The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review
And Rudy says that he'll win on Tuesday.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features | Sunday Morning Talk Shows — Comments (76) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, January 27, 2008
On FNS, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that the American people have "got to be pleased" with the bipartisanship with which he and Nancy got their scheme together involving government checks to stem a recession which he acknowledged does not exist in an economy which he insisted is still growing. He praised the bipartisanship, calling it a case of R's and D's putting the country's economic interests over their own political interests, when he just admitted that we don't need the scheme and we know that it is candy for the voters in an election year.
Mike Huckabee was next on FNS, defending himself against attacks from Mitt Romney, talking about Romney's "secret timetable" for getting out of Iraq. He declared that he is coming in 2nd in national polls and that this was a "national election." (Both the primary system then the Electoral College are proof otherwise, but there we have it.) Huckabee spoke of the mutual respect he and Senator McCain share.
On TW, South Carolina's Dem winner Barry Obama said that his campaign proved that you could rise about racial politics in South Carolina, but Bill Clinton played racial politics. He said that Ronald Reagan transformed the political agenda for twenty years, and he averred that Democrats now have the opportunity to do the same.
On MTP, McCain backed his assertion that Mitt Romney had called for a timetable for leaving Iraq. The former Commerce Committee chairman defended himself against Romney's charge that he is clueless on the economy. He wasn't sure how to defend himself against Thad Cochran's assertion that he's losing-control nuts. Oh, and he claimed that he, Lindsey Graham, and the President concocted the idea for the Surge.
On FTN, Rudy Giuliani stressed his record as a tax cutter and predicted a win in the Florida Republican primary. He said that his strategy to ignore the early States while concentrating on Florida was the right one, given the "assets and resources" he had.
Next on FTN, Hillary agreed with Representative Jim Clyburn that the results in South Carolina should change the tenor of the Democrats' debate; in fact, she claimed this notion as her own. She blamed Clinton's over-the-top South Carolina behavior on enthusiasm for his spouse and "sleep deprivation."
On LE, Mitt Romney repeated as a mantra that John McCain does not understand the economy. He said that John McCain was a liar for telling people that Romney had advocated a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq when speaking to Robin Roberts on ABC News' Good Morning America last April. He said that the economy was in his genes, and that he was all about the future. He would apply "Reagan principles" to the economy. He did not mention his own "stimulus" proposal.
Read On for the show-by-show review. …
HANK PAULSON ON FNS. Host Chris Wallace's first guest on FOX News Sunday was none other than Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, on to defend the Paulson-Pelosi stimulus package. Wallace introduced that plan as $150-billion in "tax cuts." That is a mischaracterization, as the package contains no tax cuts; rather, the government will be mailing checks to people of their choosing. But Wallace's point was that the agreement had been reached with the Democrat-controlled House, while the Senate may want to throw all sorts of other things into the package. Paulson responded that the American people have "got to be pleased" with the bipartisanship with which this plan was crafted. He argued that the goal had to be to keep the plan "simple," and adding the things Wallace had suggested the Senate wanted to tack on would merely "bog it down."
Wallace averred that "everybody wants this to pass."
Wallace pointed out that Paulson does not like everything in the plan, such as the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies financing larger mortgages. He played a clip of Paulson complaining that he had been run over by a "bipartisan steam roller" on this issue. Paulson argued to Wallace that we need reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, such as those being worked on by Barney Frank in the House and Christopher Dodd in the Senate.
Paulson called the scheme a bipartisan agreement which shows the Republicans and Democrats can put the country's economic interests about their own political interests. (Some argue that this is all about election year politics, however.) Paulson argued that we are not to worry about the scheme, because it is only temporary, meant for immediate gratification of some sort lasting only this (election) year. He promised that it will restore jobs and confidence in the market.
Wallace pointed out that the Bush Administration has been taking flak for not acting soon enough to counteract the current hypothetical recession, and he played a clip of Paulson some months ago arguing that we should let the economy continue to grow. To Wallace, Paulson said: "I still believe this economy is going to continue to grow," thus admitting that the scheme is not needed. He said that the Administration is pushing this scheme despite the lack of a recession in order to "minimize the risk" of a future recession.
HUCKABEE ON FNS. Wallace's next guest on FOX News Sunday was Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who defended himself against Mitt Romney's charge that he was fabricating his charge that Romney wanted a timetable to get out of Iraq which we would not reveal to the Iraqis. (Huckabee's right. Here's the story from the source, ABC News, from last April.)
Responding to Romney's boast of experience in the business world, Huckabee argued that it is more important for a President to have public sector experience managing government than it is to run a business; Huckabee, of course, leads in this criterion.
Huckabee asserted that he was the candidate at the GOP debates several months ago who argued that the economy might not be as strong for all people as his rivals argued. They chastised him then, now they agree.
Wallace accused Huckabee of being nicer to McCain than to Romney, and he offered him the chance to "slam" John McCain. Huckabee said that he and McCain have a mutual respect and that they are not trying to "crack the knee-caps" of one another.
Wallace pointed out that Huckabee is polling fourth in Florida and asked why he doesn't concentrate more on the Super Tuesday States. Huckabee said that he was, and Wallace pointed out that he was advertising only in about seven States, skipping such as New York and California. Huck said that a poll showed him second in California and in 2nd place nationally. After all, he said, this is "a national election." (Well, not in the primaries, and it's so easy to forget the Electoral College. But Al Gore hasn't, I'm sure.)
Huckabee argued that he's the only one who has faced and defeated the "Clinton Political Machine."
Wallace asked Huckabee about how he indicated that Saddam might have had WMD when we invaded, even though the Iraq Survey Group found nothing. Huckabee pointed out that just because none were found does not mean that there had been none there. Saddam had possessed and used WMD in the past, and they could have been transferred to Syria or Jordan when we invaded.
BARRY ON TW. On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos interviewed the big winner of yesterday's Dem primary in South Carolina, Barry Obama. Obama argued that we'd seen a "shift" in South Carolina which went "beyond racial politics." He argued, however, that "a lot of South Carolinians" saw Hillary's surrogate Bill, a former President, as playing racial politics.
Asked by Steph about his Ronald Reagan remarks, Obama explained that Ronald Reagan had changed the trajectory of American politics, gotten people focused on optimism and dynamism. He said that Reagan had challenged the mind set that you could solve problems through government intrusion. He argued that Reagan had transformed the political agenda for decades, but that the Democrats had the opportunity to do that now.
Obama talked about his goal of reducing the influence of special interests and lobbyists. (He stopped short of declaring Two Americas.)
Steph asked him about Tony Rezko, and Obama said that the story has been out there for years. He said that Rezko was a businessman and developer, a friend for 20 years, and no one has alleged any wrongdoing on Obama's part. Obama has given back all the money donated by Rezko and his associates, and he promised to give back more.
MCCAIN ON MTP. He got an half an hour on this morning's edition of NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, did John McCain. Russert led with a McCain quote: "The fact is … Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself." McCain said that he was talking specifically about the "defining moment" last April when people were choosing between backing the surge and calling for a "timetable" for withdrawal. "Timetables was the buzz word," McCain stressed. He credited "Lindsey Graham, I, the President, and others" with pushing the surge. "Governor Romney," he continued, "said there had to be quote 'timetables,' although they had to be secret." If we'd have done that, McCain held, we'd have "lost the surge" and "al Qaeda would be celebrating a victory over the United States of America."
Russert pointed out that Romney claims never to have said that, McCain is dishonest, and McCain should apologize. McCain brought a clipping with him, and he read it to Russert. Russert pointed out that when Hillary had suggested a timetable, McCain had accused her of advocating surrender. McCain differentiated between the two, pointing out that Hillary wanted a timetable for withdrawal within 60 days, which is surrender. Romney, he said, was merely wrong and had equivocated on it. He reminded that Romney had said at one of the debates that the surge was "apparently" working. McCain said it was clearly working.
Russert showed the NBC/WSJ poll saying that those Americans surveyed think that getting rid of Saddam was not worth the price of the war. McCain thinks that if we can show the American people sustained success, Americans will support the war.
Russert asked how, absent Saddam's WMD, the war could be described as one of necessity. McCain answered that the sanctions were breaking down and that Saddam wanted WMD. He mentioned Oil for Food and Saddam's brutality. He thinks the world and Iraq will be better off "if we are able to succeed."
Russert kept going back to that MSNBC debate. The clip had Russert claiming that McCain had repeatedly said that he didn't understand the economy and needed to be educated. McCain had countered, at the debate, that he was "very well versed in economics." Russert then showed a clip from Stephen Moore in the WSJ – from November of 2005:
[McCain] is refreshingly blunt when he tell[s] me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.
McCain evidently repeated it to the Boston Globe last year.
McCain said that he's been involved with national security issues for his entire life, so of course he knows more about them. He said he is "smart on economics," having been chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. He pointed to people like Phil Gramm, Tom Coburn, Jack Kemp, and Warren Rudman supporting his candidacy. "Of course I always have things to learn… but I am very strong on the economy, and frankly, my economic record is a lot stronger than that of the governor of Massachusetts when you look at his record as governor."
Russert offered quotes and played a clip of McCain stating the he opposed the Bush tax cuts because they disproportionately benefited the wealthy. McCain answered Russert that he opposed the Bush tax cuts because he wanted different tax cuts and concomitant spending cuts. (I'm not sure why he didn't say that at the time. Some conservatives might have thought more highly of him.)
McCain said that "we lost the 2006 elections because we didn't restrain spending," thus alienating the GOP base. He said that because our economy was now "shaky," we had to make the tax cuts permanent.
John McCain said that he is proud of his conservatism and pointed to various ratings from fiscal conservative groups.
He said that he does oppose Republicans sometimes, such as – brace yourselves – Donald Rumsfeld and Jack Abramoff.
McCain said his old immigration bill is dead, but one of the things learned from the debate was that we have to secure the borders first.
Russert quoted Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran telling the Boston Globe that he supported Mitt Romney because John McCain is insane. McCain said that he didn't know on what Cochran, whom he's long considered a friend, had based his allegation.
Strange stuff. And, yes, there was more.
RUDY ON FTN. Boasting that Hillary was upcoming, host Bob Schieffer tacitly admitted that he was settling for Rudy Giuliani to lead off. He asked Rudy if he would quit after losing Florida, and Rudy said that he would win Florida. Schieffer asked him what happened to his huge early lead, did he make a mistake blowing off the early States? Giuliani said that with the "assets and resources" he had, he still thinks his best strategy was to concentrate and Florida. He plans to win.
Rudy talked about the Dreier-Bond tax reform – one page return – which is now his own.
Schieffer asked him about his HOUSE-BLOWS-IN-THE-OCEAN insurance, how he would pay for it. Rudy said that strategic tax cuts means more revenue. He talked about reducing spending, such as not rehiring half the civilians who come up for contract renewal in the civil service. McCain has said that Rudy's scheme would cost about $200-billion, and Rudy argued that the federal government "spends that money anyway."
Bob said that yesterday was a bad day for Hillary, for sure, but also a bad day for Rudy: Governor Crist endorsed McCain, when both Rudy and Romney thought they had Crist in the bag. Rudy argued in response that the people of Florida, not the governor, choose who wins the primary.
Schieffer asked Rudy about the New York Times calling him names. Rudy responded that he did things right, but he "changed some of the rules" for liberal New Yorkers.
Rudy stressed his bona fides as a tax cutter.
HILLARY ON FTN. Schieffer: "You took a real drubbing in South Carolina last night. What did you learn?" Hillary thanked the people of South Carolina for inviting her into their homes and stressed that she won Michigan. (Sound familiar?)
She said that she is working to make President Bush "more vigorous" in dealing with our economic woes. She's pushing for solutions, like a mortgage moratorium "so people don't lose their homes." She likes tax rebates, but she wants to take care of people who lose their jobs by giving them food stamps.
Schieffer played a clip of Obama criticizing the Clintons' "kind of politics" as bad for the Democratic Party and bad for the country. Hillary accused Reagan of advocating "poorly thought out" policy and said that he work on Health Care during the previous Clintonite junta showed how people can work together and get things done. Bob said that Obama was talking about the Clintons attacking him, not Republicans attacking Dems. Clinton said that she was merely contrasting her positions with those of Obama, not attacking. (Sound familiar?)
Hillary promised that they would "come together as Democrats" for the good of the country.
Schieffer brought up that Representative Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), who has publically backed no Democrat candidate yet, had said that he hoped the results in South Carolina would change the tenor of the debate within their party. Hillary agreed and said that this was her idea.
Schieffer asked Hillary about her husband, whom some Democrats had said was "out of control." He asked if Clinton would continue to be the attack dog or would he lightened up. Hillary talked about Bill's commitment to her candidacy, husbands and wives, "bringing our country together." She said that Clinton is on the attack because of his "experience as President, knowing who would be best for the country." He asked about Bill being out of control, and Hillary tried to drag Schieffer's wife into it by saying that the "spouses of all three of us" get excited." She also blamed "sleep deprivation" for Bill's misbehavior.
Schieffer asked Hillary about Carolyn KENNEDY Schlossberg backing Obama, and Hillary dismissed JFK's daughter as someone "she likes" with her own opinions, doing what she thinks is right.
ROMNEY ON LE. On CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer played a clip of McCain accusing Romney of wanting a timetable for leaving Iraq. Romney called this "dishonest," but Wolf played the clip of Mitt Romney declaring to Robin Roberts on ABC News' Good Morning America that he wanted a timetable. Mitt said that of course it was a timetable, but he never gave a date certain for withdrawal. He accused McCain of trying to change the subject from the economy, something he alleged McCain did not understand.
Romney forced a laugh (sound familiar?): "Nice try, John." He said that McCain was "trying very hard" but everybody knew that he was dishonest. Romney repeated that McCain was trying to divert attention from the economy. Romney argued McCain did not have an advantage over him a national security, but McCain was at a disadvantage when it came to changing Washington and the economy. He said that we have to fix the economy to "have a strong military." He said that the economy was in his DNA.
Romney said that President Bush solved the last recession by cutting taxes, but that McCain voted against it. (NOTE: McCain argues that this was because there were no concomitant spending cuts.) Romney said that McCain did not "understand how the economy works."
Romney said that he is "all about the future." He said that he wants to take "Reagan principles" and apply them to the economy.
For all his talk about the economy being in his genes and applying "Reagan principles," Romney made no mention of his own "stimulus package" involving government checks distributing taxpayers' funds to people of the federal government's choosing.
= = = = = =
Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: the preview — Comments (8) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review 76 Comments (0 topical, 76 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Always appreciate the burden you take on.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
... that you willingly volunteer to listen to this nonsense every Sunday morning and summarize it here for us. You should qualify for hazard pay.
But I was wondering, since you've made it a point in several places in your review to mention Romney's silence on his stimulus package, I wonder if you could tell me if, in their 30-minute or so conversation on MTP, Sen. McCain's income maintenance plan was similarly brought up by either the Senator or Russert. Seriously - just curious.
Thanks.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I did not mention McCain's scheme, of which I hadn't heard, because it is a dated plan, like Romney's automotive bailout plan, designed for a specific audience which was not relevant to what was said today.
Romney had just made his "economic stimulus" plan, and he was on The Blitzer Show talking about Reagan, tax cuts, and his deep understanding of the economy. I'll question that just as I'll question the notion that McCain and Lindsey Graham invented the surge.
... it was a serious question and I wasn't accusing you of anything. Not intentionally, at least. I didn't watch MTP (at Church) or catch it on the radio (working in my basement) and was curious to see if the subject came up. Nothing more.
But thanks for the clarification.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If so, I apologize.
I just get it from all sides sometimes when I don't portray favorite candidates a conquering heroes or go with the latest "obviously, what he really meant" spin.
You know, I hope this is over after the 5th so I know what I have to work with until November.
Perhaps an overreaction on my part. If so, then I apologize.
Best -
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
and Lindsey Graham "invented the surge."
Let's look at the historical record:
"After the (Samarra)bombing, NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren't alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy--but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad.
But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy."
from Fred Barnes' cover story on how Bush decided on the surge strategy, Weekly Standard, 2/4/08. This is a great story about the surge, incidentally, the first comprehensive piece I have seen about how the strtegy developed. Well worth reading, though McCain haters and Rumsfeld dead-enders won't like it.
thanks for doing this...I'd have even less hair than I do if I had to sit thru these things myself...
just reading thru your summaries from the Romney and McCain appearances...been listening to Romney for months now and to McCain about various things for years now...the thought/impression that pops into my head? how is it that the Republican nomination is going to come down to the two guys who don't sound even a little believable to me? Romney can change positions faster than the wind can change directions, and McCain seems willing to distort (lie about) his opponents' positions and his own past actions/positions whenever he feels the need (pretty often lately, it seems) all the while still spewing "straight talk" self-piety...
is this the best the Republican party can do for presidential candidates? good grief...
yeah, I'll still vote, but I'll do so fearing for the future of the Republic...
the coalition that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Sure, there were wealthy voters who supported Bush. But there were also religious conservatives, middle class voters who are sick of high taxes and affirmative action, voters who were concerned about Clinton's drastic cuts in military strength, and others.
Rudy's pro-choice stance alienated religious conservatives in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early states. Hence, he had to back out of all states before Florida (where he is doomed to finish a distant third).
Huckabee carried religious conservatives in Iowa, but he spent all of his money there. Without any support from wealthy Republicans, his campaign floundered and is now virtually broke.
Then you have Romney and McCain. McCain survived by pouring all of his resources into New Hampshire, the state he won in 2000 against a formidible opponent. But then McCain lost Michigan, a state where he beat Bush in 2000. McCain alienates both religious conservatives and wealthy Republicans. The support of Democrats and independents has kept his campaign alive.
His pro-choice stand hurt him in Iowa, true. It also probably was a big reason he didn't run in SC. But that's not the reason he didn't run hard in NH. NH is very secular, even the R's there. He didn't run there because Romney was the next-door-neighbor and McCain already had a large base there.
It was a stupid decision, IMHO, however. Obviously, Romney's next-door-neighborness didn't save him, and McCain got far less of the vote then he did last time. He could have taken votes away from all the other candidates had he tried. He might not have won, but he at least would have finished 3rd.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Romney ran hard in South Carolina. Romney spent more money there, as much time there as anyone, and had more TV ads on the air then anyone.
Romney pulled out a few days early because he saw that he was going to get trounced despite his effort. He concentrated on the safe, if lonely, environs on Nevada.
Romney campaigned hard in South Carolina. Period.
...though my post may have made it sound like I was.
That was more a lament...i.e. "Is this the best the Republican party can produce to pick a nominee from these days?" And, by inference, of course, given what the other party is bound to nominate, "Is this the best out country produce to pick from these days?"
And he uses the fact that he lives in a border state in his argument? Say what?
And he admits he would sign the original amnesty bill if it came to his desk, but he knows it wouldn't? Say Huh?
And he always refers to the great, patriotic Americans like many of us who want the border secured as "they". Ever catch that part of his tone?
"They" want the border secured first because I guess it would not be politically expedient to call us the bigots and nativists and racists he deep down thinks we are.
Say huh?
"What would Reagan do?"
Mark you left out something very important. McCain stated that he would sign his "amnesty" bill if it crossed his desk as president. This is important because he claims to have learned from this bill but the truth is he has repeatedly stated that he wasn't wrong.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
I wonder who would want to pass the bill and put it on his desk, though? Remember, whether he'd sign it now or not, he admitted that it was dead. It's not coming back.
the moment that the voters look away -- as soon as the proponents think they can get away with it, without paying a price for it at the ballot box -- it will be back!
And I completely agree.
In fact, don't you think elevating one of the lead-sponsors and chief architects of the bill to the Presidency will be all the proof CongressCritters will need to point to a lack of "price for it at the ballot box"?
'Cause I sure as heck think so.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Especially with the back room dealings on this last travesty of a bill. Had the powers that be been able to keep this thing secret they would have tried to ram it down our throats before we even were able to digest what was in it. Ask John Cornyn what heppens when you dare question McCain?
Remember when he flew in just in time to pose with Teddy Hiccup Kennedy so he could be a part of that press conference? Sickening!
"What would Reagan do?"
If anyone had any doubts about McCain's understanding of economics,all they had to do was look at his face when Ron Paul asked him his economic question at the last debate. You can justifiably lol at Paul all you want and I am not a Paul supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but his question was a valid one and McCain didn't have a clue what Paul was talking about.
Also your bias is so obvious, that is why I watch the Sunday shows for myself.
It seemed as though McCain answered the question fine. Paul went around the corner while asking the question. McCain said he would use experts (as all Presidents do), but would provide greater transparency and rely less on the unofficial advisers than President Bush.
Yes, the look on his face, that's where we are at now. We could discuss the 'raise taxes' whisper, or the 'I don't care about the voters' quote - which would carry about as much validity. More so some, since you NEVER say that while running for office. Me, myself and I, all one Mitt.
Paul made McCain look like a moron, and that's saying something.
He asked him about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, and McCain proceeded to not only prove he doesn't know what it is, but in his rambling name-dropping, actually named people that are on the group itself. What a joke.
And then he started talking about how he cut taxes? Wha?
I read RedState at least 3 times a week and have for many months. I find it, at times, very informative. However, I cannot understand why Barak Obama is referred to as "Barry" every week on this talk show round-up. I think this practice is childish and demeans the writer of this blog.
I have not decided who to vote for in the primaries yet, (and it probably will not matter since I live in Ohio) but I waiver between McCain and Obama. This use of the word "Barry" every week mystifies me and makes many other things written here seem much less credible. Are RedState contributors so threatened by this man that they have to resort to this childish device?
I know this will seem like a trivial point to many here, but it really grates on my nerves and I just had to say something.
Senator Obama is called "Barry," just as President Ronald Reagan was called Ron.
You signed up to post on RedState just to tell me that I am childish and thus cannot be taken seriously because I use the man's nickname? Nice try, man.
You've posted your last here. Go troll in a cave.
Don't tell me being told that something you said was childish was the worst insult you've recieved on Redstae!
John McCain is an insult and an outrage. To run for President after he was an antagonist against us so many times. Its as simple as that and doesn't have to go much further than that.
Romney is part of the reason why we will probably lose big in 2008 and Democrats will probably gain absolute power.
The Romney supporters are some of the most in denial people I have ever seen. They literally try to tell you that Romney is the Reagan conservative, even though this same person publically yelled that he wasn't trying to return to Reagan and thought that Reagan was so horrible that he chose to be an independant during the time of Reagan. And this is just one example among thousands. The whole conservative thing is just to get votes. It is very obvious.
To Romney supporters and pushers: WE WERE NOT BORN YESTERDAY.
Oh what a different and more hopefully situation we would be in if Romney and Thompson were never in this race. They have been the two biggest attackers and promoters of "electability" and money above all else. And they both have the fake conservative media bought and paid for. They have helped to destroy everything.
Send a message to these people who have torn the GOP apart by forsaking social conservatives in hopes of attracting greedy progressives. Visit our petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/a-message-to-the-republican-and-conserv...
Join your name to it. Lets take a stand for the unborn and for the family and for all of the issues which the fake conservative media has proved that they were never really for in the first place. They have betrayed us. Their hopes that their ratings will go up once the democrats are in absolute power is not going to work with me.
Your argument put this way only serves to drive people even further away from Huckabee, and anyone that would say Thompson bought and paid for any media outlet simply hasn't been paying attention.
You need to take a long, hard look at your own candidate if you have a problem with one that's not conservative. Oh, wait. You're one of those single-issue voters.
Never mind.
If I'm a single issue voter then what is that single issue?
Let me go ahead and respond to whatever your answer is.
WRONG.
but don't call him names. We love open debate about candidates and issues, but nothing personal against each other.
It gets old to hear these guys try to put you down and explain you away. It is no longer the far left that attacks us now.
We also have learned that many people who claim to be conservative only were using the social conservative values against democrats, but when republicans are not social conservative it is overlooked and not important.
Thats sick and low-down.
SC issues are extremely important to me. I just get tired of Huckabee supporters telling me he's the only social conservative in the race. It's simply not true.
that Mike Huckabee is the only true social conservative in the race. I know that is an opinion, but I believe it is true. I am voting for McCain but I believe he is a social conservative because of politics. However, anyone who is buying the conversion of Mitt Romney, well let's just say I would like to talk to them about some investment opportunities I have for them. LOL
But then again I was always a big fan of formal logic over rhetoric, so there's my bias right there. Anyway, the most obvious reason a social conservative could vote for Rudy (or a generic non-socon) in the primary would be that, as much as he may value social conservatism, he considers some other criteria to be more important at this critical juncture in history. For example, war leadership, or economic policy, or government reform.
In fact, I could make a pretty solid case that social conservatism is the LEAST important quality to look for in a presidential candidate (as opposed to legislators like congressman or senators). The President is really limited in the ways he can affect social policy under the Constitution. Judicial appointments are pretty much the only big one. And although I share your disagreement with many of Rudy's social stances, ironically I think he'd be the best one on the judicial front given his strong L&E background (those guys HATE activist judges) and his endorsement by guys I respect like Ted Olson.
Anyway, a bit OT I suppose, but I'm just sayin' that you're thinking waaaay too rigidly if you really think that anyone who chooses Rudy in the primary can't be a social con.
I'm displeased with Romney and Thompson, and my comments were simply that the Primary would have been much better without them.
I didn't say that I didn't like democracy.
Thompson and Romney both have no chance of being President and have only damaged the GOP chances with all of their attacking and polarizing.
Thats all my comments were.
So here comes Hillary or Obama as President for ya. Got your pocketbook ready? Whats the matter? Don't like this democracy gig?
TN
In a democracy your guy doesn't always win. Sometimes the best candidate for the job doesn't win. (Bill Clinton)
Grow up and get over it.
but in retrospect (and many of us social conservatices knew it at the time), Fred Thompson was a gift to social conservatives, a gift that Huckabee supporters threw away because they wanted 100% of what they wanted, were unwilling to factor in other elements of the coalition, and are now left some unappealing choices---a "low-intensity" pro-lifer (McCain) and a recent convert (Romney).
Congratulations! Way to go. Hope you are happy with yourselves. Way to apply critical reasoning.
You rightfully expressed concern at having Rudy shoved down your throats, yet you insist on shoving Huckabee in exactly the same manner.
Rudy was more respectful of social conservatives than Huckabee is of fiscal conservatices.
Thanks for throwing the coalition in the ditch. The Rudy supporters started this process, but the Huckabee supporters made sure to finish it.
I am no greedy progressive. When you talk about "greed" and accuse people like Fred Thompson or their supporters of being "greedy" I think that you sound like liberals.
dance to our tune.
Fred Thompson started out his run and many social conservatives were interested but we had some concerns about his position on gay marriage, which was to be for it by not supporting a marriage amendment. Fred Thompson also worked for abortion companies as a lobbyist.
When the social conservatives came to him he simply got arrogant, turned them down and said he wasn't going to dance to their tune. That was a clear sign to look elsewhere.
Fred Thompson's record is not 100% social conservative at all. That was totally a distortation by the fake conservative media and the MSM to try to get social conservatives to support him even though he flat out told them that he wasn't going to do them any favors.
So please don't lecture us on not supporting Fred Thompson. I will never vote for Fred Thompson. Not only is he not a social conservative but he declared war on social conservatives during this Primary. I'm so glad he is gone.
Is that why he won all of those pro-life endorsements?
He said he wouldn't dance to Dobson's tune----that is significantly different than saying he is not socially conservative.
Fred may not have been as socially conservative as Huckabee, but he was a viable #2 choice above the rest. Fred was also acceptable on economics and foreign policy.
You insisted on trying to get 100% of what you wanted, and know your guy is helping out the most anemic "pro-life" candidate ever.
Listen to what Santorum said about McCain. But since Fred didn't give you 100% of what you want---you will no have to settle for far less then Fred.
If you look at the NRL's endorsement they clearly said that electability was one of their main reasons in endorsing Fred Thompson. Most prolife people were outraged by this, as Fred Thompson stubbornly supported McCain-Feingold which would have silienced prolife political action organizations. The facts are that he went against us, and when most conservatives were trying to stop McCain-Feingold, Fred Thompson was on the other side trying to push it through. Fred Thompson also worked as a lobbyist for pro-abortion groups and tried to defend it as his personal life.
The facts are that there were much better candidates to endorse like Mike Huckabee or Duncan Hunter.
So are you happy you are going to end up with #4 or #5?
I am an attorney. I have taken on criminal cases pro bono. Does that mean I am not socially conservative?
I agree about McCain-Feingold. And unlike Huckabee on his tax record, Fred actually answered questions about McCain-Feingold that were not one liners.
By the time Fred Thompson really started his attacks, he was no longer even a number at all for me. I will not vote for him. Period.
The cry of the elites is to tell social conservatives, we offered you Fred Thompson and you didn't take him, and you can only have what we offer you. Fred Thompson wasn't our man and as the Primary continued on this began to be more and more apparent. We didn't want him. Yet here is the elites scolding us and telling us that this is the social conservative that we are allowed to have, if we can get him elected.
Are we happy? I'm really happy that Fred Thompson is gone yes. I am happy about that. I'm also happy with my true social conservative candidate Mike Huckabee.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if anything has hurt our cause it has been carrying the water for the elites, who not only make us look bad but also don't care about our concerns.
I am a social conservative. However, I don't believe that any particular individual, be it Dobson, Robertson, or anyone is entitled to make a candidate dance like a puppet on a string. Dobson makes some crack about Fred's religion and Fred should buckle down and say "how high do you want me to jump."
My point is that social conservatices, and Dobson in particular, really blew this election. We are now left with scraps.
Sorry that Fred is not 100% of what yuo want. Hope you enjoy the 25% that is coming down the pike.
was. Fred was not gift to evangelicals. He was pro-life out of a political principle not a a belief in the sanctity of life, he even said so. No, Fred was not a gift to the evangelical community. He did not need to pander, but he could have at least known who is supporter could be. His biggest mistake was getting on national television and telling the whole world he would not be in favor of a right to life amendment.
which makes make effectively more pro-life than most.
Under federalism (pre Roe v Wade), abortion was illegal in each and every state.
I understand that he was not 100% what you want, so know you will be lucky to receive half as much as Fred could have been.
Dobson picked the fight with Fred, and yes, Fred refused to pander.
I hope Dobson is getting some heat for this.
So if Fred Thompson actually listened to the concerns of pro-life people and pro-family people then he would have been a puppet?
I like a candidate that will listen to the concerns of people.
I don't like it when they have an elite attitude that they are the leader and you are the follower rather if you like their position or not you better vote for them.
We want to elect a leader to serve the people and them just himself.
Now it is good to make a firm stand for something that is the right position, but Fred Thompson wasn't standing up for what was right he was just being bullheaded.
Fred Thompson flat out told us that he wasn't interested in doing what we wanted in a candidate and thats fine, we looked elsewhere and I'm glad that we did. But people want to blame us still and probably will keep doing it, which will only prove that social conservatives are right to be fed up.
"To Romney supporters and pushers: WE WERE NOT BORN YESTERDAY."
unfortunately you have learned no wisdom in those many years.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I said I didn't want to vote for a progressive which Romney has a history of being.
Romney has claimed to have gone conservative only to liberal again before. This guy is not just running for some office, he is running for President.
To me, Romney and his supporters have not only failed to address the concerns of social conservatives about his record and his element of untrustability, but they have downplayed the importance of social conservatives, and basically forsaken them assuming that we will have to get behind them anyways. Well think again.
Basically Romney and his supporters are putting other issues far above social conservative values and so he can depend on his money to win him the nomination since this is what they trusted in.
We do not want what you are trying to sell.
economic issues.
If you could think ahead, you would have voted for Fred. He truly represented an effective coalition candidate. Huckabee supporters were the ones who insisted on putting social issues above all---and now all social conservatices are faced with bad choices.
P.S. Insulting Fred and his supporters is NOT a way to build support.
I never attacked Huckabee supporters in trying to make a case for Fred.
Fred Thompson has been one of the main attackers of Mike Huckabee and helped John McCain win by trying to take votes away from Mike Huckabee so he could give SC to John McCain.
As Fred said, this is a war for the heart and soul of the Republican party, a war against us social conservatives.
And by the way, I didn't know that closing down the IRS was sounding like a democrat.
and his spoken words (particularly early on in the campaign) were not indicative of being conservatice.
As has been mentioned here many times, Huck's advocacy of the fair tax is not seen as credible because (1) he never advocated tax simplicity while in Arkansas (2) it allowed him to not answer questions about his economic record (3) it requires a constitutional amendment to undue a constitutional amendment (allowing the income tax) and (4) because in the words of Huckabee raising taxes is a way to "raise hope."
If someone wants to be considered conservative, you don't justify a tax increase by "raising hope." Could he have sounded more like Bill Clinton in that moment?
Lets be honest, Huckabee is a social conservative who doesn't appear to have strong positions on other issues. Immigration, foreign policy, economic---he is moving right which is good, but where he started from was out in left field.
stool. He saw what was happening, and failed in trying to stop it. At least he was not an active participating in splitting the coalition.
Fred was more serious on social conservative issues than Huckabee was on anything besides social issues.
Now you are going to end up with a Rudy or a McCain. On behalf of other social conservatives--thanks (sarcasm off).
than McCain on abortion. The guy was on record as supporting the first trimester abortions as being legal ( 90% of abortions), he wanted it to be totally left up to the states, I really don't see how he was leaps and bounds better than McCain as you seem to think.
Maybe it was the endorsement of the NRTL and most state RTL groups.
I dunno...just maybe.
And if what you just said were true, he wouldn't have gotten those endorsements.
He has said so numerous times. Find one instance were McCain says that Roe should be reversed.
There is a reason why Thompson received those pro-life endorsements and McCain did not.
In my assessment, McCain falls under the category of social conservatives who thinks that Roe v Wade was unfortunate, but that society isn't ready for a reversal, it is established precedent, etc.
In other words, McCain does NOT feel comfortable saying that if it was in his power to reverse Roe, he would.
Again, look at the pro-life endorsements.
Find one instance were McCain says that Roe should be reversed. In fact I will give you four at least four times when he says this:
“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states. February
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
“STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?
MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.
Nov. 2006, http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/19/mccain-abortion/”
In regards to the 1999 flap,
“McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," which reportedly stated: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its http://mediamatters.org/items/200702200008repeal." Also from the same soure: “In 2006, McCain issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he "would have signed" a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except in those situations in which the life of the woman is threatened, but that he "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." This doesn't say he would support repeal, but it seems to imply it.
“McCain has a long antiabortion record in his 17-year congressional career. He has said he opposes abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and to prevent a woman's death. In a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire last year, he answered "yes" when asked if he supported the complete reversal of Roe V. Wade" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/m... An august 1999 story
"While our nation struggles with the issue of abortion and the division it has wrought on our society and culture, Americans on both sides of this debate should agree that the proper solution for this debate to be settled is through the democratic process, not through judicial dictate. Seven judges in 1973 took the issue of abortion on themselves to settle this issue for every American, in all fifty states. They assured us that by sheer judicial will and power, the question of a so- called right to abortion was settled’ and that our society would now arrive at a shared consensus by virtue of" thhttp://www.plunderbund.com/2008/01/22/mccain-compares-roe-v-wade-to-communist-dictatorship/eir ruling. ( McCain’s statement to march for life)
Again you are trying to blame us for whatever happens because we did not vote for Fred Thompson. I made it clear here that Fred Thompson was not our choice and he made it clear that he would not listen to us and our concerns.
It is the MSM and the fake conservative media that tried to make Fred Thompson look like the social conservative choice.
Fred Thompson was the candidate that the elites would allow us to have if we could get him elected. Well sorry elites but we don't need you to allow us anything.
So don't blame us, please. We didn't vote for Fred Thompson because we didn't want him, and he had some major problems with us.
You are obviously adding meaning to the word that others would not.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Like I'm going to go watch something prefaced in this way.
Judging by your comment history, a not unexpected comment. But gross anyway.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
I suggest that both parties get rid of all remaining candidates and start over.
Ugh. They're all so pathetic.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
Saves me lots of time (and no small amount of frustration).
"Do the day's work."