Was it Over When the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor?
I'm not abandoning Mitt Romney
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 | mass hypnosis | Michigan | Mitt Romney — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So I had pretty much decided that if McCain beat Romney in New Hampshire tonight, I'd hop aboard the Straight Talk Express since I don't particularly care for Huckabee, I don't think Fred has a shot at winning, and Rudy - well, we all know how I feel about Rudy. Over the course of the last six months or so, I've gradually come around to the idea that I'd be fine with McCain as a nominee - my old boss endorsed him, then Curt Schilling declared for him, and he's generally impressed me in the debates. Still, I felt that Romney would be a more trustworthy President on the issues that mattered the most, and that he'd overall make a better President due to a better temperament and more experience running complex organizations. Still, I was ready to happily embrace McCain as second choice.
Then a funny thing happened.
Read on...
I was talking with a committed McCain supporter (who shall remain nameless) about this very phenomenon tonight as the primary results were rolling in, and this supporter was giving me a hard time about waiting to see what happened in New Hampshire before supporting McCain. This individual seemed to think that McCain deserved my support on the merits. As I started defending the decision not to make McCain my first choice, it occurred to me: I'm still not ready to make McCain my first choice, not even after tonight. Frankly, I'm unsure how he got to be my second choice at this point, after remembering all the ways in which I learned - through constant reinforcement - that when McCain is not begging for my vote, he is not a man who can be trusted to govern from a conservative perspective. And I remembered all the times that, once in office, McCain's first instinct was not to mollify conservatives, but rather to mollify our old adversaries in the mainstream media.
By now the litany is familiar: BCRA, Bush Tax Cuts, Gang of 14, IMP-PAC, and (for some) immigration. The problem in each of these instances (and others) that I have always had with McCain is not that he takes bad positions on important issues (he does) but that he does it in such a manner that is calculated to get the most media attention possible. I have often wondered over the years if there was anything he would not do to get on a Sunday talk show. And that level of narcissism signifies a pretty significant problem when it comes to choosing a potential commander-in-chief, especially if you'd like that commander-in-chief to more often than not do things that the media does not like. I frankly don't know how in the world many of us in the party have collectively forgotten this, except that the primary season has led to the demonization of all the other candidates in turn to the extent that McCain has flown under the radar the longest.
Folks, earlier this year, McCain was left for dead by the side of the road by virtually everyone. Since that time, he's been desperate for any votes he could get. He's saying all the right things and pushing all the right buttons - with the exception of Saturday night's debate, he's been the sunny adult in all the debates. And somehow that's allowed us to forget that the man has a long and distinguished history - the longest and most distinguished of any candidate in the race - of stabbing us in the back at the worst possible moment.
I should be clear: I'm still willing to support McCain in the general. McCain is easily better than any of the Democrats, and the intent of this post is not to make McCain sound like the worst Republican presidential candidate in United States history (as many posts about Huckabee, et al have done). My only point is that I don't understand how it seems to be that a consensus is forming that McCain is the "consensus" candidate for us; unless we are agreeing that there is a consensus that we can all remember at some point swearing that we'd never vote for the man under any circumstances. I mean, for goodness' sake, whatever grievances various factions of the party have with Huckabee (and I do not discount that they exist), Huckabee has never treated any faction of the party with the disdain McCain has shown for all of them at one point or another during his long Senate career.
Another reason to not jump ship for McCain yet is that Romney is not dead. Before this race became absolutely crazy in the last month, I would have absolutely said that losses in IA and NH would have crushed his campaign. He is, at this point, still on life support, but he's not dead yet. He does, however, need to reverse the trend of second-place finishes and beat McCain decisively in Michigan. If he can do that, he's got a puncher's chance in South Carolina and then... who knows? Anyone who thinks they can predict what is going to happen even a day in advance this primary season is kidding themselves. Just go back in time to yesterday and ask everyone - everyone - whether Hillary Clinton was going to beat Obama today.
But the Romney campaign has made some critical mistakes and absolutely has to turn some things around. It is critical that Romney's people realize that Iowa was not about Evangelicals, it was about the kind of campaign that they have run. Please hear this, someone in the Romney campaign: people start from a position of being skeptical of position changes. It makes them really angry when they perceive that someone who has changed positions recently is attacking someone else for the position that they used to hold. In other words, for God's sake, your man has a resume on which to run, please stop unloading on every other candidate for every deviation from doctrinaire conservatism, when you yourself previously suffered from the same flaws. This is just a harsh fact of life: Huckabee is in a position to throw stones on life issues, you aren't. Tom Tancredo was in a position to throw stones on immigration, you aren't. People feel like you're insulting their intelligence when you do this sort of stuff, and in so doing, you've made so many Republicans angry with you that I take constant crap from various quarters just for supporting you. Stop in the hopes that it's not too late. Run a positive campaign, one that involves less scripts, and every once in a while, let people know that there's a real person under the hair who actually cares about something - anything.
The clock is ticking. One week until Michigan, and then it might be curtains for Romney. After that time, I may have to reassess where I stand, and McCain will be part of that reassessment. But now that I've had my memory jogged, he won't be my automatic second choice anymore.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Overnight RedState Poll: Polling Hillary's Retribution — Comments (16) »
Was it Over When the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor? 55 Comments (0 topical, 55 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
As to your paragraph that begins...
But the Romney campaign has made some critical mistakes ...
I wish I had happier news to report, but from the very few people I know with any juice in the campaign - They. Are. Not. Listening.
I'm hoping tonight is enough to unclog their ears.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
... jumping ship to McCain, if it comes to that, would be your third position change on the presidential campaign, correct? You were supporting someone before Romney, no?
Just giving you a hard time.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Not sure I'd call it a position change when your candidate is eliminated from contention. Also, wouldn't it only be the second "change" (original, then first change, then second change)?
Perhaps I'm just a little sensitive to this since I, like Leon, originally supported Brownback, then, unlike Leon, preferred Fred, and now, like Leon, am contemplating between McCain and Huckabee.
...is the big-government-spending-pork party that the GOP is turning into.
GOP use to be the party of small limited government. I want that back. McCain is the better guy to do it.
And Romney running on his record? That will be nice to see.
he allows Ted Kennedy to pick his supreme court nominees. The courts should be the most fundamentally important issue to all conservatives everywhere. It is via the courts that the left has inflected most of their damage upon our society.
I'm glad to see you stick with your guy. And FWIW, I don't think anyone sees McCain as the "consensus" candidate. They see him as better than Rudy or Huck at holding the coalition together.
So if your guy doesn't pull it out, the Straight Talk will reserve a place for you on the way to SC, FL, and 2/5.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I don't have to decide anything until 2/5. That leave plenty of drinking time until I might have to vote for Rudy or McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Listen I support Romney and I can tell you right now that he will not win in Michigan. Why, because ANYONE CAN VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY IN MICHIGAN. The dems have no race because only Clinton is on thier ballot, granted Obama people could get out to vote not committed on the dem side, but I doubt it. In 2000 the dems voted in our primary because our Govenor promised Bush the state and dems HATED Gov. Engler so much they wanted to prove him wrong.
This time around many dems will pick a republican ballot and Vote for Huckabee because they think he will be easier to beat in the fall. Just wait.
I agree Romney needs to run a positive campain. I see he has an ad on TV that talks about competition with China.
Well Dick DeVos lost to Granholm and china was the boogie man in UNION country. I don't know who is advising him but I don't think they know what they are doing. Just stealing him blind for Ads..etc.
We Shall see.
In Michigan..Huckabee, McCain, Romney...I hope and Pray I am wrong.
______________________________
"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
If Romney loses in Michigan, then how does he have any plausible path to the nomination? He will have lost despite massive advantages in money, home field advantages in NH and Michigan, and the advantage in Iowa of the then national front runners (McCain and Giuliani) not competing. If he can't win in at least one of these three states, I don't see how he can win anywhere other than Massachusetts and Mormon country.
This article was just what I needed after Mitt's tough night. I couldn't quite put my finger on his weaknesses but you have got them just right. I hope they can right this ship in time and the press won't keep declaring him dead. Things are so very fluid.
Kayla
Romney's advisers need to listen to your last paragraph and take it to heart. Even the appearance of being hypocritical is easy for Joe America to pick up. He needs to advertise on being Mr. Fix It, paint the vision of what a fixed America is and take it out to the folks with as much energy as he has been criticising the other folks.
a close 2nd? Come now
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Has one foot in the Straight Talk Express and the other one will be on it if he does not win in Michigan. I do not want the next President to be Obama, Huck, or Hillary. My two big issues in this campaign have been cutting spending and the war which McCain is our best candidate on, but he is the worst on the next 2 which is Immigration and fighting Global Warming wackos. We as Republicans always pride our self on being the "grown-up party", well we need to realize that at this point and time we need to trade perfection for practicality.
Romney 08
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I think the Romney campaign was spot on to hit Huckabee with "contrast" ads, since the Huckster tries not to mention his own positions for fear of someone noticing he's a pro-life liberal. But I really got the sense that he went way too negative. The first "contrast" was mild, but as they got to the end, some of them seemed just "smarmy". Smarmy is what we're trying to avoid, Mitt. Smarmy is bad.
Keep up the optimism, in more ways than one, Mitt. You're not dead yet. Thank goodness.
Did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor? I missed that.
- - -
Christoph is a Canadian who wants to emigrate to Australia and has a keen interest in American and world politics, sales, and fitness among other subjects. He's been described as center-right, but his opponents are more apt to call him wrong.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I was hoping that was intentional lol.
If Romney's campaign had been doing this all along. It's a little late in the game to be trying to recast their candidate and change the message.
At the end of the day, my dislike of Romney comes from only a few things, but issues that I cannot overcome:
1. He comes off to me as a very slick, Northeastern, Ivy League, Martha's Vineyard, Country Club Republican who knows what he thinks us Conservatives want to hear from our candidate for President because his overpaid media advisors and high-priced strategists told him what they've learned about us from their focus groups and polling.
2. He lost to Ted Kennedy in a year that every high-profile Senate race was won by a Republican except him and Michael Huffington. Sad part is Mitt ran against the mainstream orthodoxy of Conservatism and tried his best to act like he was a liberal independent, not a Conservative Republican -- and yet he still lost.
3. He said his favorite book is "Battlefield Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard. I live in an area that is teeming with Scientologists, and that's just too weird for me.
4. I don't like his negative campaigning and attack ads on other Republicans. If he had not been flip-flopping on issues then maybe it wouldn't bother me so much, but he's been all over the map on nearly every major issue.
5. He said he was a lifelong hunter and lifetime NRA member (pandering to the conservative base of our party), then admitted he only used to hunt squirrels and rabbits when he was a little kid. That's when I realized that not only was he slick, overly rehearsed, and a flip-flopper, but he was also prone to Al Gore-like stories and exaggerations. Kind of like the difference between a real Vietnam Vet who doesn't talk about the war, and John Kerry who wouldn't stop talking about it. Dick Cheney doesn't go around bragging about being a hunter, a real hunter doesn't have to.
6. He claimed he saw his dad march with Martin Luther King (pandering for the general election), then it was pointed out to him that he couldn't have because he was on mission overseas at the time he claimed. He tried to explain it away by saying he was "using a figure of speech". This reminded me of a Clinton-esque hair-splitting, word parsing like "I smoked it, but didn't inhale" at best, or an Al Gore tall-tale at worst (see reason #5 above).
7. When asked about how he would handle a decision to use military force he said he would "consult his lawyers". This sounded like a combination of John Kerry's "Global Test", and a guy who is used to letting his lawyers and accountants tell him whether a certain company would be worth taking private. Neither of which are traits I am looking for in a Commander-In-Chief.
8. He's from Massachusetts. Not by birth, nor by career opportunity, but by his own choice of where to live. He's got enough money to live anywhere he wants. He actually chooses to live in the spiritual home of liberalism and the Kennedys. Makes me wonder if he fits in just a little too well with the attitudes and ideology of that state.
I don't agree, but you have summed up all his negatives very well. #8 is a little silly, since that is where he worked with Bain, but the aversion to Massachusetts politicians in understandable.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Leon,
You hit the nail on the head. I could really see Romney being a leader of the Conservative mevement, until he started tearing others down to build himself up.
Long before I decide I was leaning toward him, I told others that his hardest problem will be in convincing others he has truly changed his position on abortion.
If he attacks the others for being wrong previously, then how can he expect voters to not question him too. Instead, he is poisoning the whole field. The object is not just to get the GOP nomination. It's to make conservatism more desired so he can WIN as a conservative.
Ray J. Tuleya
the Romney spent a lot of time pointing out that other candidates were not consistent, and given his own "evolution" he came across pretty bad.
Nothing wrong with a Mitt add talking about business experience, Washington outsider, etc.
Big problem accusing others of flip-flopping.
If you need to do a contrast ad, then don't name names.
"Some folks say we should give illegals the benefit of always staying here indefinitely. I disagree. We need to take away the magnet that is drawing them here in the first place."
See folks are smart, they know who you are taking about. Huckabee attacks Mitt with this style all day long and has yet to be called negative.
Draw your contrast, don't name names, and then paint your positive vision for the future. That's how Romney needs to campaign positively without letting the other guys define themselves as something they are not.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
That is exactly how I felt watching him give his "Silver" speech" last night. He's plastic, and there is no way they can fix it now. Did anyone else catch this last night?..His whole family on stage, perfectly coiffed in the picture, while his campaign chair and others are working?.. If I was one of those that worked for him in NH, I know what I would have thought.
Just MO, but his team has done a terrible job of showing Mitt to be one of the people...last night, to me, he was a Kennedy.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
... even if I weren't a Romney supporter.
He's not one of us...
What exactly is that supposed to mean? To me, it perfectly encapsulates what Jonah Goldberg was referring to today as the politics/populism for the age of "Oprah" and "Dr. Phil."
His whole family on stage, perfectly coiffed in the picture, while his campaign chair and others are working?..If I was one of those that worked for him in NH, I know what I would have thought.
This is a monstrously ignorant statement.
First of all, it's far from a secret that Romney's sons are among the most dedicated of their father's campaign staff. Josh and Craig Romney, especially have been criss-crossing the nation on their father's behalf since he declared for the Presidency.
That they came to stand with their Dad for a few minutes on the stage while he gave a speech at one single campaign event does not mean that they have been spending their days sipping pina coladas while others have been working night and day to get their father elected. I know for a fact that they have been putting in the hours just like anyone else.
In fact, come to think of it, is this not something that is a standard feature of every modern political campaign? Family, close friends and well wishers standing on the stage with the candidate at various events, especially at the tail end of a campaign? So what exactly is it about Romney's family that offends you?
Look, there are many valid reasons to dislike Mitt Romney. "I just don't like him ..." is better than most and it has the advantage of being honest. Either way, find a better reason than made up suppositions about his family.
I don't care if his family is running the campaign...When he has to call his workers to the stage to give them credit, IMO it's a gaffe. You think his NH crew, let alone the TV public cares about or wants to see the Romneys clan? How about when licking your wounds, acknowledge your worker bees first.
Mitt does not, and has not sold himself to the public. He is what he is, a pretty boy that comes off as a canned, scripted act.....zero in the sincere dept.
But hey, MAK, what do I know...I'm just one guy, and he's yet to win....did I say zero in the sincere dept?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
You think his NH crew, let alone the TV public cares about or wants to see the Romneys clan?
Well, I know you don't, and I'm not quite so certain about the TV viewing public, who have seen politicians' families stand behind them on the podium before, so I doubt the sight of his grandchildren would offend them the way it offended you.
However, I'd bet his NH crew do care about his family. Last I checked, they were human beings too, even if they are related to Mitt Romney.
How about when licking your wounds, acknowledge your worker bees first.
... and second, I'm pretty certain he did not cuss and throw things at his New Hampshire staff - everything I've heard about him indicates that he's a very gracious man so I'm certain he thanked them.
Besides, even if he did call them up on stage, kiss them and thank them on national television, you would have scoffed and found some way to claim his gratitude was fake anyway i.e. "why did he have to do it on national television if he was sincere? Huh? Huh?"
But hey, MAK, what do I know...I'm just one guy, and he's yet to win....did I say zero in the sincere dept?
Well, I think he sincerely loves his family ... Last I checked that was a good thing. But that just seems to enrage you so I may be wrong ...
address the freaking point, or quit whining...the guy has not sold himself to the public....he is a canned, scripted pol, that is very easy to see through. (a Kennedy)
He's being rejected Martin, probably because the average American doesn't see Mitt Romney as a leader speaking for them.
Put him in some stone washed jeans, or haul out a Crazy Uncle that gets in trouble....ANYTHING!
His campaign has failed to make him less scripted, less stuffy, less elitist. But it's early, right?...
And Martin, I like the guy...he'd be a great Sec of State, just not POTUS
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
He is being rejected while recording the most total votes to date? Or is he being rejected while he racks up the most delegates? 2cd, 1st, 2cd, that is how he's done so far, better than anyone else. I know he has to do better to win this thing, but you sound hateful and illogical when you say he is being rejected. Give it a break.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
that he lost last night. It's silly to spin a loss into something else....at least in the real world.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Granted, he's not winning in the way his supporters had hoped but he has still garnered the most votes and the most delegates so far. That's not being rejected, not by a long shot.
What I am objecting to however, is your weird decision to focus on his family, and make up a narrative (i.e. lazy do-nothings) thoroughly disjoint with reality (i.e. Romney not grateful to his campaign staff) to comport with your negative predisposition (i.e. "elitist") towards the guy.
And Martin, I like the guy...
I somehow doubt that. But that's neither here nor there; I don't particularly care and furthermore, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with you if you didn't - it's as good (and often better) a reason to be opposed to his candidacy as any.
... he'd be a great Sec of State, just not POTUS.
I'm sure you mean Secretary of the Treasury.
All in all, you didn't make point ... you just launched a missile.
So if your man has the money, Leon, there certainly is no reason for him to leave the race yet. Anyone who claims to know how this race will end either is spinning or delusional.
Well done, Leon.
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Current delegate count:
Romney: 24 (He got more in WY than McCain did in NH last night!)
Huckabee: 18
McCain: 10
Thompson: 6
I wouldn't count Romney out, nor cast dirt on his second place finishes. It's kept him at the top of the delegate count until now. If the races keep getting shared between 3 or 4 candidates, Romney maybe winning even just Nevada but coming in a strong second in other places like he has been doing, he would STILL probably be leading come Feb 5. And he has enough $$$ to advertise in all those Super Tuesday states. Who knows, this might go all the way to the convention.
But your right, its the delegate count that matters.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
You're right. I'd originally gotten my #s from CNN, but they seem to have updated their totals since then. And it only gets better for Romney:
Romney: 30
Huckabee: 21
McCain: 10
Thompson: 6
It's the delegate count at the end of the day that matters. Current count is largely irrelevant since we're talking about such a small percentage.
If you think Romney is the best qualified stick with him until he officially quits or is beat.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
There have only been 3 contests in this Primary season. Who knows, Romney and/or Fred might just catch on and make it one heck of a race.
If Romney does bow out, hopefully he'll endorse Thompson, but then again, who knows...
Texas Proud and Texas Loud
Don't throw Mitt under the bus, if he doesn't get Michigan.
With the Dems only having Hillary on the ballott due to the DNC taking away their delegates and Obama and Edwards supporting the party line on punishing Michigan, and anyone can vote in either primary without proof of party, the Republicans that get to vote in Michigan will be totally outnumbered. I see a possible sabotage vote of Huckabee, McCain or even Ron Paul making very good showings. The true test should be percentage of Republicans in the exit polls? I am not sure. But a win for Romney in Michigan is pretty much impossible. This is coming from a Romney supporter. I hope things are narrowed down a bit more yet by the time I get to vote in March.
Independent by choice, conservative by belief
Non of the states he has come 2cd in have been perfect either, but he has done well. Michagan does have some different dynamics than even Iowa or NH that seem to whisper this may not be his fight, but I'm feeling like in order to do great things like become president you have to show that you can beat expectations. This is his best chance in the early goings, so I expect him to win. Anything less would be a huge, huge, disapointment. Speaking for myself that is, though I'm sure the MSM will pile it on as well.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
If he loses Michigan, where will he win? Already before the NH loss (and the postulated Michigan loss), he's not polling well anywhere--not even close to first. His whole strategy depended upon him building momentum in the early states to make him competitive in the later states. With losses in the early states, he will not even be competitive in the states to come.
The true test should be percentage of Republicans in the exit polls?
Do you trust the Ds not to lie and screw up this poll as well. Nothing that happens in Michigan will affect how I feel about any candidate, or their chances to win when Republicans are picking the Republican nominee.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Last night provided monumental info on the state of mind of voters and the formidable nature of the Clinton/Reid/Schumer Democratic machine.
Additionally, it crystallized the question whose answer determines who the nominee should be for me.
I love Mitt R. I wish he could be the nominee and ultimate president. He represents free enterprise, he is young and sends a positive "hopeful" message. Unfortunately, Mitt has not been able to connect with the broad electorate. Perhaps after we are through this war. But right now he just has not been able to connect and neither has Thompson.
Second, Mitt's loss and Obama's as well exposed that the electorate is not ready for the "hope" and the "bring the outsider in for change message." Obama's loss also exposed that the tidal wave that Barack relied on cannot overcome the Clinton/Reid/Schumer backroom Machine within the democratic party. Unless, Barack can galvanize the black and latino voters to think for themselves, the Clinton machine will overwhelm him. Except for Oprah, I haven't heard of any black leaders like P. Diddy, Russell Simmons out canvasing neighborhoods for votes the way the HillRaisers are walking the streets for their gal.
I hope these voters come out for Barack because he has been truthful to his principles. And as we have seen the women will vote one of their own even if she is so flawed. I hope that blacks and latinos and those firmly opposed to the war stand with their own as well.
But what about us? HillBill won last night by arguing that they don't just "hope" for change they "embody it". The argument was she got 7,000 on SCHIp and body armor for the troops. Also she said she is "ready" and Bill agreed.
HillBill won no youth vote, no independents and no men because they went to the candidates who talked unity with some semblance of integrity, Barack and McCAin. Guiliani and Huckabee cannot hold a candle to McCain on "bringing change and experience". Indeed I believe that if they had to endorse anyone other than themselves each would support McCain.
HillBill is a flea to McCain's "I embody change and experience" in these very important times.
HillBill can't:
argue that she voted for Body armor as change to McCain's fighting for the surge, closing Gitmo, fighting for the Patriot act. He will make her look like a chump change lightweight.
McCain can credibly argue to Independents and moderate Dems that he brought change and compromise across party lines and got two honorable jurists on the Court. Where was HillBill?
He can argue that even in the immigration debate he fought for change. Where was Clinton?
and on Iraq he can most credibly argue that one of his greatest disappointments in the Senate was to watch HillBill sacrifice their principles and the success of the mission that they supported for the political expediency of the '06 election and her presidential aspirations.
McCain can argue that he can respect Obama's youthful but principled opposition to the war. It was consisitent.
But HillBill's willingness to leave the success or failure of a mission that she authorized in the hands of 24 million starved Iraqiis and their fledgling government was a shocking lapse of leadership judgement.
How could any mother trust the life of her soldier son or daughter to someone who so lightly changes their mind on issues of war?
HE can argue that one of the things he was most proud of was the fact that all Repubs and friends like Ohio's former senator Mike DeWine chose to go down in flames rather than turn their back on the troops during that horrible period in 05-06.
The moderates and independents will love McCain.
Now what about us? We are angry because of:
Campaign Finance reform. Well does anyone have any better ideas? And who cares anyway? You can't muzzle speech. It seeps through the cracks of limitation.
We have these insipid Moveon organizations. But Moveon has ultimately been exposed by its own conduct and doesn't necessarily represent the voice of the majority anymore. MoveOn's conduct even forced the candidates to express their true views to the regular folk.
MoveOn's Petreaus ad and HillBill's refusal to vote to condemn it coupled with her "willing suspension of belief" will incinerate her. HillBill's true views would never have been revealed if advertising expenditures were controlled by the National Committees.
Judges: McCain bucked the party and he was right. We got two great judges and kept the right to fillibuster now that the Dems are back.
Appointing conservative Judges: McCain is a security hawk, fiscal and family values conservative (he has seven kids and two or three are serving this country) the guy has family and patriotism values. Why would he sacrifice these principles? Why would he sacrifice his potential legacy by willingly appointing liberal judges?
Heck maybe we could get him to agree to bring up the nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and follow it with Miguel Estrada if a Supreme Court vacany arises, and keep the vacancy open til 2010 the next election cycle.
Tax Cuts: Okay he screwed up but won't admit it. He has voted for tax cuts since, and most importantly he has agreed to make the cuts PERMANENT.
But no other candidate can better represent the contrast between conservative principles than McCain putting up his record on principled spending cuts and earmark reform against Hillary. While we republicans are trying to limit frivolous spending to find funding to rebuild New Orleans, Hillary plugs in an earmark of $1 million for her friends in Woodstock. C'mon guys!
Immigration: He stuck his neck WAY OUT, but he has promised that it he will pursue Security First before any citizenship issues are resolved. But who do you trust will get the fence built HillBill or MCCAIN? Neither is not a choice.
There is no certainty with any of our choices. But McCAin's word is pretty good. Part of the reason why we have such problems with him is because he keeps his word even with democrats even at political risk to himself. Further, if he tilts left with the Dems, the conservatives can come roaring back in 2010.
Last and most important the question:
Who do we trust to bring the troops home the fastest with honor and some semblance of victory?
With 150,000 of our best in Iraq, we owe them the best candidate to bring them home safely with honor and a completed mission.
That candidate has to be by any objective measure John McCain. You don't change a successful CEO in the middle of a corporate restructuring. Each candidate should offer his help and MCCain should plagarize at will the best from each of the other great candidates, but the best way for us to fight the insurgency is to unite behind MCCain so that the insurgents on all sides will know know that America's commitment to completing the mission will not end with Bush. McCAin will continue for as long as it takes.
McCain, the troops, the bloggers, the families and the republican candidates have put it all on the line to stand up two democracies, we need to get the person with the most experience to get it done. That is MCCAIN.
Last, we should not leave this serious decision to a brokered convention. At a certain point Thompson, Mitt, Huckabee and Guiliani should do some soul searching. The Republicans will not achieve the presidency with candidates who had victories here and there and by virtue of their money advantage.
Our Republican leaders owe it to the troops to rally around the person next best suited to the presidency after themselves. I think McCain is everyones second choice. And we the voter should put our differences aside and start rallying with financial support.
McCain may be the choice of those who hold veterans in high regard, but I know very few current veterans who would vote for him, no matter who the other candidate was. I've expounded on this several times, and I just don't have the energy to say it all again.
Simple answer - McCain = Bad with respect to the war in Iraq
My only point is that I don't understand how it seems to be that a consensus is forming that McCain is the "consensus" candidate for us; unless we are agreeing that there is a consensus that we can all remember at some point swearing that we'd never vote for the man under any circumstances.
Masterful turn of the phrase, Leon. And precisely accurate.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And it's so freaking true.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Guns don't kill people, abortions kill people.