The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
What hath we wrought?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, November 19, 2006
John McCain staked out his conservative Republican position on TW this morning, and he corrected Steph when the host talked of our soldiers "dying for an immoral policy" in Iraq. McCain insisted that the policy was only "failed."
Steny Hoyer said that Nancy will decide who wins the great Harman vs. Hastings battle, but he's going to ban lobbying.
On MTP, Jim Webb and John Tester struggled. They agreed that global corporations were unfair to the worker. Russert tried to get them to agree to repeal the "Bush tax cuts," but they wouldn't explicitly bite. They want to open talks with Iran and Syria.
On FNS, Chris Wallace told us what Kerry really meant to say. Kerry smiled. Earlier in the interview, he Kerry had said that it was a misstatement that he wished he could take back – basically admitting that it was not a botched joke – but Wallace bailed him out and granted Kerry an attempt to restart his campaign for the Presidency. Of course, he might have been afraid that Kerry would assault him in the manner in which Clinton (Bill) had.
On FNS, Newt said that the challenge for John Boehner would be to decide if he wanted to be the leader who helped the GOP regain control of the House or if he wanted to be the White House floor leader.
Host Schieffer on FTN talked to Charlie Rangel about tax increases and paying for tax cuts. Rangel still wants to introduce conscription. Lindsey Graham says we need more troops in Iraq, but he opposes the draft. And he disagrees with Hank Kissinger.
On LE, Carl Levin said that he wanted to start withdrawing troops from Iraq in 4-6 months. He said that this was not a timetable. Kay Bailey Hutchinson pointed out that it was. Blitzer tried to explain what Levin really meant.
For the show-by-show review, Read More...
JOHN MCCAIN ON STEPH'S THIS WEEK. Host George Stephanopoulos had John McCain in as his first guest on ABC's This Week, and he asked the question which is on every political junkie's mind: Why would someone support you instead of Rudy? Okay, so it's not, but McCain plotted a course to the right, answering that he would get the support because of his "record as a conservative Republican." He did, however, allow that Rudy is an "American hero."
Steph asked McCain if he were for gay rights. McCain said, yes, insofar as he doesn't support discrimination. He said that the "don't ask/don't tell" policy is working for our military. Steph prodded him, and McCain does not agree that homosexuality is a "defect." McCain said that he supports the sanctity of marriage as an institution for a man and a woman.
McCain predicted that if we leave "chaos" in Iraq, "it will follow us home." Steph told McCain that he "keeps moving the goalposts." McCain, for instance, has said that he would advocate troop withdrawal if the situation reached a certain level. That level is reached, Steph said, and McCain moves the level downward. Steph said that it seems as if McCain has arched the conclusion that the President's policy has failed but it unwilling to say it. McCain answered that you cannot have a political solution without a military one. We should also remember, he said, that if we negotiate with Iran and Syria, they have different interests in the region.
McCain said that it will not be the end of the situation in Iraq when our troops come home. Steph insisted that our troops were "dying for an immoral policy." McCain corrected that they were "dying for a failed policy."
STENY HOYER ON TW. Not as forthcoming as Senator McCain was Steph's next guest, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Hoyer or Hastings for House Intelligence chair, Steph demanded? Hoyer wouldn't give his opinion but allowed that Nancy would "make that decision consistent with the interests of the United States." Since Hastings is a crooked and impeached former judge, it seems Hoyer is on the right side of this, but he wouldn't say. Steph said that if Hastings were to get that position, it would fly in the face of the 9-11 Commissions recommendations. Hoyer reversed the previous Democrat track that the 9-11 Commission was the WORD OF THE ORACLE, admitting only that the "recommendations of the 9-11 Commission are good." He said he'll talk to Nancy about the decision, but she will make it.
And Steny is going to ban lobbying.
WEBB AND TESTER IN MTP. Tim Russert spent MTP talking to Senators-elect Jim Webb of Virginia and John Tester of Montana. They are not ready for prime time, but Russert helped them along on Sunday morning.
Webb wants to consult with Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq. Tester agreed.
Russert insisted that neither the President nor the Congressional Dems "have a plan." Tester and Webb agreed. Russert quoted General John Abizaid as saying that withdrawing our troops would bring a disaster. Webb responded that of course Abizaid thinks that way, because he is in the military. (And we know what Senator Kerry says about them.) He contradicted McCain on the other show, saying that there is no military solution, only a political one.
Webb said that when we put together the Karzai government in Afghanistan, we consulted with Iran.
Tester said that even if Harry Reid couldn't keep his promise and get him a slot as a freshman on the Senate Appropriations Committee this term, he would reach the Promised Land eventually. Webb began talking about free trade vs. fair trade, corporations paying their fair share, the wealthiest one-percent benefits from globalization, -- and workers of the world, UNITE!
Webb agreed.
Russert could not get either to openly agree that the "Bush tax cuts" should be repealed. Tester and Webb said that tax code needed to be fair.
From Russert, you could always count on some demand for higher taxes, and of late, he will ask about the "failed Iraq policy," etc.
JOHN KERRY "REPORTING FOR DUTY" ON FNS. Wallace opened by asking if the Dems had thrown the Jokester off the campaign team in the last few weeks? Kerry said he would differ with the characterization, he's apologized, "and we should move on." He said that we've had an historic election. He worked hard for two years, he said, to help elect a Democrat minority.
There is this "terrible morass" in Iraq which requires leadership. Dems won, so shut up about the dumb joke already.
He asked if Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer called Kerry and asked him to leave the campaign trail. Kerry said that we should be "serious about this." It was a bad joke, he said, and "I own it." The "Republican attack machine knew exactly" what Kerry said and they made it a distraction. He said he talked to several Senators about whether it would be a distraction from "what I had worked so hard for two years," and he personally made the decision to leave the campaign trail.
"This is over. This was a misstatement. All of us make them in life. You wish you could have them back, but you can't."
This, my friends, is an admission that he called the troops stupid and wished that he hadn't.
"This election was a moment in history." Americans were tired of Congress. He offered leadership, and that is "the real test." He has laid out all sorts of agendas, he said.
Kerry said that no one wants to talk about the joke but Wallace. Wallace countered that a lot of people want to talk about it, as it raises questions about Kerry's political judgment.
Wallace reported that Kerry's office had said that Kerry had meant to say:
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
What he said could not possibly have been a mangling of that, but Wallace accepted it and shifted the focus by asking Kerry if he thought it was funny to call the President these things. Kerry smiled. He had won this round. He said that the Bush Administration "didn't do there homework." and that the Americans know this.
Kerry then talked about the troops. "I'm a veteran." And Kerry '08 begins here.
The rest of the interview was BushLied™ and the standard Kerry pabulum and garbage.
NEWT ON FNS. Newt Gingrich was Wallace's next guest. Newt said that the Republicans could team up with the newly elected conservative Democrats and form a coalition which would have effective "floor control" of the House. He defended John Boehner, pointing out that Boehner was one of his own reformers and has led the conference for only seven months. Boehner, he said, is "not part of the problem."
He said that the challenge for Boehner would be to decide if he wanted to be the leader who helped the GOP regain control of the House or if he wanted to be the White House floor leader.
Newt said that Pelosi had made some mistakes, such as backing Okinawa Jack Murtha, and that giving Alcee Hastings the chairmanship of House Intelligence would be another. He urged the world to give her six months to get used to the job.
Wallace asked Newt about a perceived conservative vacuum amongst the 2008 Presidential wannabes. Newt said that Mitt was trying to fill that void, and he seemed pro-Mitt, but he also pointed out that McCain is trying to fill it as well. He allowed that McCain was a conservative of a sort, but he went off on McCain-Feingold. He did, however, dismiss the difference ultimately as a mere "disagreement." Newt reiterated the Mitt can fill the conservative vacuum.
Newt said he wouldn't decide if he would run until he's done with some project he finds important.
CHUCK RANGEL ON FTN. Incoming House Appropriations Committee Chairman Chuck Rangel, by satellite, was host Bob Schieffer's first guest on CBS's Face the Nation to talk taxes. Schieffer emphasized how "powerful" Rangel will be, and then he played a clip of Ken Mehlman asserting that Rangel would raise taxes. Rangel insisted that this was "campaign rhetoric," and repealing already enacted tax cuts is "bad policy and bad politics."
Rangel said that he wants taxes "more targeted" to the middle class and the working class. He wants to raise the alternative minimum tax, something created in 1976 to make everybody pay taxes even if they have deductions. It should be indexed to inflation, he said, but first things first: Congress has to get to know each other and "create an atmosphere of legislating."
He wore a very nice suit and a silk tie, and his hair was well combed.
He said that the Dems know that they have only two years to prove that they deserve to lead.
He wants an "end to the rhetoric" that the Dems want to tax and tax. He wants to reform such as social security.
Schieffer asked how Rangel would "pay for" removing the alternative minimum tax, which would "cost the government" a trillion dollars in a decade.
Rangel wants to "simplify the tax code."
Schieffer asked about deducting college tuition up to $3,000/year, and how would he pay for it? Rangel explained that he can't simplify the tax code by putting more stuff into it.
Schieffer asked him if he would give drugs to our Seniors. Rangel said that the government had to barter with the drug companies.
Schieffer asked Rangel if he were serious when he asked for a draft, pointing out that Abizaid warned that the army was not large enough. Rangel said: "You bet your life." He said that Bush would never have invaded Iraq "on flimsy evidence" if we had a draft. Rangel said we needed a draft so we could invade Iran and North Korea. He will introduce a draft bill ASAP.
LINDSEY GRAHAM ON FTN. Schieff's next guest, by satellite, was South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham said that enlistment and retention among those who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan was "sky high." He does not want a draft. Schieffer complained that when the burden of sacrifice is not spread throughout society, we go to war more easily. Graham said that this gives the impression that we don't care about our volunteers. Schieffer argued that the sacrifice was not shared, but Rangel never said we didn't care. Graham said that it is spread, and that our all-volunteer force can win this war.
He agreed with Rangel that we need a bigger Army and Marine Corps, and they'll try to create that in the voluntary system.
Schieffer played Abizaid saying that the Army was not large enough to send more troops to Iraq. Graham agreed that it was "chilling," and it would be "Congressional malpractice" if they didn't do something. He called for 50,000 troops to Iraq, plus more Iraqi troops. He cited the "Powell doctrine" and "overwhelming force."
Graham agreed with Schieffer that the violence in Iraq was far worse than it was six months ago. We've "let the country get out of control."
Schieffer cited Hank Kissinger as saying we can't win in Iraq. Graham disagreed with Hank.
CARL LEVIN AND KAY BAILEY HUTCHINSON ON LE. Host Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition opened his show by talking to Senators Carl Levin and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Both by satellite.
Levin wants to start pulling troops from Iraq in 4-6 months. He said that Abizaid did not contradict his demands, as he doesn't demand a timetable. Levin favors a threat. He hopes "the Baker position puts pressure on" the Iraqi government. He said that Abizaid also said that he feared that more American troops in Iraq would take pressure off the Iraqi government.
Blitzer suggested that Levin's opponents say that 4-6 months is a timetable. Levin said that there has to be a democratic congress to reach a political settlement, and 4-6 months will give them time. He said that Abizaid had said that we had to stop the violence in 4-6 months. Levin said that there would never be a complete withdrawal, as we'd always have "some limited presence." He doesn't want to get "lost in the minutiae." He wants to damn well tell those Iraqis a thing or two.
Hutchinson agrees that we should have the Iraqis more in control of their own country, but setting a deadline would be dangerous. Wolf corrected her, saying that Levin said that he only wanted to start withdrawal. Was that a deadline? Yes, Hutchinson answered.
Hutchinson warned that Levin was advocating "putting the cart before the horse."
Blitzer said that what Levin is saying is that we have to pressure the Iraqis to get them to do anything. Hutchinson said we have to get the other countries to pressure Iraq. Levin said that we had to pressure the other countries to pressure Iraq.
Blitzer mentioned McCain and Graham wanting more troops. Hutchinson wants to "let the generals decide." Levin said that this sends the wrong message to Iraq. He said that there is no military solution, only a political one. "Don't get deeper into Iraq," he said.
Hutchinson said that she favors talking to Iran and Syria about Iraq if Iran stops going nuclear and supporting terrorists and Syria had to cease supporting terrorists. Levin thinks Iran should be consulted on Iraq, and he predicted that the Baker Commission would propose that. He said that we can't have any preconditions on Iran and Syria.
Levin was nowhere near as surly-seeming as he had been when he was in the minority and only the Sunday Show hosts cared what he had to say. He's been reborn with a certain optimism in his demeanor.
Well, no, but at least he doesn't act always like he's going to bite the heads off of cute, little puppies.
-----
Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - preview — Comments (10) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I've been predicting it since the summer, and Newt's comments seem to indicate it could be a possibility.
Oh and I hate all these asshats that host these shows (with the possible exception of Chris Wallace...Bob Schieffer's not too bad either compared to the rest of these partisan hacks).
Happy birthday, Mark! Thanks for the run-down as always. Speaking as someone without cable, it's better than being there.
And what is Newt up to, do you think?
> And what is Newt up to, do you think?
I think Newt really wants to be the Republican nominee, but being the early front runner is usually the kiss of death. So Newt's happy to let Romney wander into that quicksand.
And I'll never support Newt Gingrich for POTUS and I hope he realizes that. If Gingrich actually struggles to become the nominee and tries to torpedo Romney, I'm going to go to actual war against Newt. I don't want him to be the President, not just because I don't like him personally, but because I don't think he can win. If it was just the former, I would hold my tongue but I think that a Gingrich candidacy is setting up a lot of people in this party for a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.
Both Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were complicit in helping the Republicans to lose this midterm election, at least in terms of the numbers. They did that because they want the American people to "get sick and tired of liberals" and see Newt rise as the "fiery phoenix" that's going to rescue conservativsm from the ashes.
We're all going to suffer for the next two years because of their intransigence, and I'll never forgive Newt Gingrich for repeating Democrat talking points in his interview here on RedState, nor will I ever forgive Rush Limbaugh for badmouthing Tom Kean, Jr. in New Jersey. Those two men helped the Democrats out in this election cycle.
You think I'm going to support him for President?
I listen to Rush's whole show as a 24/7 subscriber and have for many, many years. Kowalski, if it weren't for Rush, we wouldn't have ever won the Congress or held it for so long. And Rush was the first major figure to push back against all the poll driven defeatism over the last 2 months. He denounced those that thought it would be a good thing for the GOP to lose and learn their lesson. To use Rush's pet phrase, Kowalski, you are 180 degrees
OUT OF PHASE
You don't listen to Rush much do you?
He even broke precedent and had GOP candidates on his show most every day in October and early November. And one of the things that distinguishes Rush from the pack is that his show is not guest driven.
Plus, Rush is not a politician or a GOP official. But he spent most days leading to the election defending conservative values and republican candidates from MSM lies. He also drove the vote that almost defeated the Missouri cloning bill. Before Rush exposed MJF's lies in the TV ad, the Bill was supported by 75%. It won with 51% of the vote.
Now, Rush is not perfect, but he is light years closer to same than any repub I know of that is alive. He is by far a net vote getter for the GOP. BY FAR.
So what did he say about Kean that I missed?
I have agreed with you about Newt's media mixed bag in the past. But I wouild vote for him.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Suffers from some pretty big delusions of grandeur about just how broad-based his appeal is. He's an excellent speaker and a Conservative standard-bearer to help keep people on track and get them motivated, and to help keep the Conservative machine running smoothly from coast to coast. He's better working behind the scenes than he is up front and personal.
And if he tries to run for President, he's going to find that out very fast. Yes, I have read the straw polls saying that Gingrich should be our front runner. I completely disagree with them. I think -- no, I know -- that Gingrich will turn out to be one of the biggest liabilities as a Presidential candidate this party ever had.
Newt is a powerful man but he should check his aspirations against reality. The American people do not, and have not, wanted a Conservative Firebrand as President.
but if he is the GOP nominee, he would neutralize Hilary's polarization problem.
_____________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
When what he says runs counter to the Republican position. the media dubs him an irrefutable sage teaching those kids something or other.
Newt wants to be a player, and in several conservative circles, he genuinely is. Why is he praising Mitt? The simplest answer would that he thinks Mitt is a genuine conservative, something doubted by many conservatives, and he thinks the guy should have conservative cred. If this is the case, it is not so much an endorsement as it is a suggestion that Mitt should be taken seriously.
Of the two, Newt and Mitt, you'd have to say that Mitt has the better hair.
Thank you for the birthday wishes.
That's the part of the interview that struck me as being a change in Newt's tone about Presidential candidates.
Remember that back when he was selling his book Gingrich said that he would only run for president if no one else ran on the issues he thought was important.
Now there are a couple ways to interpert this recent hint of approval towards Mitt Romney.
One is cynical. It assumes that Gingrich wants power but has realized he can't win the primary/election. Therefor he is going to support Mitt Romney in return for some quid pro quo.
Another takes Gingrich as being sincere in his desire to promote conservative issues, and that he is begining to think Romney would be a better promoter of his issues than his own candidacy.
Still another assumes that Gingrich, while sincerely conservative, is also a bit of a bighead, and that he can't resist the urge to play kingmaker- which would best be done by tipping towards Mitt Romney.
My guess is that it's #2 with a heavy flavoring of #3. I like Newt alot, and he has lots of good ideas, but he does occasionally get a big head.
Of course, it could be none of the above. Maybe Gingrich was just indulging in the urge to "bloviate"
I would give Mitt even more than his hair. I'd go out on a limb and say that he's one of the only potential conservative candidates that will be able to win a substantial portion of the swing vote, most notably liberal federalists. Very briefly, these are the things that make me think he's got a chance:
1. The way he gained the support of the Log Cabin Club during his bid for governor.
2. His ability to make universal health care work at the state level.
3. His "reasonable" support of minimum wage increases.
4. His "reasonable" support of gun control.
5. His ability to keep his views clear and simple.
6. His ability to get a decent number of things done with a Democratic legislature.
7. He compromises better than most while retaining his ideology.
8. He is a skillful apologizer.
There are a lot of things working against him, but for swing voters, he's going to come off as much more reasonable (an effect that would be hightened by Hillary and somewhat dulled by Obama).
I would also say that federalism in general is the best way for conservatives to advance their cause in 2008.
Mitt Romney has way too many "Massachusetts problems" to seriously win the race for the Presidency in '08 or ever! All of the present and future problems with the Big Dig Project alone will sink Mitt's chances, and Democratic Massachusetts Governor-elect Deval Patrick along with the ultra-liberal Democratic Party Massachusetts state legislature and also with the mainstream press will attack the entire Romney administration for anything and everything negative that happens in the future with the Big Dig Project! Also, another Republican who wanted to run a strong campaign for Governor this year for Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, was prevented by Mitt Romney from seriously running in order to have a much weaker candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor Kerry Murphy Healey, have a "free ride" instead during the entire duration of the Massachusetts Republican Primary season. Mitt did this deed of political favoritism towards Healey by deciding late last summer to not run himself for re-election as Massachusetts Governor which prevented Charlie Baker enough time and money to have a serious run for Governor this year. Mitt Romney is also Chairman of the Republican Governor's Association this year, and all of the Republican candidates for Governor this year who ended up losing can at least partially blame Mitt Romney for their losses because Mitt is the RGA Chairman! Mitt even failed to heavily campaign for Kerry Murphy Healey right in Massachusetts despite Mitt's "political favoritism's" of preventing a Primary fight during her entire run for Massachusetts Governor this year, and she ended up losing very badly on November 7 as did many other Republicans. Mitt spent a lot of time and money out of Massachusetts while either running for '08 President or helping with the campaigns of other Republican candidates for a variety of political offices or both, and whenever Mitt made fun of "Massachusetts politics", which was/is very often, it would also harm the chances of all of the Massachusetts Republican candidates at all political levels throughout the state of any chances of seriously making any positive political inroads throughout the state. There are also a lot of people who see Mitt Romney using his only run for Massachusetts Governor in '02 as just a "stepping stone" for Mitt's present run for the Presidency in '08, and this angers a lot of people with Mitt Romney. Others are angry about Mitt refusing to run for re-election as Massachusetts Governor where he would, at least, have a much better chance of winning than Kerry Murphy Healey. Mitt's frequent out of state political activities also indirectly gave the Massachusetts Democrats some substantial issues to use against Mitt Romney every now and then. All of these things combined have ended Mitt Romney's chances of ever becoming President in '08 or ever, and it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media all over the U.S. will also be talking about all of these things among some other negative things about Mitt Romney in order to sink Mitt Romney from ever becoming President.
Where to start on why this analysis is utterly wrong? Here we go:
1. Romney didn't have control over the big dig during the first 3 years of his administration (pre-accident). The democrat Mass Legislature blocked him from taking control since he was elected. Only after the accident did they give him control under public pressure (and he lauched an investigation to restore confidence in the project). You need to do more research to understand this better.
2.Do you think the majority of America (and GOP primary voters) are going to take any stock in what the lunatic liberals in MA think? (see: John Kerry, Ted Kenndey, Mike Dukakis)
3. Nobody cares nationally about the 2006 Governor's race, or local races in the Bay State. It will not decide the fate of a presidential candidate. Conservatives, and voters in general have far greater things to worry about.
4. Romney did a good job as RGA chair. He broke all fundraiser records. RGA chairs do not recruit candiates like NRSC and NRCC chairs, they simply raise money. He doesnt get the balme for the lack of sucess of GOP gubernatorial canididates.
5. Traveling out of state during campaign season? Not running for re-election? Making fun of Massachusetts? Are you being serious? You think that these things will decide who will be the next president?
You lack a clear understanding of the GOP primary process and politics in general.
I actually think the Big Dig will be a problem for Mitt Romney, but his successes in Massachusetts will counteract it, and more. The guy is virtually alone in forging an intriguing compromise on "universal" health insurance for his state. He turned around a state with a multi-billion-dollar deficit into one with a surplus. The education in Mass. is top of the nation, etc. Put it all together, and Mitt Romney has an outstanding record, AND he has no responsibility whatsoever for the mess in Iraq. He can keep together the three-prong stool of the Republican coalition: fiscal, defense and values conservatives. He also can attract independents and even a few Democrats. Women like him. And he's a natural on the "stump" who will look and sound great during debates and TV appearances. I only hope we Republicans and conservatives are smart enough to make him our 2008 presidential nominee.
I disagree with the idea that the Big Dig will hurt Romney. Don't forget, the Big Dig was a brainchild of Mike Dukakis. It was mismanged by a liberal legislature and Romney's irresponsible predecessors (who were liberal Republicans). The only progress that has been made the Big Dig has occured during Romney's short, yet productive, time in charge. He went in, cleared out the patronge hires in the agency, kicked out the corrupt leaders and launched a complete review to restore public confidence. If anything his track record with the project has been a continuation of his sucess at turning around disasters (see the Olypics and the Massachusetts budget).
Romney can also point to the fact that he has tried to take control of the Big Dig from the legsialture since the day he was elected (the democrat super-majority in the legislature would not allow it).
Gingrich can build a grass roots following in a hurry, almost overnight. If he gets some exposure on TV talking direct to the people and not letting the MSM spin his statements. Newt will slice and dice anyone he faces in debates. His opponents will scramble to limit number of debates and scope. Newt will appeal to common sense voters who are sick and tired of washingtonian rhetoric w/ no substance. (kerry, dean, etc..)
Newt's challenged is he is despised by the media/left wing. Because he is their biggest threat. They are already preeminently attacking him w/ biased polls citing his low ratings (at same time as certain other polls favoring him but you dont hear about those in the media). The MSM would rather not even mention Newt in a list of candidates but they will be forced to.
When I met Newt in Iowa a few months ago he is unassuming, respectful kind hearted average guy in person. Almost quietlike. He sees the big picture. He understands complex situations well and does not subscribe to kneejerk reactions to individual issues like the left does.
I need to read up on Romney. I don't know him enough for an opinion.
unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong...constitute the endless repetition of history.
-Churchill
What about Mitt's religion and how it is viewed by the religious right..?
From the WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007755
"Could Mr. Romney win the Republican presidential nomination? Three early primaries look promising: New Hampshire, where he is well known from governing the state next door; Michigan, where his family name has cachet; and Arizona, which has a large Mormon population. But these are not enough--as Sen. McCain, who won all three contests in 2000, can attest.
A crucial question will be whether Mr. Romney's religion is a handicap. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indigenous to America, but many Americans view it with suspicion. In a 1999 Gallup poll, 17% of those surveyed said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, far more than said the same of a Jew (6%) or a Catholic (4%).
Mr. Romney says religion wasn't a problem for his father: "When he was running for president . . . he was the front-runner. His faith just didn't factor in. . . . His statement on Vietnam--that put him under, but certainly not his faith."
The trouble is that much of today's anti-Mormon sentiment is found on the religious right, a constituency that looms much larger in the GOP now than it did in 1968, or than it ever has in Massachusetts. Ask a conservative Christian what he thinks of Mormonism, and there's a good chance he'll call it a "cult" or say Mormons aren't Christian."
.
Add something to you .sig file to clue people in to the fact that you're not actually either a conservative or a Republican.
That's not actually a request, by the way.
Moe
PS: Once you do that we can go on to working on your rather interesting views towards the quote-unquote 'religious right', and how to express same without coming across as a schmuck.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
One of the oddest things that John Kerry keeps saying (about his infamous "stuck in Iraq" comment) is "the White House knows what I meant...they know it was a botched joke" Huh? Well, judging by John Kerry’s history of comments about the American military, you’d have to conclude that Kerry has always seen soldiers as helpless dupes, often driven to horrible callousness and recklessness--even war crimes. Time and time again, he’s portrayed soldiers as clueless dupes of a corrupt Pentagon and President. That's the whole essence of his comment on the military, throughout his career--1971 on. Why should the White House "know" that Kerry has changed his mind? And when exactly did that happen?