Redstate

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

He was for "A Surge". He wanted more troops, and he wanted them their earlier. The additional soldiers was only a part of the overall strategy. McCain was not the architect behind our current success.

Romney, are you the candidate for change, or the changing candidate?
Sure McCain, you can have my #$&^%#@$ vote if you want it.
FDT's Principles

surge, he went to Baghdad, walked through a market with a flack jacket on, and said he saw signs of progress. This was when Republicans back home were using terms like "benchmarks" to single that they were "realistic" about Iraq. (And no, I am not talking about Mitt, I am talking about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell)

McCain was roasted alive in the MSM, and his political career was pronounced dead. Despite what Ms. Coulter has been saying, McCain never claimed to have been the only one supporting a change in strategy, nor has he ever said he designed the surge. He has said that he bet his political career on the surge working, and that is true.

John McCain has sounded like he was to the surge as Al Gore was to the internet.

He said several times that he was the only candidate on the stage who supported the surge. He backed away from that statement when Rudy Giuliani called him on it. But it appears from his various statements that he thinks he and only he thought of the current plan and that he and only he supported it.

McCain never claimed to have been the only one supporting a change in strategy, nor has he ever said he designed the surge.

You may deny it, but I watched the debates and heard him say these things myself.

People forget it, but on Lexis-Nexis, you can search for this. It's from Knight-Ridder, and the headline is: "McCain Suggests Iraqi Government meet benchmarks."

Lest there be any confusion, here's the money line of the article:

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

McCain tries to defend himself as the 100-Year War candidate, but he had the same backup plan and the same parsing rhetoric of every other pol. He might have supported additional troops and not wavered from that, but he also hedged his bets a little.

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

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

It seems clear everyone was throwing it around. My point is, McCain did play an important role in supporting the surge, and more than any other candidate in the field, made this plan, this strategy, central to his campaign. I'm sorry, but I can’t see any hedging. I remember watching him in the Senate Armed Services Committee, standing his ground as Carl Levin listed statistic after statistic, showing why we can't win in Iraq. McCain stood his ground, insisting that a defeat would be catastrophic to our armed services and our nation. Of course he didn't fight that fight alone, and if he left that impression during the debate, then he needs to fix it. But he was leading the fight both for a change in strategy and for the Petraeus surge that resulted.

Have a great rest of the weekend :)

I didn't call McCain an architect of "The Surge." The commenter asked for evidence of McCain showing leadership on a conservative issue. I don't think even the biggest McCain haters out there would deny he was a leader in supporting The Surge.

That said, I think an argument can be made that McCain could be considered an architect of The Surge (or the very least submitted a plan that looked an awful lot like the plan that was adopted). Robert Kagan (the brother of Fred, who even Mitt Romney credits with developing The Surge), gives Fred Kagan, Gen. Keane and yes, John McCain and Joe Lieberman credit for convincing the Bush Administration to adopt The Surge strategy.

That's why when AEI unveiled The Surge with a panel featuring Kagan and Keane on January 5, 2007, Part II of that unveiling featured Joe Lieberman and John McCain where McCain said, as he had been saying for years:

"We need more of the right kind of troops, civil affairs teams, special forces, translators, troops to conduct information operations, among others. The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus far elusive hold element of the military’s clear-hold-build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas, to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority -- essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

We are talking about the fundamental elements of counterinsurgency strategy here. We are not inventing new strategies. There are numerous specific tasks for these additional troops. They will need to establish local outposts; forge relationships with local leaders, which by the way, is proceeding in Anbar province; build intelligence networks; engage in economic reconstruction activities; oversee other employment-generating projects; and wean the populace off their alliance on militias for safety. They would do it all in cooperation with the Iraqi forces until such time as the Iraqis can do it on their own."

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.1446/transcript.asp

So yes, McCain didn't invent The Surge, but he led efforts to implement it and had been talking about changing both troop levels and troop tactics for years.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

Seriously, it will not matter if McCain supported the surge or not after he destroys our country from within, with his horrible domestic record, from which he is now running like a stuck pig with the help of the MSM

No, never, the anti-first amendment, pro-amnesty, anti-border fence, conservative judge blocking, Treaty of the Seas United Nations-supporting, anti-tax lowering McCain!!!

BTW, how contradictory is the surge when McCain wants to close down Gitmo and give the enemy rights on United States soil. Yoohoo! Anybody see a contradiction here?

No, never, the anti-first amendment, pro-amnesty, anti-border fence, conservative judge blocking, Treaty of the Seas United Nations-supporting, anti-tax lowering McCain!!!

OK, and so we have McCain the "national security candidate" who refuses to secure the southern border of his own state, Arizona, against terrorists and now he expects us to believe he's awesome because he supported the surge...uh-huh.

We have Mexican military excursions across the southern border, murderers, and border patrol agents getting run down and shot, and John McCain, after all his years in the Senate, has never lifted a finger to secure his own state's border. So where are his 'national security creds'?

And, don't forget John McCain wanted to switch parties and join John Kerry and Kennedy as a Democrat. "Birds of a feather stick together".

No, never, the anti-first amendment, pro-amnesty, anti-border fence, conservative judge blocking, Treaty of the Seas United Nations-supporting, anti-tax lowering McCain!!!

Clinton's Impeachment
The amendment to cut $74.5 million for various agriculture programs
The minimum wage increase in 2005
The amendment to cut $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii
The Class Action Fairness Act
The trial voucher program in 2001 as an amendment to No Child Left Behind.
The amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Basin Backwater Pump Project in Mississippi
The amendment to eliminate $2.5 million for coral reef mapping of the waters off the coast of Hawaii
The amendment to cut $78 million in projects from an emergency supplemental appropriations bill
The motion to kill an amendment to provide $40 million for the conversion of a New York City post office into an Amtrak train station
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
THe amendment to authorize $1.8 billion a year for three years to establish a pilot school voucher program, paid for by the elimination of subsidies for ethanol, oil, gas, and sugar (oops, he's against the ethanol subsidies... and he talks about it in Iowa... TRAITOR)
The Medicare prescription drug plan (oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
the Farm Security Bill in 2002 (oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
THe Highway Bill (oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
The bill that provided Amtrak with an extra $550 million for the fiscal year 2007(oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
The $2 billion in milk subsidies (oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
The Joslyn Art Museum in Nebraska and the "bridge to nowhere" amendments (oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
The welfare reform (oops, "real conservatives" voted for this one...TRAITOR)
The surge (oops, he said Rumsfeld was wrong...TRAITOR)

first, it isn't so much Conservatives that are against him, but establishment conservatives, talk radio, the Sean Hannity's, Ann Coulters, blogs, etc. Some of the regular folks who like these personalities then follow suit.

He isn't a down the line conservative, and he tries to do what he thinks is right, not what he thinks a conservative would do. As such, on several issues, and many high profile, he doesn't toe the conservative line. It is more than that. He doesn't just dare to go against the conservative line, but he leads against it at times.

The Conservative establishment finds that unforgiveable. He dares to not only go against them, but to confront them and lead the opposition. Of course, all of those things used to be noble. Not here though. God forbid that McCain actually reach out to Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and try and craft legislation that compromises. After all we know that we don't need any Democratic support we can just ram all our ideas through and turn them into law. After all that is why Fred Thompson crafted exactly ZERO pieces of legislation in his life. That's because this true blue conservative never compromised on his ideological principle. As such, all he ever did was vote. That is much more admirable than actually crafting a bill and turning it into law that is flawed but amounts to something tangible. That, here, is unforgiveable.

I am so fed up with the likes of yo. You have turned a good and honorable man, and you have demonized him, because he dared do what was right, rather than what some ideology told him. That, to me, is the real ugly part of the campaign. Not any bill that McCain turned into law.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

OK, Provocateur, let me get this straight: it's all good if McCain speaks his mind, even if what he is saying and doing is destroying our Constitution, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Leiberman Gun Control extension of the Brady bill, McCain-Kennedy pro-amnesty which will bankrupt the US, pro United Nations' Treaty of the Seas and Kyoto. But, hey, he speaks his mind.

This is an ideology, a liberal ideology.

And, I'll never forget what McCain did to the POWs and their families in the McCain/Kennedy POW hearings.

I hear the term "establishment" bandied about - not directed at anyone in particular, however, this comment gives an opening to discussion.

I believe that it is a psychological thing to position one's self as against the "Establishment." I've posted here & elsewhere about my choice for president (before he dropped out) Fred Thompson running against the establishment of the punditocracy & the republican "establishment" who wanted things done a certain way. Perhaps, if he had surrounded himself with a better, more organized campaign staff it would have worked. I placed people like James Dobson & Pat Robertson into a social/evangelical type "establishment." McCain is running as being outside of the "establishment" of Washington business as usual. Going back to republican "establishment," many see that as the old "blue blood country club" types who are comfortable in the minority, being fed scraps by a democrat majority.

Now, we have a "conservative" establishment led by Rush, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter & others.

How about a "grassroots" establishment? Would that be a good thing?

It will be Hillary; she and Bill will never allow anyone else to get the nomination.

Ted Kennedy has never liked the Clintons and one of the reasons Bill has been so emphatic in his recent diatribes against Barack is they know that the movers and shakers are kicking the Clinton Dynasty to the curb.

There can only be one Liberal King in this country -- and that's *going* to be Ted Kennedy. Watch.

I don't think you understand just how badly Ted Kennedy wants to make Barack into the next POTUS. He's so powerful that even Bill Clinton gets red-faced over it. Now that the real Liberal Lion from Massachusetts has endorsed him along with George Soros and Oprah, the Clintons are wheezing.

It's going to be Barack. Anyone looking at how college professors have been thinking in the past eight years knows that.

For the first time since the 1960's, the Kennedy family has some really new face with an exuberant gang of acolytes among the yoof to make into the Party's nominee. Barack Obama is much, much more popular with the kidz than Hillary is. He's also much more popular among college professors, and even though Bill Clinton is actually *correct* in saying that his candidacy is a fairy tale, that's all it's going to take.

The thing about Barack is that he really is the Tiger Beat candidate, except that he has the backing 200% of the old liberal establishment in this country, including Robert Redford, who is a direct descendant of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Redford hasn't explicitly endorsed Obama yet, but he will, the more Hillary's star falls.

McCain won't be able to withstand Barrack's cross over appeal, negating a huge strength. The conservative base will either be holding their noses or completely refraining. The media will be framing it as More of the Same vs. Rebirth of the American Dream. I don't think Barrack's weakness is exploitable by McCain, McCain's experience is being a part of the Washington establishment that America is giving lower Satisfaction Ratings than Bush. Barrack's freshness and lack of experience would actually play strongly against McCain's experience. In other words, if it's McCain, we had better hope and pray that Clinton pulls it out. You could always just play it smart and vote for Romney. That still may happen....

Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.

-White Goodman

But that's how I think of it. I'm going to do my best to defend McCain but I think the tide has turned massively against the Republicans and the best chance they had has been beaten to death here on this blog. McCain is going to come up short against Obamarama. He might have had a chance against Hillary, but Hillary isn't going to be the Donk nominee.

And in the meantime, over the past six months, too many Republicans have done the Democrats' dirty work for them in tearing Romney down. He's done. The numbers reflect that.

I think we're in for a long, hard, losing fight. Obama has so much mojo right now, and there is so much impetus in this country to get away from Republicans, that I think we're looking at (D)-(D)-(D) day.

I'll still support McCain, but I don't think it's going to matter. I think we're screwed.

Thanks, GWB!

Because we do not want the democrats to govern as if they have a mandate. McCain gives us the best chance to keep it close.

If they win even by the smallest of margins, it will be cast not only as a mandate, but also the rejection of everything republican going back to Reagan.

The media of course will trumpet this 24/7 for months.
______________________________
"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

Let's hope Obama beats McCain. McCain is to the left of Obama on everything except the war. Conservatives will do much better against Obama and Hillary than McCain the liberal.

On what planet? Obama is left of Jimmy Carter, what the hell are you talking about.

After this comment, I envoke the Hinz Rule.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Um, let's see Jimmy Carter was president in 1976. Let's move forward. Tell me how McCain's positions differ from Hillary or Obama outside of the war in Iraq.

McCain will not appoint Supreme Court Justices who make things up (like constitutional rights to abortion/sodomy/etc.) as any liberal President will do.

"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"

Excuse me! McCain and his gang of 14 essentially blocked all of Bush's conservative judicial nominees by NOT supporting the good Republicans and their attempt to stop the unConstitutional filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees by the Dems. Now none of Bush's judges will EVER be confirmed and you want to talk to me about judges and McCain. I don't think so.

What about McCain saying he would not support a Justice such as Bush's awesome appointment of Alito because he wears his "conservatism on his sleeve'?

Are Americans asleep???

No, never, the anti-first amendment, pro-amnesty, anti-border fence, conservative judge blocking, Treaty of the Seas United Nations-supporting, anti-tax lowering McCain!!!

Is that his record is so shallow and so Socialist and his personal demeanor is so wooden and forced that we can beat him. He's really better suited to be a Professor than he is a Presidential candidate, and that's why so many professors like him. He should be running for President of Yale, not President of the United States. Even on Letterman the guy can't loosen up a little, he's so constrained by his own exact parsimony. What a horrible man to have as President.

In that, McCain may have a chance. Obama is a thin-skinned oversensitive academic who was pushed into this spot by a bunch of other thin-skinned, oversensitive academics. We might be able to work against him on that score. It's going to be tough, because Kennedy and Soros want him so bad, along with Geffen and Katzenberg, that they'll do everything they can to pump huge sums of money into manufacturing his image between now and November.

And without someone strong to counter him, they'll win. Obama is the early '60s candidate -- he's got the girls ready to throw their panties on the stage for him.

Because Barack is right now the man with the power of the p***y. All you have to do is take a trip to U.Mass Amherst and ask any coed. They're ready and waiting for him.

Is if there are many more like me who would not be terribly disappointed with him as president, then the needed mo-jo just may be missing on the republican side if McCain is the nominee.

Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.

-White Goodman

Damn, that was some blunt talk. I like it though. I graduated from UMass Amherst. Know all abou them hippie groupies.

But they wouldn't be appropriate here on a family-oriented blog. But believe me, the panties are off for Obamarama. It's the free-love 60's feeling all over again.

I'm with you. I come from a commercial fishing family on the hard docks of New Bedford and trust me, fishermen really do drink and swear like depicted. Four years in the Happy Valley didnt help. I have to really hold back. From Amherst to Boston, I'm single and on the circuit, I know all about the youth crush on Obamarama.

for me too, to keep my usually foul mouth in check. And yeah, the Obama things do look and sound like a h/s or college pep rally, complete with nubile young things that are easy to impress.

In Vino Veritas

Take a look at me. I'm older than the college set, not much to look at, and married for 6 years. It has been made aware to me on several occasions that, if I was "down for the struggle", that they would be willing to alleviate my pain, if you get my drift.

Dang me and my morals!

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

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

..

He is handling the Clinton attacks with composure

Barack Obama hasn't come up against any real opposition yet. He's coasted in his entire career thus far and his rise to prominence happened primarily because the Republican Party in Illinois was defenestrated while he was running for Senate.

He's got tremendous liabilities as a Presidential candidate but on the other hand he has the race card to throw. I've said before and I'll say it again that Barack Obama is the academic choice. He was elevated to prominence in Illinois *only* because the Ryan administration was getting cut to ribbons over the licenses for bribes scandal and the rest of the party there was so beaten up that they had to try and nominate:

1) Mike Ditka
2) A Sadomasochist Stockbroker
3) Alan Keyes

As people to fill the seat. Obama walked right through that open door and that's why he's the nominee for President right now. But he's a totally untested man and his record will not stand up if the Republicans are willing to go to the mat to beat him. It's going to be a tough fight because we're supposed to be the Party of Lincoln: that's exactly why he's going to be the nominee against us: they'll call us hypocrites. We'd better be prepared for it, because the way the tea leaves are reading for me right now, he's going to be the guy we're fighting in this contest.

I'm only 50/50 about whether we can win. In my pessimistic moments I don't know how we can beat the Beatles.

When you know you have Ted Kennedy, Moveon.org, George Soros, Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, and at least 5,000 Ph.D.s on your side. He doesn't have to sweat.

Obama came up through the Illinois Dem machine. You know he can take some heat.
______________________________
"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

there are legs to the Rezko situation (same with Hil as well)

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

First of all, that was an easy walk for Barack. Second of all, it's been even easier since he got into the U.S. Senate.

Both Clintons are really, really angry because they know he's had a cakewalk up until this point. But they can't say it.

And it looks like they are having no trouble and it is coming as if naturally, it means one of two things.

1. The task is trivial
2. They have great skill.
______________________________
"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

Based on everything I know, that in Barack's case it was #1.

He was literally skyrocketed to where he is today. When Ryan had to face prison in Illinois and had to apologize at Northwestern University and give clemency to everyone on Death Row, Barack Obama was the big gleam in everyone's eye.

That's why he's here, now.

You can't imagine how bad the Republican party in Illinois was faring while Barack was being boosted. It was a regular laugh-a-thon among liberal intellectuals I knew. It was a disaster for Republicans. I know because I also know how the case against Ryan got prosecuted. Trust me: Obama was the man in the right place, at the rightest time in history for him, and Rahm knew it, and he seized the moment.

This is one of the few times in the world when I can actually understand why Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are so angry. They're angry because this dude from Illinois who has absolutely zero credentials on the national level is beating the crud out of them in terms of popularity and he's racking up all the big endorsements. I feel their pain, because I know in this instance, they're right about it. Obama is a shell, and they can't stand even having to debate the guy.

They were aganist him in his first bid for Congress in 02 when he ran in a primary aganist Bobby Rush and even in the 04 Senate Primary they supported State Comptroller Dan Hynes.

McCain '08

I think the Clinton's are saving their best attacks on Obama until they need to use them. The reason is they might need him as a veep and do not want to use them if they do not have to for that reason. BTW, Obama can get in the mud besides the Jack Ryan thing, a couple of weeks before the Dem Primary, it was found it that his main challanger in that race Blair Hull had a sex scandal of his own. Despite all his lofty rhetoric about raising the national debate, Obama does how to throw the mud also.

McCain '08

There's just not much mud for the Clintons to throw against Obama. In comparison to their family, he makes his seem like a model of prudence and circumspection. He can't be attacked on his intellectual credentials because he's got "genius" Hillary overmatched, frankly. He doesn't have any of their liabilities: there's virtually no record to speak of except things they would agree with themselves.

That's why Kennedy and Soros are supporting him over the Clintons (aside from the fact that neither of them are really too cozy with the Clintons):

Barack Obama is the candidate who can be manufactured to fit virtually any demand. He's an open book, he's a lump of putty. They'll bend him and shape him into anything they want and not only is there nothing to say he wouldn't have been that, he'll go along with it!

He's the first politician in the millenium who could really beat the Clintons by being *more nebulous*. It's astonishing to think that, but it's true.

They absolutely will not attack his wife, and neither will anyone else. Who is she? Nobody knows. But nevertheless there will not be a single negative word written about Michelle Obama, ever. Ever.

So she's an officially protected individual and Obama has at least 50 national hit points of protection himself. He's virtually unbeatable. That's why Kennedy and Soros are supporting him.

The Republicans will have a very, very hard time tearing down Barack Obama -- much harder than they had tearing down Mitt Romney. Good luck!

I think that Obama in a head-to-head contest with McCain will have to beat himself to lose. We can't count on that. He's a very intelligent guy and he's being handled by some of the best in the business. He's a *much tougher* candidate than Hillary. He's TEN TIMES as difficult as Hillary to beat.

Obama's strength comes from the fact that he's a made man. He's been deliberately placed into the position he's in, but nobody can say that. The real reason he's much stronger than Hillary is that *anything* you say against Obama is going to draw the identity-politics race card. Because of that -- not based on his record -- he's going to coast to the Presidency, also. His record is atrocious, but Republicans are going to have to be superduper sensitive about how they criticise him, which means they might as well give up now.

Can't win against him, I think.

You are wrong.

His strength is that he is just plain likable. There is no other way to call it. I know many who look at Hillary with scathing eyes (like me) and just get angry at the sight of her. There just aren't that many people who feel that way about Obama. He is a genuinely nice guy, and it will be incredibly difficult to beat him. It is kind of like running against Ronald Reagan. No matter what you do, he comes up smelling like roses.

Our best chance, and I think the only one that gives us better than 50/50 odds, is for the Hillary machine to overpower him somehow. With McCain, we can stomp Hillary and beat her like a drum on almost every issue. I don't think there is a GOP candidate who would be the favorite over Obama, unless he had a Ted-Haggard level scandal drop on him a week before the election.

"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"

I ment Mc and Hill i trust Mitt more than either for some reason.

Lost my train of thought when I deleted my first thoughts.

"We have the two moderates in the field teaming up to thwart conservatives."

Whatever he is, Huck ain't a moderate. He's a populist.

And the idea of Romney=Conservative is still no more persuasive than McCain=Conservative.

I think the problem Romney supporters are having with winning over voters is that most voters don't see this as a moderate vs. conservative race.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Go read some blogs on Hugh Hewitt to see how nicely the title fits Romney. I know it's lame to refer to someone else to make a point, but that in itself is kind of my point. Greater minds than I have made the connection. The only objections that are valid against Romney being conservative are that he is an opportunistic politician who has a proven track record of not being conservative. That my friend is a case that can not be supported by the facts but only by imagination. Get over it Adam, I am serious.

Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.

-White Goodman

Please tell me you did not reference Hugh Hewitt to make a point about Romney. His man-crush on Mitt Headroom is so well documented he'd claim that Romney can do anything short of walking on water.

John S. McCain III

Romney and his supporters were unwilling to acknowledge his biggest weakness and try to mitigate it. Instead they exacerbated it. By pandering in MI (government will bail you out) and FL (robo-calls about Prescription Drug Entitlement), he turned off some people willing to give him a chance.

He played into people's main worry about him. If you don't want to admit or accept it, that's not my problem. But if you want to understand why he has not caught on as the Conservative Savior, it takes putting down the Hugh Hewitt and listening to people who were undecided (and not McCain fans) until recently (see Dan, Mark, Ben, etc).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Pandering in Michigan? Robo calls? I did not think the Robo calls were proven? And I thought his pandering was really just a government investment in R&D? Oh wait, you say it was pandering and robo calls. Give me a break! Maybe you should see the shallowness of your arguments and come up with something substantive. Maybe you should admit that the reason such things are blown out of proportion in the first place is because of the tepid reception of his faith. Your criticisms of Romney are

Not My Problem

, they are yours, and they make you look little.

Yes, "Government Investment in R&D" is pandering in it's worst form.

A lack of R&D is NOT the auto industries problem.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I am not trying to call you a bigot. I don't think you or the majority are. Here is what I do think though.

Our paradigms are the product of our genetic heritage and life experiences. We filter all incoming experience through that paradigm, and viola, we have our reality! For non-Mormons, especially for those to whom the Mormon faith is not main stream, experiences with Romney are a little different. Those slight differences are apparent in your attacks, not because you are attacking him per se, (that is part of the process) but because you believe those attacks so adamantly.

It is said he has no core values, will say anything to get elected, is lying about his conversion on abortion (and then only in the governments role; he's always been personally pro-life), and other attempts at assassinating his character. All these attacks are based on the obvious built in biases that come with the territory of being different.

last I checked we don't decide nominees by national polls, but rather state to state. Also, anyone that isolates one poll is likely someone with an agenda. McCain leads in most of the states that count and that is all that counts.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Who was polled? How many? When? What else was asked or stated?

He's referring to the Rasmussen tracking poll. He's not looking at the Fox poll that has McCain up 30 or the Gallup poll that has him up 20.

As an aside, but just taking a glance over some of the previous primary numbers on Real Clear Politics, but Rasmussen polls seem to be under counting McCain's support. In Florida they had Romney up solidly until the day before when the had McCain tied with Romney (he won by 5). In NH they had McCain up on Romney by 1 (he won by 5.5). In SC they had McCain at 24 percent and Romney at 18 (McCain ended up with 33 and Romney at 15). RCP doesn't include a Rasmussen poll in the final numbers for the other previous contests, but for the Feb 5 races they usually represent the low end of McCain support in the polls listed.

For most polling agencies that probably isn't a terrible record (they're always within the margin of error), but I guess I've become accustomed to Rasmussen being more on the mark.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

It shows a snapshot of a four day rolling average. This poll has had the following in the lead the past few months and even weeks: Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Rudy. But only twice has it had Romney in the lead. I don't see it happening. Not enough time. And Romney has the same problem Thompson had, the more he campaigned locally the worse the numbers got.

there are dozens of polls, and the only thing I look at is the RCP average, because that takes all of them and merely gives the numbers as an average. Obviously, you don't like McCain so you found a poll that fit your world view. Anytime anyone points to one poll I stop paying attention to anything they say because that individual is biased. With all of the polls out there, there is no logical reason to show one poll. The only reason someone would only show one poll is because that result fits their world view.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

So that's two races where one polling firm has Romney losing by only three or four. What about the other twenty races? If this is the evidence of too close to call, Mitt's in trouble, especially since a close second in Missouri wins him zero delegates.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

At least it will have to without a Conservative at the top of the ticket. Since you keep insisting that McCain is not a Conservative and history and evidence show that neither Huckabee or Romney are Conservatives, we are left with left with our Liberal candidate running against the Dem's Liberal candidate in November.

Sorry, but Romney is supported by the vast majority of Conservative Leaders, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, etc.

Most of those who support McCain are Liberal or Moderate.

McCain-Feingold is not Conserative
McCain-Kennedy is not Conservative
McCain-Edwards is not Conservative
McCain-Liberaman is not Conservative.

And he has constantly been winning the Conservative votes if you just looked at the exit polling.

sorry, I can tell people I am Latino, but if it isnt true, it isn't true. And Romney is not a conservative, well unless you count on what he says "since" he starting running for the Presidency.

Please substitute "McCain" for "Romney" in your last post and you will then be factual.

without thunder again telling the rest of us how the world will fall apart if McCain wins? I think they can so stop. We all know how you feel and at this point it is the re definition of overkill. Everytime I point it out you conspicuously leave the discussion only to resurface elsewhere to assassinate McCain's character some more.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I am beginning to see why Romney supporters are so exasperated. You actually think "If McCain/Huckabee win, it’s a Socialist/Liberal party versus a if Romney wins its a Conservative party" is true. It's not just pimping your candidate, you really believe that.

And the frustration comes from the fact that most Republicans don't see the race that way. Most see this as a choice between 3 flawed candidates. They see it as a trade-off. You can have the War Hero who sticks to his guns and agrees with you 50% of the time, the Governor who speaks beautifully but doesn't understand a thing about economics or foreign policy, or the Businessman who changes his views from state to state but when he's talking to you he says what you want to hear.

If you can't admit to yourself that your candidate isn't perfect and isn't The Conservative Savior, then you are setting yourself up to misread what is happening.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

just a better "bet" than McCain.

I think he is an andriod.

Just re-read your own post;

the Businessman who changes his views from state to state but when he's talking to you he says what you want to hear.

If the attacks weren't about the man being something he is not, then I would have no problem. He is not flawed in the way you and others like to say he is.

And we don't think McCain is flawed in the way you and others say he is. Most of us think he's fairly conservative.

John S. McCain III

But if you want to understand why he isn't getting every conservative rallying to his side, then it's time to step back and evaluate what is going on.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Does McCain stick to his guns? On immigration, McCain now supports a fence. FLIP FLOP!!!!! He opposed the Bush tax cuts, before he supported them, and then he said he opposed them because they benefit the rich, but not he says he opposed them then because they didn't have spending cuts - a multi-dimensional flip flop. He sued the FEC to require it to regulate political dialogue on the internet, then insisted that he favored an unregulated internet. Why, he even opposed campaign finance reform early in his career, back before his being named one of the Keating 5 got him to adopt "reform" as a shield from further ethical criticism.

I think you would really understand why so many conservatives are exasperated, Adam, if you began to think more seriously about the real person John McCain is. To many conservatives, he is, as George Will put it, pretty much another Bill Clinton - and he gets away with it.

My perception of things is that Romney followers, more than most, have recognized the flaws of their candidate. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm certainly not wrong in noting that virtually no Romney supporter thinks his man is perfect.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

he thought it was irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending, what a novel idea. He has always supported the fence and the fence was part of his plan. What he has changed on is that he now wants to secure the border first and then consider the illegals here.

Look, you need to either pick one or the other. Either he has a mind of his own and thus has principle, or he has no principle in which case he would bow down to get your vote. You are now finding things to dislike because you dislike him.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

and no one answered it to my satisfaction.

You say

He didn't oppose the Bush tax cuts, he thought it was irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending, what a novel idea.

He actually opposed them because they favored the rich according to quotes from the time. Now he wants us to know he opposed them because there were no offsetting spending cuts.

If those tax cuts favored the rich then they still favor the rich today. Also, there are no offsetting spending cuts being proposed today.

So my question is: What changed for John McCain?

McCain now favors making permanent the very cuts he voted against twice, either because they favored the rich or because there were no offsetting spending cuts. Although neither of those things have changed, why does he now favor making them permanent?

BTW I strongly favor making them permanent. And I know each of these votes against tax cuts are an anomaly in his tax-cutting voting record.

What changed for him to now favor the very tax cuts he once opposed?

Sorry but McCain despises the public sector. He has always been for big government solutions and high taxes. And, there will be no fence. Please visit McCain's reforminstitute.org, funded by Soros and you'll readily see what he has in store for America--open borders and amnesty.

I don't like McCain because he is running from his dismal liberal record...he is a mean-spirited little man out for himself with no regard for our Constitution or sovereignty.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

My point was about Romney. I said they are all flawed. For awhile I've been saying people have to "pick their poison." And people are choosing among people they don't entirely agree with or like. It's not Mr. Perfect vs. Mr. Imperfect. It's a tough choice among imperfects. I'm realizing some Romney people here don't see him as imperfect. Thus, they are exasperated at how conservatives could ever support McCain over him.

And I'm not going into it, but McCain doesn't support a fence.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

If Fred was still in the race, then I would accept him. Its not so much that Romney is so perfect, its just that McCain/Huckabee are so bad.