quote. However, his slip points out that he has misgivings, or, worse, that he is unfamiliar with the debate on the surge.
To sum up:
By trumpeting this McCainLied non-issue, you here are doing the work of the MSM and the Democrats. You are trying to remove one of the greatest benefits of having McCain as our candidate: that he is associated with the *successful* parts of the Iraq war, and thus he can win back the support of the American people for the war in Iraq that Bush has lost.
The MSM/Dems want this issue -- who supported the surge and when -- off the table for the election. Not to defend Romney, who they despise, but to defend Clinton/Obama.
Wake up and stop shilling for them just because you hate McCain!
McCain Derangement Syndrome? Really?
You are choking me up.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
On Rush's show today a military caller stated his support for McCain on the grounds that McCain would fight and win the war in Iraq, and Hillary/Obama wouldn't. In fact, that Dems would pull troops out right away before we had a chance to win.
rush responded that actually Democrats would not pull troops out unless there was a victory.
Huh? That's some case of MDS Rush is suffering from.
Because I recall a recent debate in which Hillary responded to the question" Do you want to win in iraq or get out?' by stating that she wanted to get out. I had not heard that Democrats wanted victory in Iraq and that they will not pull troops out until we win.
Interesting, no? So great is his hatred for McCain that he is willing to trade away the most important issue of our day -- victory in the war -- because the issue helps McCain. He's saying that if you're supporting McCain because the war is your top issue, well, you can stop worrying. Apparently it's not an important issue after all, because whoever is President will fight to win the war. Oh. OK.
Rush -- shilling for the MSM and Dems since McCain became the front-runner.
in which you seem to think that I am attributing the media's attacks on McCain for the "timeline" ccontroversy to MDS.
This, of course, is the opposite of the point I was making. to clarify:
my post deals with the question of why the media, which normally is quite pro-Mccain, is criticizing him on this issue.
I am not saying they are doing it because of MDS. Because, again, the media is pro-McCain. So, they do not suffer from MDS.
Clear on that?
In my post I hypothesize that it is the issue of the surge, its success and who supported it when, that has caused the media to attack McCain. Who they normally support. Because they don't suffer from MDS. (Can I stop saying this now? Do you get it?)
Why is the media defending Romney on this issue? Because they like him? Clearly not -- they despise him. No, it's because they know this issue will be terribly damaging to their candidates (Hillary/Obama) in the general election when mcCain brings it up. And he will.
Therefore, the media is trying to defuse the issue by defending Romney and calling McCain a liar.
They're doing this so that in the general election, when McCain brings it up, the Dem candidate/media/shills & hacks will respond: McCainLied! You lied about Romney and now you're lying about me and my nuanced position on the surge!
Way to take our best issue off the table, folks! Keep it up!
Maybe they didn't even have to think about it. McCain's dishonesty is pretty evident to those of us who aren't invested in him as Jon-el of Krypton.
But it will surely work out that way. I just wonder why McC. doesn't recognize that (1) it isn't necessary, and (2) it hurts the whole party for him to continue to insist that Romney said he was for a troop withdrawal when he didn't even come close to that.
But don't blame us, who are supporting the man who is being lied about for pointing out the lie. Blame the guy who told the lie, and keeps repeating it.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
"By trumpeting this McCainLied non-issue, you here are doing the work of the MSM and the Democrats."
Here's some "Straight talk" for you:
MR. ROMNEY: There's no question that the President and the Prime Minister O have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those should not be a public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds before you're gone.
QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.
Either McCain has no grasp of the English language and or no reading comprehension because Mitt's statement is out there to be read or he's a liar. Since he and his koolaid drinkers insist on pushing this falsehood after being faced with the entire statement over and over again, I've come to the conclusion that He's a liar plain and simple!
BTW
I'm perplexed that I am in a position of supporting Romney in this stupid argument since I trust him as far as I can throw him but this can't be ignored by anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
"For the record, I think Romney simply misspoke or said more than he wanted to in this quote. However, his slip points out that he has misgivings, or, worse, that he is unfamiliar with the debate on the surge."
In other words, when he said "timetable" it's possible, or even likely, that he wasn't aware that 'timetable" was a code word for withdrawal among the Defeatocrats who tried to defeat the surge in Congress last year. McCain knows this because he was the major Republican fighter in the Senate against the 41 attempts by surrendercrats to withdraw troops. Romney was AWOL in this fight so he didn't understand the import of what he was saying. So, I'm (a) not saying that Romney was calling for withdrawals and (b) not in need of the quote which I'm familiar with -- thanks. On the other hand, given Romney's equivocal support of the surge, McCain's interpretation is hardly a fabrication.
What I'm saying is that this non-issue is going to be very useful when the Democrat nominee has to defend/his/her opposition to the surge in the general election. Think about whether you want to help said Democrat in avoiding the consequences of their despicable behavior at the time our troops were fighting and dying and yes, winning, during the surge.
I thought we could expect "straight talk" because we deserve to know the truth. What happened to that?
While we're discussing McCain and his Lies let's put this one on the table for discussion. The following was taken from My Way News: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html
McCain's recent comments about why he opposed the bush tax cut:
"I made it very clear when I ran in 2000 that I had a package of tax cuts which were very important and very impactful, but I also had restraints in spending," he said.
"And I disagreed when spending got out of control. And I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," McCain said.
"And guess what? Spending got out of control. Republicans lost the 2006 election not over the war in Iraq, (but) over spending. Our base became disenchanted."
"If we had done what I wanted to do, we would not only have had the spending restraint, but we'd be talking about additional tax cuts today."
What he said then?:
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief,"
What did he do then?
McCain tried but failed to amend the bill to reduce income tax cuts for the wealthiest and give greater benefits to those earning less. He and Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island were the only Republicans to oppose the 2001 tax cuts.
What did he say to Bush's additional request for $350 billion in tax cuts in 2003?
"The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction:
What did he do concerning the $350 billion in tax cuts in 2003?
One more Republican senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine, teamed with McCain and Chafee to oppose the 2003 tax cuts. They and Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio teamed to limit the size of the tax cut to $350 billion, half the size of what Bush originally wanted.
Once again McCain lied and he's a Liar!
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
that last night wasn't one of John McCain's best moments. Those comments he made about serving for "patriotism and not profit" came across pretty badly. But I can understand where McCain is coming from. He staked his entire political career on the surge strategy while Romney chose not to comment, or at best give vague answers about his position so he could have some room to change his position later on in the campaign. Also, Romney has leveled tons of negative ads against McCain this election. McCain's anger may come across as petty, but it's justified.
"McCain's anger may come across as petty, but it's justified."
But petty none the less.
There's no love lost between Romney and I and I don't trust him but it's impossible to read Romney's whole comment and come out with McCain's interpretation and still be intelectually honest about it.
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
Well said. I couldn't agree more. We need to coalesce around Mitt. Voting for anyone else is a vote for McCain.
The Principal Chair
http://principalchair.blogspot.com