Mitt Romney on the Iraq Study Group

<chirp> <chirp>

By streiff Posted in Comments (95) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Iraq War is one of the most important political issues of our day and odds are that will still be the case in 2008.

The Iraq Study Group released its report last week to a chorus of headslapping and eye rolling. Most of the perceived presidential field for 2008 have expressed their opinions of the report.

The most interesting and insightful response has been from Massachusetts governor and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney.

Read on.

Okay, that's it. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | John McCain Censors the InternetComments (35) »
Mitt Romney on the Iraq Study Group 95 Comments (0 topical, 95 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

why isn't this dog barking?

From Sunday's New York Times:

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, has been in Asia all week and has not yet read the report, an aide said.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

It's the old..."Ask the crickets!" trick. Silence: The Original Alternative. ;-)

than to speak and remove all doubt. See John Kerry.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

What is the deal with RedState lately? Why all the front-page attempts to bash Romney?

He was in China. He hadn't read the report.

What has Mike Huckabee said about the ISG report?

Any group of five people who have actually expressed support for Huckabee, we'll start looking into his record, too.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

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

:>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Both are outgoing Governors who are considering running for President. How important are they, as governors, to the ISG conversation?

McCain, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Biden - sure, they're Senators.
Giuliani - sure, since he was on the ISG at one point.
Romney, Huckabee, Vilsack - who cares what they think on ISG?

That's my point.

Because he actually has a shot at being the Republican nominee. I don't care what Huckabee or the guy who runs the drive through at Taco Bell think about the ISG findings because they both have no shot at the nomination.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...Just because we WANT to know what he thinks, does it mean that he OWES us an immediate analysis, to the point where the lack of such analysis is topline, front-page news at RS?

faxes, email in China? Funny. That's where my computer and phone were made.

I guess actually reading the report was something he couldn't fit into his schedule because all of his energy had been used up in creating the Republican electoral juggernaut in Massachusetts.

You really think that traveling is an excuse, much less a reason, to ignore the main political issue in the United States?

Maybe he wants a little time to think about it, Streiff. There is such a thing in politics as getting one's head too far out in front of one's skis. What's Guiliani's view of the ISG?

Largely because I haven’t had the time to read it and most of the reactions to it have seemed rather knee-jerk to put it lightly. If Romney was away on business when it was issued and didn’t drop everything to comment on a report which may or may not turn out to ultimately be meaningless, that’s fine by me.. Last time I checked, President Bush is still the commander-in-chief and he not the 2008 contenders will be calling the shots for the next two years.

That the latest official "News" entry on Rudy's "Solutions For America" website is dated as of this moment November 5, 2006.

He has commented

I admit it is thin, but then again they do have electicity and stuff in Dallas. It isn't like he was in "Asia" or someother place where they rely on semaphore or smoke signals.

Giuliani, who was a member of the bipartisan study group before resigning last May, citing scheduling conflicts, ..

Am I the only one bothered by his resigning from the ISG in this fashion? Scheduling conflicts?!?

Supposedly his biggest selling point is his strong stance on the war, but he found "scheduling conflicts" to be sufficient justification to leave the ISG where his voice could have, presumably, made a difference.

I can only see two explanations, both bad ones. Either he really considered the ISG unimportant and a lower priority than his schedule, or he simply did not want his name to be associated with any actual policy proposals, preferring to contine with what seems to be a stealth campaign.

The ISG was a chance for Rudy to make a difference on a key issue, on the key issue for those who support him, and he just walked away from it.

those are two very good reasons.

First, the ISG, as has been demonstrated, was singularly unimportant. From the backstory we have received from the WaPo and NYT we know that from the beginning the goal was unanimity of opinion not substance. I don't think go-along-get-along is Rudy's style. So I don't think he really had a chance to make a difference.

As an aside, let me note here that on the recent polls of Republican presidential candidates I have always rated Giuliani as "unacceptable" because of his political positions and the travesty and farce that is his personal life.

Second, not having your name associated with this dog isn't a bad move.

Having to interact with people having diferent opinions, and trying to persuade them of yours, is what a leader in the democratic system does.

Ths ISG maybe should be unimportant, but it is now being treated by many as the last word on Iraq. Its another lost battle for those who favor fighting this war. Giuliani's walking away from that battle for what seem to be personal political motives bothers me more than his problems with his personal life, as many as they may be.

Given the polarizing nature of politics, especially in a bipartisan system, alot of value is placed on consensus- and I have nothing against this. I think alot more could be accomplished if there wasn't so much disagreement based soley on party affialiation.

The ultimate goal of any policy discussion, however, is good policy, not warm fuzzy agreement. It seems to me that the members of the ISG were more interested in finding something they could be in agreement on than in finding, as the saying goes, a new way forward.

Have you seen any one member of the ISG speak anything but the company line on the report? I certainly haven't. I think it's clear enough that the members were not of like mind on all matters (obviously). But there was give and take and the result was a mishmash that, taken as a whole, is a mess.

How much impact do you think any one member of that group was going to have over the final product? And, moreover, if you were gearing up to run for president, would you want your name attached to that embarassment?

It would be one thing if Rudy, or anybody else, would've been in a position to positively impact the ISG's report -- or, at least, been open to publicly air their own misgivings.

But neither was the case. So he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by staying on that commission. And I imagine that he spotted that early on.

It would be one thing if Rudy, or anybody else, would've been in a position to positively impact the ISG's report -- or, at least, been open to publicly air their own misgivings.

Well, my point was that as a member of the group he would be in a position to positively impact the report.
Are you trying to say that group members were not in a position to do this?

Again, Rudy, or anyone else, is free to air their feelings, as Cliff May has done at NR.

So he had nothing to gain and everything to lose by staying on that commission.

We're not disagreeing, as I suspect that is the way he looked at it. I'd be a lot more impressed if he showed a bit more interest in trying to come up with a better ISG report and a bit less if protecting his own image. As long as he does not actually put his name to anything everyone will be free to think good things about him, but once he actually endorses some policy, any policy, he'll tick off a large segment of people. I expect that is the way he looks at things, but I find it sad and cynical. He has some political capital to burn, why not use it in a fashion useful to the country?

I love him as much as the next guy, but really, what could he have contributed? I wonder about the composition of the ISG still, but I'm glad Rudy backed off.

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
— Thomas Paine

you are so right on him streiff. We don't care about substance just that they open their mouth. It's good to see you more concerned about a quick soundbite than taking the time for a quality comment.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

well, it does sound better than "my boy lollipop" I'll give you.

I'm not interested in a a soundbite. I read the report in a couple of hours. Not very long and lots of white space. I'm sure Romney could have done the same. Heck, he could have one of his minions, like the guy who said he was traveling in Asia and hadn't had time to read it, read it and prepare a statement. Staffs do that all the time.

The fact is that the report has been out for nearly a week and still no comment, substantive or otherwise. When will he make a comment? Or will he just let it go and hope that we don't notice that a junket to Asia as a lame duck governor took precedence over the most important political subject in America.

I am glad you enjoy the name, most people do. It's pretty good success and has been able to attract a lot of good people.

I don't get on one hand you say this report is unimportant yet on the other hand is so importnat Romney can't be a possible contendor without a comment. But on the other hand you are happy if all the comment is is something vague like what Guiliani said. Which one is it?

This seems to go in hand with your comment on the local Republican PArty in MA being Romney's fault. I was just reading an article about how Romney's conservatism has what has hurt the party, chasing away moderates. Are you saying Romneyshould have governed as a moderate and been a little morte liberal leaning? Are you saying that the Mass GOP was in fine shape when Romney showed up and he ruined it. If that is what you are saying than forgive me for thinking you a fool.

And I hope you forgive me for calling you a flip flopper. It appears you will say anything it takes to knock down Romney.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

This one appears to be par for the course and lacks any real seriousness. I’m frankly not surprised that a governor who is on Asia on a final trade mission for his State thought it was probably not wise to issue a press release or hold a press conference on such a volatile issue. It probably wouldn’t help whatever deal he’s negotiating for his State and wouldn’t have any effect on what Bush (the only person in this whose opinion actually does matter) decides to do or not do about the ISG.

Color me unconcerned.

That I can find on Giuliani's views is from December 7, in which he also said that he hadn't read the report, either:

When asked yesterday by The New York Sun, the mayor said he had not read the report’s recommendations but that some of those he had heard about on television sounded “useful.”

your inability to find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But that's why you come here, we do the research so you don't have to.

Awaiting an abject apology.

I've ever heard you say. You've got a lot of nerve to say that, man, because if you had sent me an email asking if *I* would do some research on Romney's views I would have been happy to help.

I'm not in Romney's campaign organization and I am a little worried that he hasn't made a public statement about the ISG, but I expect him to make some detailed remarks about it soon. If you think I come here to RedState to read your "research" and use it for my own purposes you can stick it where the son don't shine, buddy, because that's never been why I've come here. I await your abject apology.

The fact is that Giuliani has given neither here-nor-there statements about the specifics of the ISG recommendations except for speaking in broad generalities. And everything that I know about either of these candidates' positions occurred in the past 10 minutes. I repeat: I would have been happy to help you find Romney's "lack of position" if you had asked me privately to do so, and I would have done it in good faith.

Jesus christ.

lighten up a bit, otherwise I'll cross post all this over at TMR.

Listen, I know as little about Romney's views on the ISG as you do but when I first responded in this thread I thought you were being charitable about his silence. Ho, ho -Little did I know.... ;)

I will say that I don't think his reticence to comment without reading and parsing the entire thing is a deal-breaker. Frankly, if I were him, that's what I would be doing, as someone who is still trying to solidfy his candidacy. Before we decide to cut his head off, I'd give him another week or so to make a statement. Right now, you're shooting at a target that doesn't exist. Is a little patience too much to ask for?

Jeez.

Streiff: I respect you highly as a commentator, and the lack of a Romney response is disconcerting, especially for this ardent Romney supporter.

However, there is no reason to get onto Kowalski because he doesn't support Giuliani. He was unable to find a response. Just because he didn't find one, you assume that he comes to RedState to do the research, instead of independently. Your attitude with regards to this, plus the demanding of an apology, is out of line, in my opinion.

Kowalski: Streiff might have just been poking a little fun, and I think you took it a little too personally. Lighten up. Streiff is correct when he points out that Romney is far too silent on this. Just because he doesn't hold an office that is directly affected by the ISG doesn't mean silence is necessary. He should have been out front on this if he seriously wishes to be our next President.

Now lets all step back and bring this to the level that RedState is known for.

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

Kowalski and I have corresponded for two years so I don't think we really need a peacemaker in this. Admittedly, the internet doesn't do snide all that well.

And I didn't chide Alex for not supporting Giuliani. If you read it, I don't support Giuliani. What the snark was about was that Giuliani had commented on the ISG after its release.

It embarrasses me a little that he hasn't at least made some Golden Platitude blanket statement about it. It bothers me slightly that he doesn't. When Romney makes his full statement about the ISG (and I know that he is going to) I'll be right there with anyone if I think he sounds like an arse, and he'll do a lot to deflate my support of him if he does.

If Romney is ducking the issue and casts himself as a "stealth Surrender Monkey" I'm not going to be helping him dig his way out of that.

He has undoubtedly already read it and it doesn't really say anything it wasnt predicted to say the day the members were announced.
Furthermore, the only person whose response to that report matters is President Bush's and even He hasn't said anything official about the ISG report.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Sorry for butting my nose in, then. I just don't like to see two ardent supporters of the same party quarreling over what seems to be nothing. It was no intent on my part to be intrusive, and I apologize.

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

The man is simply not qualified to be President.

I suppose I'll vote for RockStar™ Obama instead.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

I think it's actually a pretty canny move on Romney's part: The ISG report itself is a quagmire. I look on his relative silence at this point as a bit of "benign neglect."

Good point, I don’t buy the line that the ISG is the most important political issue now or even important at all. Last time I checked, Bush is still the commander-and-chief and will remain as such through 2008 (after which the ISG recommendations are pretty much moot anyway). Since he’s not going to be running for any office anytime in the foreseeable future, he take or reject their recommendations (there’s something like 72 of them IIRC) as he sees fit. The ISG, Congress, and the American public can all call for an artificial time table for when to begin leaving Iraq but so long as Bush is determined to stay until the job is finished, at least through 2008 that’s what we’re going to do.

As I see it, it doesn’t matter a whit what anyone thinks about the ISG except for Bush and anyone else weighing in is just background noise. Romney is probably better off finishing up his trade mission and responding (or not) at his convenience.

The ISG, like the 9/11 commission, is nothing unless President Bush makes it something. So I figure I'm perfectly safe in ignoring the ISG entirely as I have, and instead just looking out for the President to say anything.

Of course, it wouldn't kill Mitt Romney to say that either.
--
Run like Reagan!

I’m not entirely certain that’s true (politically). If he is seen as tying his response to the administration’s (rather than just saying nothing) and discontent with Iraq is still an issue in 2008, he might get tagged with “staying the course of Bush’s failed policy in Iraq” which could cause voters to reject him out of hand. IMO there probably won’t (nor should there be) much of a “new course” in Iraq but rather a refinement of our existing strategy (as we’ve done since Day One) of trying to make the Iraqi military and (to a lesser extent) police capable of controlling their own nation and giving the Iraqi people a meaningful stake in a more decent (decent, freer) society. Unfortunately Bush has done such an awful job of communicating that message that even though it’s probably the right course of action, it’s a disaster politically to be seen as being aligned with it.

In which case benign neglect of the ISG might actually be the best course of action.

My new tag line says my view on whether we should run from or on freedom and victory.
--
Run like Reagan!

Right now the masses (and the media) think you're either for the status quo or for the ISG report. Saying anything else will just be reported as being against the ISG, and therefor in lock step with Pres. Bush, whose approval ratings are in the upper 30's. Nothing a candidate says now can benefit him or her in 2008. The smart choice is to say as little as possible and wait and see how things pan out politically and on the ground in Iraq.

I see nothing wrong with a candidate that knows what to say and when to say it. One of the biggest criticisms of Pres. Bush is that he often is not the best communicator. Many were upset of his strong endorsement of Rumsfeld right before the election. It was a politically unwise statement to make, and may have cost a seat or two.

I'm leaning Romney right now. I don't know his position on a lot of issues, but I believe he's to the right of Guiliani and he's definately a good communicator.

Romney's evolving stance on abortion? Worth talking about. His so-called flip-flop on homosexual rights? Somewhat worth talking about. His non-flip-flip about the minimum wage? Hardly noteworthy.

And now this? What do you guys do, sit around and sit up sophomoric ways to attack Romney?

This is simply asinine and hardly worthy of a top-line, front page article on Redstate. It lowers the overall quality of the site.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

feeding disunity within the RS and party ranks. A few weeks ago you were all about the 11th commandment this, the 11th commandment that... but how can you pass up a great opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill -- nay, flat land! -- when it comes to Romney?

Leon and streiff, you are two of the folks I admire most here at RS - perhaps THE most if it came down to it. I've just come to expect a lot more from you two.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

that Romney hasn't bowed at the idol of anything-to-help-business yet.

Romney is either a credible potential candidate or he isn't.

Right now, other than him looking good and sounding good on television, I just don't see why we should let his candidacy limp along and distract from real candidates in 2008.

There is not a single activity Romney could be doing right now, if he really wants to be a candidate, than to comment on this report. But "he's in Asia and hasn't read it?"? What kind of a silly response is that?

It goes hand in glove with his history of avoiding taking stances or changing those stances effortlessly.

So I'm expected to overlook his stance on those issues and to overlook the shambles that is the Massachusetts Republican party and say, in my best KLo voice: Wow, he's got great hair, he managed a successful Winter Olympics, he'll make a great president.

I

on a report without substance? Very minimalist. Like your new tagline.

I too

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

There is not a single activity Romney could be doing right now, if he really wants to be a candidate, than to comment on this report. But "he's in Asia and hasn't read it?"? What kind of a silly response is that?

It’s the “silly response” of a man who is trying to fulfill his duties as governor for the State of Massachusetts in which he was elected in part because of his promise to try to attract more business to Massachusetts from overseas.

It’s the “silly response” of someone who is adult enough to recognize that issuing a less “silly response” about such a politically volatile issue in the middle of a trade negotiation overseas might undermine that deal whereas waiting until the mission is over and he’s home would not.

It’s the “silly response” of someone who realizes that no matter what he or any other possible 2008 candidate thinks, says, or does about the report – the only opinion that really matters is that of the guy who is going to be the commander-in-chief for the remainder of the next two years (after which the ISG will be moot anyway).

And as far as “silly responses” go, it’s a damn sight less silly than that of those who have convinced themselves that this is worth getting worked up about or reading anything into it.

Either that or sit around thinking up sophomoric ways to attack McCain.

Why a junior such as yourself hangs around with us sophomores.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

And most of the interesting stuff doesn’t happen on the message boards.

more Romney bashing! What a surprise. Right when I was about to form an Anybody-but-McCain club too.

there is plenty of room for that here, too.

Oh, that's right. The Current Commander in Chief has taken the official position of "I'll tell you next year..."

This is not something to jump on Romney's back for...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

I know it's a slow news month, but Romney isn't even an officially declared candidate for president (yet). I wonder what Bob Erhlich has to say about the ISG?

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

I'm not sure whether it's the crime of the century for Romney not to have commented on the ISG, but the Erhlich comparison is silly.

Only one candidate (McCain) is at the same level of organization planning for running as Romney. He has a higher burden to meet on national security issues than a recently defeated lame duck governor who has no known national ambitions.

much like this whole thing is silly. Some of the same people complain when other blogs point out that {insert trivial subject here} hasn't been talked about in this same space.

While there are legitimate problems with Romney, this is frankly, stupid.

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

My sarcasm switch gets flipped off around 10 PM each night.

Carry on.

FWIW, I agree that this post isn't necessary. I'm not a Romney guy, but I don't have anything against him. We still have at least a whole year on all of this. No need to rush.

No worries :)

I feel the same as you (on your "FWIW") at this point.

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

Ignoring the ISG is a good thing. It basically says Romney does not need a panel of has been officials telling him to do.

Also, ignoring a bi-partisan commission is a good thing in my book because it undermines this whole notion of bi-partisan equaling good. We need a President who throws this bi-partisan nonsense out the window and does what he wants not what some panel tells him. We do not elect the panels. We elect the President.

First of all, he is super busy right now being Governor of Massachusetts while in China. I am guessing his time is rather full at the moment.

Second, as Raven says, if the current Commander-in-chief hasn't made an official response to it, why get bent out of shape if someone who knows a whole lot less than Bush hasn't commented on it either.

Third, Romney likes to study things out. If there is an emergency, he will act quickly. Is this an emergency? No. So he is going to take his time. You want a President who is always shooting off his mouth before engaging his brain? Then vote for -- well, I won't say who, but there is someone in the top 2008 ranks whom that describes perfectly.

Fourth, the ISG report is fast becoming bird-cage liner. When even liberal Democrats pan it, what's the big hurry for Romney's response?

1) Giuliani spoke on the radio to Dennis Prager the day the report was released and said that withdrawing from Iraq would be a terrible mistake and also criticized the idea of appeasing Syria and Iraq. It was the page one story in the NY Sun the next day.

2) Unlike Giuliani and McCain, Romney does not have an extensive fully developed public record about fighting Islamic extremists. His issue statement #1 is opaque regarding his true intentions. Is the reference to moderate Muslims a return to Baker/Scowcroft tilting toward Sunni autocrats in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and all the not benign neglect that implies?

Or is the reference to international cooperation a revival of "engagement" (aka pressure on Israel)? Or is this opacty a signal that Romney believes he needs to change the subject? Or none of the above? I would simply say that that GOP nominating electorate cares deeply about the war against Islamic fanaticism and if this is an attempt to finesse the issue, it's not going to work.

in fighting extremist. I know he helped clean up some of the mess of 9-11, but that wouldn't be condiered fighting. Did order troops somewhere that I missed?

I think Romney has developed a pretty tough record on terrorists.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

Giuliani's record goes back to his days in the Reagan Justice Dept. Check his record following the 93 WTC bombing, his ejection of Arafat, his leadership on 9/11 and in its aftermath, and his speech at the GOP convention in NYC in 2004.

Giuliani has real weaknesses as a candidate, but his leadership ability and his understanding of the threat we face are his strengths.

It is not some savage attack to suggest that Romney needs to engage these issues. It's reality. Romney can win the nomination, but he'll need to prove he's got the full package.

Had Romney come out with a statement on the ISG, there probably would have been a front page post saying how disingenuous it was for him to be politicizing something like this at a time when President Bush is still preparing his reaction to the report.

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

To quote the governor,

The members of the Iraq Study Group deserve credit for their hard work. But their recommendations read like the product of a flawed process — one more focused on reaching consensus for the sake of reaching consensus. There were a few recommendations that I found especially striking: Suggesting that somehow the Israel-Palestine conflict is a root of sectarian and insurgent violence in Iraq is just wrong. Sunnis are killing Shia and vice versa. Pressuring Israel won’t change that.

Proposing that we negotiate with terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran — without a rigorous analysis of how our incentives could ever be aligned — is just counter-productive. I have no quarrel with talking, especially if it yields valuable intelligence and insight about an adversary. But that’s a far cry from actually negotiating with Iran, which sponsors Hezbollah, has nuclear ambitions, and has been clear in its intention to wipe our ally Israel off the map. And Syria is systematically undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon and funding and arming terrorists. Any suggestion that we might trade something for their help or forbearance is out of the question. When considering a negotiation, one must ask what kind of leverage we have, and recognize that there are situations where we have more to lose than gain by negotiating.

Finally, inferring that our troops may be withdrawn from combat positions before Iraq is secure runs counter to my view and to the views I have heard from some of America’s most accomplished military leaders. I am not suggesting that there are simple solutions for Iraq. But it is clear to me that some of these recommendations will not meet our objectives in Iraq, or in the broader long war America is fighting today.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

Where is this from?

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

one-- better late than never
two-- got a link for this?
three-- yesterday the ISG was not important, what happened overnight?

1. Can't resist the final dug huh? He gives you what you ask for and you still dog him.

2. I can't give the link right this moment since I am doing this from My pda at work. But it is from an article with k-lo on NRO. You might find it an interesting article since he talks directly about abortion and gay marriage. I think it is linked in one of the recent blogs.

3. I think you Streiff said this wasn't important in one of your comments I don't recal Romney ever saying this. The answer today? He was asked in an interview and has time to read the ISG.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

1. Get used to the digs. You're going to see a lot more of them.

2. We already know his views on both subjects and all the permutations of those views he's expressed based upon the circumstances.

3. Not me. I said a lot of things about it but I devoted five stories to it last week because it was important. And you're right, Romney didn't say that because according to you guys it didn't make sense for a mucho importante lame duck governor with presidential aspirations to comment on it.

You would be a more effective writer if not for your hubris.

First, the ISG, as has been demonstrated, was singularly unimportant.
- Streiff

Not me. I said a lot of things about it but I devoted five stories to it last week because it was important.
-Streiff

Which one is it? I think we have exposed that you will say anything to knock down Romney. I didn't even need a Lexis subscription for this!

according to you guys it didn't make sense for a mucho importante lame duck governor with presidential aspirations to comment on it.
-Streiff

Show me were I (jbonham76) has said anything of the sort. I think all I said was I was willing to wait. Most of my comments have been to show the hypocrisy you apply to Romney.

Can't wait to hear your next remark that contains no substance.
Maybe you have a witty comment about lollipops and hair.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

read this instead of cherry picking things out of context.

The danger in the report lies in the profile accorded it by the political establishment and relative influence within the two major political parties of the members of this group.

Oh, wait, that's right you couldn't be a Romney supporter if you didn't specialize in cherry picking things out of context.

Drop me a line when you grow up.

all the people claiming yesterday that this was a brilliant move and there was no reason for him to comment were just a bunch of shills.

I'll bet he's happy to be back from that stress-inducing "trade mission" as a lame duck governor and in a country where they have electricity.

I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted it to, Streiff.

first, learn how to post in response to comments (Clue: use "Reply to This" function) instead of the whole story.

second, I think it did work out quite well. I uncovered a bunch of Romney shills who are today extolling a statement, made a week after the fact, which only yesterday they were saying Romney shouldn't bother to make.

I was responding to the entire thread. I've been here for a year. I know how to play.

Secondly, if this worked out the way you wanted it to, why so angry? Fact is, you wanted to knock Romney down a bit, and in the end, all you got to do was enter a claim against a few of his supporters based on their opinions. I'd say that's a little below where you were aiming.

Streiff,

Take the beat down like a man. You got put in your place and couldn't handle it so you go to the "learn how to post correctly" Go ask Johnny McCain what to say now.

Liberal thinking, if followed, will eventually be the demise of America.

is that what happened? Oh, and a very appropriate screen name.

Yes that is what happened. Thanks, I like the name too! It works good when I am communicating with people of your sort.

Liberal thinking, if followed, will eventually be the demise of America.

Try your act at Kos or DU. They'll like you.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

to understand what you're trying to accomplish from a pretty juvenile effort at pulling my leg or finger or whatever.

Anyway, my sort have ways of communicating with low mental wattage harassment.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

It's going to be interesting if the rabid candidate shills become more troublesome than the lefties, both honest and moby.
--
Run like Reagan!

Yes by zuiko

I like how when you say anything negative about Romney you must be a McCainiac and if you say anything negative about McCain you must be a Romneyphile. As if everyone must be in one camp or the other.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

is someone who thinks it wise to ignore the report altogether: 2 shills. If you include someone who thinks it was smart not to rush to comment: 2 more shills.

Also, I believe the proper collective noun for shills is "phalanx".

I just don't understand the hate for Romney. Let his actions as governor speak for themselves.

Like this:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/12/03/troopers_can_arrest...

TROOPERS CAN ARREST ILLEGALS IN ROMNEY DEAL

Romney for 08!

like that with nothing to qualify it. If that's the best you've got, go away. If you have something of substance, post it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service