Another point, I made a comment that McCain’s ads have had more substance. Someone told me that’s because he uses footage of himself being a POW in Vietnam. Touche. This one didn’t and it mops the floor with Mitt’s version of wasteful spending.
I think I know why the McCain people so despise Romney –
They’re big on principle over anything. They’re gonna do what they want regardless of what people think. With Romney, what people think is the only regard in which position is chosen.
Good ad . . . though it makes him look desperate to be attacking Rudy and Mitt in the same swipe as Hillary and Edwards. Romney and Rudy have done lots of ads, but haven’t done a “frontal” attack on their fellow Republicans. By doing so he’s relegating himself to non-top-tier status. Not wise IMO.
Also, it’s pretty disingenuous for them to state that neither Rudy nor Mitt has experience cutting wasteful spending. They’ve both got plenty of experience in that field as EXECUTIVES who had to produce balanced budgets. This could come back to bite McCain.
Please spare us of your opinion that McCain is “Mr. Principle” and does what his heart tells him and that Mitt is an all out “say anything” panderer. I’ll get to some evidence in a minute.
Iowa: Romney battles social conservative candidates (Fred and Huckabee) and comes out with a win.
NH: Romney battles the fiscal conservative but otherwise moderate candidates (Rudy and McCain) in a all out Battle Royal–He scores another win.
After proving he can beat everyone else when they’re fully invested in their given state he’ll have a pretty strong argument that he has what it takes to win the nomination and challenge the Dems and beat them too.
The “Romney will say anything” argument has already been raised by the Thompson camp.
[phoneyfredgate] only serves to prove what many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win. The American people in general and the Republican Party in particular deserve better than this.
-Todd Harris, communications director for Fred Thompson
I loved Giuliani’s joke about Hillary in the last debate (from New York Observer):
“I became a Yankees fan when I was growing up in New York,†he said. “Hillary Clinton became one growing up in Chicago.†The crowd snickered and Mr. Giuliani asked, “Do you believe her?â€
Same thing applies to Romney:
Romney was pro-choice running for governor of a liberal state; now that he’s running for the Presidential nomination of the GOP, he’s pro-life. Do you believe him?
Romney was pro immigration reform as governor of a liberal state; now that he’s running for the Presidential nomination of the GOP, he’s tougher on illegal immigrants than terrorists. Do you believe him?
I could go on and on with every single position on Romney. Bottomline, I don’t believe him and unless he’s elected and follows through, I never will believe him. Watch Mr. Romney run to the center on Feb. 6th if he gets the nomination. And don’t say you weren’t warned.
It’s a good add, but nothing spectacular. I liked his earlier ones more. To be able to claim that you’re the “only” guy who’s stopped wasteful spending, because you’re the only major candidate who’s currently in office is a weak argument. The flip side being that the others can run as outsiders, while McCain may be seen as part of the problem.
It’s a clean add though, I expect they’ll get much more nasty. Good job McCain!
People keep saying its going to get nastier, but tomorrow is November. If you take out Thanksgiving, Chirstmas and New Years (and a few days before and after), there’s not a lot of time to run enough ads to make a difference.
John “I don’t change my positions” McCain???? Yeah right!:
*****Abortion:
In NH in 1999 McCain told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.†He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.â€
In 2006, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.
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…. 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.
****Bush Tax Cuts:
McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts, but supported them in Feb 2006 in the leadup to the GOP race (opportunism!)
****Personality conflics:
Evangelical Leadership:
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance†in 2002, but has since “reconciled” and has cozied up quite a bit.
Charles Wyly:
Called Sam and Charles Wyly “currupt”, stating that they spent “dirty money†to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. He even filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
Grover Norquist:
McCain’s old rhetoric was that Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. When McCain got serious about running for POTUS in 2006 he started a reconcile with Norquist.
(common theme with those personality conflicts . . . “I’ll crucify you publicly if it will help me get in front of a TV camera or further my current cause, but I still want your help in becoming POTUS!”)
****Bob Jones University:
He was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
****Torture:
Took a firm line against torture, and then caved to White House demands/interpretations.
****Kyoto Accord:
Outspoken critic of plan . . . before he decided to support it.
****Gay Marriage:
McCain Told Iowa State Students: “I think Gay Marriage should be allowed . . . I don’t have any problem with that” . . . after his aide got ahold of him during the commercial break he said “I do not believe that Gay Marriages should be legal”
****Ethanol:
McCain was anti-ethanol when he was skipping Iowa in 1999. In 2006 he was pro-ethanol while campaigning in Iowa.
****Confederate flag:
Was both for and against state promotion of the flag in SC during the 1999 race. Said it was “a symbol of racism and slavery” . . . 3 days later he recanted (AKA “pandered”) saying “Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage”
****Law of Sea Convention:
Long-time vocal supporter of the Law, now (just this last month) he’s against it.
****Immigration Reform:
He now opposes the DREAM Act to legalize illegal alien students (though that was previously for it).
Also, he’s violently backed off his McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill and is supporting the “Secure the Border First” bill.
****Ethics Reform/Transparency of 527 donations:
Was hard core for such transparency, before he voted against it in 2006 (cozying up to grassroots activist PACs).
****Iraq War:
On VARIOUS news-shows he said an overwhelming and easy victory in Iraq was on the way. In Jan 2007 he stated “the American people were led to believe that this would be some kind of walk at the beach; when many of us knew it was going to be long and hard”
You can’t even begin to compare the flip-floppers in this race (all of them but Mitt) to Romney, who has been consistent since Day One. He is a man of principle and he will serve us well as President!
At the link . . . scroll down to Mitt’s 1994 campaign flyer where he still holds 23 out of 24 of the same positions (an impressive 96% consistency rate . . . the only exception being abortion (which I think he’s duly “cleared the air” on and has a pro-life RECORD to point to).
Don’t you hate when facts like these get in the way of your preferred rhetoric?
To be clear. Romney has had flip-flops . . . but so has everyone. There’s just not much else to attack on Mitt so they have to go after his “credibility” or “sincerity” and the “Flip-flop” meme plays into that line of attack.
I like the flyer at the link because it totally rebuts the claim that ROmney “was a liberal”. Also, McCain and Thompson claiming that Romney ran “to the left of Ted Kennedy?” Those guys are plain lying to the American people . . . not a good precedent to set if you want to lead the nation.
You’re correct to say that McCain hasn’t “flipped” on Iraq or torture.
However, he did imply that Iraq would be an easy victory and then criticized Bush for doing the same thing he had done (maybe not a “flip-flop” but really creepy)
On torture he DID end up siding with Bush and against the “anti-torture” Democrats (though most of us remember what an overblown situation that was and McCain ended on the right side . . . despite his initial rhetoric that fell in line with the Democrats).
*****Abortion:
I’m not sure the context with which he said this. But he’s been pro-life his entire time in office. To be honest it did raise red flags. However, there were nothing like the red flags raised by giuliani, thompson, or romney.
****Bush Tax Cuts:
mccain has stated numerously that he had never voted for a tax increase in his life and causing the tax cuts to “expire” would have the same effect as a tax increase. there’s no question deficit spending has caused inflation.
****Personality conflics:
falwell came to him and wanted to put their differences aside. mccain complied. good for mccain.
****Bob Jones University:
Thanks to McCain calling Bob Jones out on their ban of interracial dating, Bob Jones folded under national pressure. Score one for McCain
****Torture:
Bush complied with McCain, who’s stance is basically that only a President can authorize torture and only in an effort to prevent a huge disaster like 9-11.
****Kyoto Accord:
as far as i know, mccain supports kyoto provisions but not the kyoto accord in its entirety.
****Gay Marriage:
McCain was not referring to a legalization of gay marriage. he was saying he wouldn’t outlaw a ceremony which married gay couples. this is obvious because the question was should gay marriage be “allowed”.
****Ethanol:
McCain opposed the 160 billion dollar subsidy for farmers –unlike Bush and all the other GOP contenders. This is why he’s weak in iowa. even still, things were vastly different in 2000 because oil was a third of what it is today (in due to tax cuts of course).
****Confederate flag:
McCain called himself a coward repeatedly for not taking a stand on the issue of the Confederate flag. Its obvious from the debate on foxnews where chis wallace asked mccain about it that the crowd is embarrassed about the incident and they’ve forgiven him.
****Law of Sea Convention:
cant speak to it. looks petty. i’m sure 9-11 could have something to do with it. but i’m excited about the league of democracies mccain intends to build as president.
****Immigration Reform:
“secure the border first” was in the immigration reform bill that failed this summer. mccain is offering a down payment
****Ethics Reform/Transparency of 527 donations:
cant speak to that. too vague. i do know that no one fights harder for transparency in washington that mccain. no one.
****Iraq War:
The overthrowing of Saddam WAS easy. The occupation was destined to fail, as McCain predicted months after the invasion.
I’m glad that you can EXPLAIN why McCain changed so many positions.
But that’s the point . . . he consistently says to folks as he campaigns “I don’t change my positions” when it’s clearly not the case.
I too can EXPLAIN Romney’s real and pseudo “flips” as well (any good die hard supporter/apologist can for their candidate . . . Like the Huckabee people on fiscal conservative).
I was just trying to show that McCain has changed plenty of positions but is trying to fool the American people that he doesn’t. In fact, if none of us changed our positions on anything we’d be stuck in the stone age. McCain just uses that line to bash Romney, but it will come back to bite him.
Ah, ah, ah, Jeff Fuller … some of Romney’s 1994 positions are red herrings. What about 2002 and in between? There were a couple of things that happened since 1994, after all, in the life of Mitt Romney…
I still can’t get over the fact that he’s condemning Rudy for not signing the tax pledge after calling such pledges “political gimmickry” in 2002. To be blunt: What an asshole!
Romney’s campaign spokesman used the term “gimmickry”, not Romney.
Kevin Cramer, spokesman for Giuliani said yesterday in Montana to a group of GOP activists/party faithful
“It does us no good to stand on our beautiful, wonderful principles, and lose to Hillary Clinton.â€
So, by your logic I can now attribute this quote to Rudy? (He really should repudiate this statement, don’t you think?)
And, BTW, Romney had never held public office before 2002 and was elected to balance the budget and get MA back on track fiscally. I can understand some hesitancy to not sign a tax pledge for a novice politician. However, Romney has now proved to himself that if he can balance a way out of whack budget while working with a 85% Dem legislature and without raising taxes, then, yeah, I can see why he’s now absolutely confident/comfortable in gauranteeing no new taxes.
Now that you understand the facts in this case do you want to retract your name-calling?
You say “they have a lot less to do with the office mccain seeks. that’s what’s important.”
Hogwash!
Abortion . . . when he was the MSM darling and anti-establishment (non-religious right) candidate in 1999 he says RvW shouldn’t be overturned . . . when he’s courting the conservative base to consolidate his position as frontrunner in 200 he’s then for not just overturning RvW but a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Bush tax cuts . . . signs onto them in run-up to race in 2006, mollifying the GOP base.
Personality conflicts . . . all were “reconciliations” exactly timed to assist him in the “office he seeks.”
Gay Marriage . . . I think he temporarly forgot that he wasn’t the 1999 Maverick McCain and was supposed to play the 2006 GOP frontrunner representing the GOP base.
Ethanol . . . had everything to do with where he was running and his position in the race. Very calculated.
Ethics Reform . . . that was an appeasement to Dobson and crew (still trying to mend fences and shore up the base in 2006)
Immigration . . . BOY HAS HE CHANGED HIS TUNE THERE!!! He’s said “I got the message” from the base in the anti-Amnesty backlash and has altered his position/strategy accordingly . . . even now opposing the pro-immigrant DREAM act (which he’s supported initially) This issue in particular has EVERYTHING to do with the office he’s running for . . . if he weren’t running for POTUS there would be no “I got the message”, but it would be a typical “up yours if you don’t agree with me” from McCain.
I’m glad you’re convinced that McCain’s completely solid and principled . . . but I’ve seen the guy blatantly lie about Romney’s record, and weasle out of his own record too many times to know better. He’s been getting “a pity pass” from opponents and the MSM for the last few months because he’s lost “frontrunner” status and risks losing top-tier status as well.
I do find it ironic that a McCain supporter thinks Romney is an unauthentic panderer . . . this is McCain who has made a career for himself by slamming those in his own party to gain favor with the media elites. That’s a whole other levelr of opportunistic pandering.
And I’ve been to a small campaign event of his in Iowa, spoken with him (he remembered my dad playing football for Arizona State), got a photo with him, got his autograph . . . he was a pleasant guy in that setting. I’ve seen all these guys up close and Mitt’s the most impressive and has the complete package for me.
slamming people in his party? like when he opposed reagan in sending troops to lebanon? pandering? oh wait! he was preventing hundreds of marines from getting slaughtered.
“For Gov. Romney to suggest that he is uniquely qualified to be commander-in-chief is like saying that he should replace Tom Brady because he has watched Patriot football games.â€
For the McCain campaign to resort to name-calling and a childish game of analogies that offer no substance or new ideas doesn’t advance or elevate the debate in any way
whatsoever.
Where do Mittstaffers come from? childish game of analogies? Wasn’t it mitt that actually made Rudy’s Yankee/Red Sox coment into a political football? How hypocritical.
“this is McCain who has made a career for himself by slamming those in his own party to gain favor with the media elites. That’s a whole other level of opportunistic pandering” Actualy I see some of that as pretty good evidence for McCain being principaled. I think people like to think that if someone goes against their opinion than they must be doing so for some bad motive ( say getting media attention) because any reasonable person would obviously see that their opinion was right. Thus people view McCain’s position on immigration as pandering, because they think ” there’s simply no way someone could disagree with me on principle”. To say that McCain’s position on immigration was this June was pandering seems pretty silly, because I imagine he wanted the presidency more than whatever fawning from the press you think he was getting. All of the top five
have changed positions. I’m willing to give Romney the bennefit of the doubt on his changes because he seems to devoted to his religion and his family, McCain I’m willing to give a pass becasue he has taken principal stands, and showed himself to be a man of principal in the millitary. If you accept Romney flip – flopping than you ought to accept McCain’s.
I’m not surprised McCain would group Republicans with Democrats in this attack; McCain has always sought out the moderates in New Hampshire to try and propel himself to the presidency.
Let’s just face it-McCain’s a moderate, and he’s running as a moderate. That’s what he means by “straight talkâ€; deviating from the conservative movement-compromising conservative principles.
You see, here’s the thing. RomBots have no problem with acknowledging that there can be an evolution of positions by any of the candidates. It’s when we see the old “[fill in candidate's name here] is consistent and principled while Romney is a flip flopper and a panderer” meme that we get a little excited. Then, when we show specific examples of that candidate’s “flipping” and pandering, we’re called out on it. The RomNots want to have their cake and eat it, too.
#36 Romney’s changed on the life issue, and not by nearly as much as detractors like to make it out to be. When he ran for governor, he ran on a platform of not allowing abortion rights to be advanced. If I remember correctly his opponent wanted to lower the age girls could be abortions, without their parents getting notified and he ran against that.
He also seems to have changed his opinion on the gay agenda, not believing before that gay rights groups had a secret agenda to integrate homosexuality into the main stream. But then again, gay rights groups have changed as well. Now pushing for a redefinition of marriage, and trying to get homosexuality taught to kindergartners. So maybe his change here, reflects a change in the groups activities.
I think if your honest, and not just spinning, and look at the issues (not out of context statements), you’ll see that Romney has been amazingly consistent. You probably won’t agree, but you probably don’t spend hours everyday researching things about Romney either.
In regards to other candidates changing, I think it’s great when they change to more conservative views. Apparently Rudy does support securing the border now, and I think he doesn’t support partial birth abortion anymore. McCain has softened somewhat on supporting amnesty. All the leading contenders support the kind of Health Care reform Romney innovated. These are all improvements, yet their positions still aren’t good enough to be President, and frankly, I don’t think their experience is as impressive either.
bjalder, you misunderstood my point. I’m one of those vicious RomBots as well. We’re on the same side of this one. i was trying to point out the intellectual dishonesty of the RomNots.
Tom Brady?? Unfortunately this is an all to typical slam from the McCain campaign . . . but pretty lame IMO.
Romney has the most diverse and successful executive experience of anyone in the field. It’s a strong argument that he is the most qualified to lead the largest organizational entity on earth.
McCain can’t even run a successful campaign . . . that’s not inspiring confidence.
He knows the military, good (he better after his career), but he’s not going to win this election by saying that all he has to offer is the best military experience.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Good ad…Effective use of the Guiliani/Clinton comparison and the Romney/Edwards comparison at the end
October 31st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Yeah, solid ad.
Does it deserve mentioning that McCain didn’t use unflattering pictures of Hillary, Obama, Giuliani, and Romney? I think so.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Another point, I made a comment that McCain’s ads have had more substance. Someone told me that’s because he uses footage of himself being a POW in Vietnam. Touche. This one didn’t and it mops the floor with Mitt’s version of wasteful spending.
Jmak rocks!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
You have to give the guy credit, especially after his fall, he’s still in the game.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I think I know why the McCain people so despise Romney –
They’re big on principle over anything. They’re gonna do what they want regardless of what people think. With Romney, what people think is the only regard in which position is chosen.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Good ad . . . though it makes him look desperate to be attacking Rudy and Mitt in the same swipe as Hillary and Edwards. Romney and Rudy have done lots of ads, but haven’t done a “frontal” attack on their fellow Republicans. By doing so he’s relegating himself to non-top-tier status. Not wise IMO.
Also, it’s pretty disingenuous for them to state that neither Rudy nor Mitt has experience cutting wasteful spending. They’ve both got plenty of experience in that field as EXECUTIVES who had to produce balanced budgets. This could come back to bite McCain.
McCain better win NH, though, or he’s toast.
Good luck John!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:47 pm
TLG,
Please spare us of your opinion that McCain is “Mr. Principle” and does what his heart tells him and that Mitt is an all out “say anything” panderer. I’ll get to some evidence in a minute.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I love how it’s shaping up:
Iowa: Romney battles social conservative candidates (Fred and Huckabee) and comes out with a win.
NH: Romney battles the fiscal conservative but otherwise moderate candidates (Rudy and McCain) in a all out Battle Royal–He scores another win.
After proving he can beat everyone else when they’re fully invested in their given state he’ll have a pretty strong argument that he has what it takes to win the nomination and challenge the Dems and beat them too.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
The “Romney will say anything” argument has already been raised by the Thompson camp.
[phoneyfredgate] only serves to prove what many voters are already figuring out: Mitt Romney will do anything, say anything, smear any opponent and flip flop on any position in order to win. The American people in general and the Republican Party in particular deserve better than this.
-Todd Harris, communications director for Fred Thompson
hear. hear. Todd!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
8, no jeff, i’m afraid Romney belly flops in iowa.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I loved Giuliani’s joke about Hillary in the last debate (from New York Observer):
“I became a Yankees fan when I was growing up in New York,†he said. “Hillary Clinton became one growing up in Chicago.†The crowd snickered and Mr. Giuliani asked, “Do you believe her?â€
Same thing applies to Romney:
Romney was pro-choice running for governor of a liberal state; now that he’s running for the Presidential nomination of the GOP, he’s pro-life. Do you believe him?
Romney was pro immigration reform as governor of a liberal state; now that he’s running for the Presidential nomination of the GOP, he’s tougher on illegal immigrants than terrorists. Do you believe him?
I could go on and on with every single position on Romney. Bottomline, I don’t believe him and unless he’s elected and follows through, I never will believe him. Watch Mr. Romney run to the center on Feb. 6th if he gets the nomination. And don’t say you weren’t warned.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
It’s a good add, but nothing spectacular. I liked his earlier ones more. To be able to claim that you’re the “only” guy who’s stopped wasteful spending, because you’re the only major candidate who’s currently in office is a weak argument. The flip side being that the others can run as outsiders, while McCain may be seen as part of the problem.
It’s a clean add though, I expect they’ll get much more nasty. Good job McCain!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Man, this ad just shows how desperate McCain is! Romney’s already got this all wrapped up!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
People keep saying its going to get nastier, but tomorrow is November. If you take out Thanksgiving, Chirstmas and New Years (and a few days before and after), there’s not a lot of time to run enough ads to make a difference.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:08 pm
John “I don’t change my positions” McCain???? Yeah right!:
*****Abortion:
In NH in 1999 McCain told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.†He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.â€
In 2006, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.
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…. 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.
****Bush Tax Cuts:
McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts, but supported them in Feb 2006 in the leadup to the GOP race (opportunism!)
****Personality conflics:
Evangelical Leadership:
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance†in 2002, but has since “reconciled” and has cozied up quite a bit.
Charles Wyly:
Called Sam and Charles Wyly “currupt”, stating that they spent “dirty money†to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. He even filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
Grover Norquist:
McCain’s old rhetoric was that Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. When McCain got serious about running for POTUS in 2006 he started a reconcile with Norquist.
(common theme with those personality conflicts . . . “I’ll crucify you publicly if it will help me get in front of a TV camera or further my current cause, but I still want your help in becoming POTUS!”)
****Bob Jones University:
He was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
****Torture:
Took a firm line against torture, and then caved to White House demands/interpretations.
****Kyoto Accord:
Outspoken critic of plan . . . before he decided to support it.
****Gay Marriage:
McCain Told Iowa State Students: “I think Gay Marriage should be allowed . . . I don’t have any problem with that” . . . after his aide got ahold of him during the commercial break he said “I do not believe that Gay Marriages should be legal”
****Ethanol:
McCain was anti-ethanol when he was skipping Iowa in 1999. In 2006 he was pro-ethanol while campaigning in Iowa.
****Confederate flag:
Was both for and against state promotion of the flag in SC during the 1999 race. Said it was “a symbol of racism and slavery” . . . 3 days later he recanted (AKA “pandered”) saying “Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage”
****Law of Sea Convention:
Long-time vocal supporter of the Law, now (just this last month) he’s against it.
****Immigration Reform:
He now opposes the DREAM Act to legalize illegal alien students (though that was previously for it).
Also, he’s violently backed off his McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill and is supporting the “Secure the Border First” bill.
****Ethics Reform/Transparency of 527 donations:
Was hard core for such transparency, before he voted against it in 2006 (cozying up to grassroots activist PACs).
****Iraq War:
On VARIOUS news-shows he said an overwhelming and easy victory in Iraq was on the way. In Jan 2007 he stated “the American people were led to believe that this would be some kind of walk at the beach; when many of us knew it was going to be long and hard”
Need we go on? . . .
October 31st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
You can’t even begin to compare the flip-floppers in this race (all of them but Mitt) to Romney, who has been consistent since Day One. He is a man of principle and he will serve us well as President!
October 31st, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Gah…alright, you win on McCain.
Although he has not flipped on Iraq or torture…
October 31st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Sampo . . . Re #9
Such blatantly untrue rhetoric is sure to backfire . . .
And where do you think Todd got those lines? Maybe from McCain’s FORMER campaign manager Weaver and straight out of the MSM perhaps?
Do you REALLY believe that Romney will “do or say anything” to get elected? REALLY?
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/05/desperate-times-call-for-desperate.html
At the link . . . scroll down to Mitt’s 1994 campaign flyer where he still holds 23 out of 24 of the same positions (an impressive 96% consistency rate . . . the only exception being abortion (which I think he’s duly “cleared the air” on and has a pro-life RECORD to point to).
Don’t you hate when facts like these get in the way of your preferred rhetoric?
October 31st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
To be clear. Romney has had flip-flops . . . but so has everyone. There’s just not much else to attack on Mitt so they have to go after his “credibility” or “sincerity” and the “Flip-flop” meme plays into that line of attack.
I like the flyer at the link because it totally rebuts the claim that ROmney “was a liberal”. Also, McCain and Thompson claiming that Romney ran “to the left of Ted Kennedy?” Those guys are plain lying to the American people . . . not a good precedent to set if you want to lead the nation.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
TLG,
You’re correct to say that McCain hasn’t “flipped” on Iraq or torture.
However, he did imply that Iraq would be an easy victory and then criticized Bush for doing the same thing he had done (maybe not a “flip-flop” but really creepy)
On torture he DID end up siding with Bush and against the “anti-torture” Democrats (though most of us remember what an overblown situation that was and McCain ended on the right side . . . despite his initial rhetoric that fell in line with the Democrats).
October 31st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
*****Abortion:
I’m not sure the context with which he said this. But he’s been pro-life his entire time in office. To be honest it did raise red flags. However, there were nothing like the red flags raised by giuliani, thompson, or romney.
****Bush Tax Cuts:
mccain has stated numerously that he had never voted for a tax increase in his life and causing the tax cuts to “expire” would have the same effect as a tax increase. there’s no question deficit spending has caused inflation.
****Personality conflics:
falwell came to him and wanted to put their differences aside. mccain complied. good for mccain.
****Bob Jones University:
Thanks to McCain calling Bob Jones out on their ban of interracial dating, Bob Jones folded under national pressure. Score one for McCain
****Torture:
Bush complied with McCain, who’s stance is basically that only a President can authorize torture and only in an effort to prevent a huge disaster like 9-11.
****Kyoto Accord:
as far as i know, mccain supports kyoto provisions but not the kyoto accord in its entirety.
****Gay Marriage:
McCain was not referring to a legalization of gay marriage. he was saying he wouldn’t outlaw a ceremony which married gay couples. this is obvious because the question was should gay marriage be “allowed”.
****Ethanol:
McCain opposed the 160 billion dollar subsidy for farmers –unlike Bush and all the other GOP contenders. This is why he’s weak in iowa. even still, things were vastly different in 2000 because oil was a third of what it is today (in due to tax cuts of course).
****Confederate flag:
McCain called himself a coward repeatedly for not taking a stand on the issue of the Confederate flag. Its obvious from the debate on foxnews where chis wallace asked mccain about it that the crowd is embarrassed about the incident and they’ve forgiven him.
****Law of Sea Convention:
cant speak to it. looks petty. i’m sure 9-11 could have something to do with it. but i’m excited about the league of democracies mccain intends to build as president.
****Immigration Reform:
“secure the border first” was in the immigration reform bill that failed this summer. mccain is offering a down payment
****Ethics Reform/Transparency of 527 donations:
cant speak to that. too vague. i do know that no one fights harder for transparency in washington that mccain. no one.
****Iraq War:
The overthrowing of Saddam WAS easy. The occupation was destined to fail, as McCain predicted months after the invasion.
Need we go on?
Yeah, keep em coming…
October 31st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Sampo,
I’m glad that you can EXPLAIN why McCain changed so many positions.
But that’s the point . . . he consistently says to folks as he campaigns “I don’t change my positions” when it’s clearly not the case.
I too can EXPLAIN Romney’s real and pseudo “flips” as well (any good die hard supporter/apologist can for their candidate . . . Like the Huckabee people on fiscal conservative).
I was just trying to show that McCain has changed plenty of positions but is trying to fool the American people that he doesn’t. In fact, if none of us changed our positions on anything we’d be stuck in the stone age. McCain just uses that line to bash Romney, but it will come back to bite him.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
they have a lot less to do with the office mccain seeks. that’s what’s important.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Ah, ah, ah, Jeff Fuller … some of Romney’s 1994 positions are red herrings. What about 2002 and in between? There were a couple of things that happened since 1994, after all, in the life of Mitt Romney…
I still can’t get over the fact that he’s condemning Rudy for not signing the tax pledge after calling such pledges “political gimmickry” in 2002. To be blunt: What an asshole!
November 1st, 2007 at 12:20 am
TLG,
Romney’s campaign spokesman used the term “gimmickry”, not Romney.
Kevin Cramer, spokesman for Giuliani said yesterday in Montana to a group of GOP activists/party faithful
“It does us no good to stand on our beautiful, wonderful principles, and lose to Hillary Clinton.â€
So, by your logic I can now attribute this quote to Rudy? (He really should repudiate this statement, don’t you think?)
And, BTW, Romney had never held public office before 2002 and was elected to balance the budget and get MA back on track fiscally. I can understand some hesitancy to not sign a tax pledge for a novice politician. However, Romney has now proved to himself that if he can balance a way out of whack budget while working with a 85% Dem legislature and without raising taxes, then, yeah, I can see why he’s now absolutely confident/comfortable in gauranteeing no new taxes.
Now that you understand the facts in this case do you want to retract your name-calling?
November 1st, 2007 at 12:44 am
I can only conclude from this thread that Romney supporters have lots of free time.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:46 am
Sampo,
You say “they have a lot less to do with the office mccain seeks. that’s what’s important.”
Hogwash!
Abortion . . . when he was the MSM darling and anti-establishment (non-religious right) candidate in 1999 he says RvW shouldn’t be overturned . . . when he’s courting the conservative base to consolidate his position as frontrunner in 200 he’s then for not just overturning RvW but a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Bush tax cuts . . . signs onto them in run-up to race in 2006, mollifying the GOP base.
Personality conflicts . . . all were “reconciliations” exactly timed to assist him in the “office he seeks.”
Gay Marriage . . . I think he temporarly forgot that he wasn’t the 1999 Maverick McCain and was supposed to play the 2006 GOP frontrunner representing the GOP base.
Ethanol . . . had everything to do with where he was running and his position in the race. Very calculated.
Ethics Reform . . . that was an appeasement to Dobson and crew (still trying to mend fences and shore up the base in 2006)
Immigration . . . BOY HAS HE CHANGED HIS TUNE THERE!!! He’s said “I got the message” from the base in the anti-Amnesty backlash and has altered his position/strategy accordingly . . . even now opposing the pro-immigrant DREAM act (which he’s supported initially) This issue in particular has EVERYTHING to do with the office he’s running for . . . if he weren’t running for POTUS there would be no “I got the message”, but it would be a typical “up yours if you don’t agree with me” from McCain.
I’m glad you’re convinced that McCain’s completely solid and principled . . . but I’ve seen the guy blatantly lie about Romney’s record, and weasle out of his own record too many times to know better. He’s been getting “a pity pass” from opponents and the MSM for the last few months because he’s lost “frontrunner” status and risks losing top-tier status as well.
I do find it ironic that a McCain supporter thinks Romney is an unauthentic panderer . . . this is McCain who has made a career for himself by slamming those in his own party to gain favor with the media elites. That’s a whole other levelr of opportunistic pandering.
And I’ve been to a small campaign event of his in Iowa, spoken with him (he remembered my dad playing football for Arizona State), got a photo with him, got his autograph . . . he was a pleasant guy in that setting. I’ve seen all these guys up close and Mitt’s the most impressive and has the complete package for me.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:46 am
$50 on Jeff Fuller. Romney/Fuller 2008
November 1st, 2007 at 12:49 am
JME,
. . . or don’t require much sleep.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:52 am
slamming people in his party? like when he opposed reagan in sending troops to lebanon? pandering? oh wait! he was preventing hundreds of marines from getting slaughtered.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:56 am
“For Gov. Romney to suggest that he is uniquely qualified to be commander-in-chief is like saying that he should replace Tom Brady because he has watched Patriot football games.â€
…and all the mittbots said “boo hoo.”
November 1st, 2007 at 1:02 am
Romney suggested … that Hillary Clinton, if she’s the Democratic nominee, would have a similar policy on the Iraq war.
way to mitt!
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/mccain_and_romn.html
November 1st, 2007 at 1:06 am
For the McCain campaign to resort to name-calling and a childish game of analogies that offer no substance or new ideas doesn’t advance or elevate the debate in any way
whatsoever.
Where do Mittstaffers come from? childish game of analogies? Wasn’t it mitt that actually made Rudy’s Yankee/Red Sox coment into a political football? How hypocritical.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:39 am
“this is McCain who has made a career for himself by slamming those in his own party to gain favor with the media elites. That’s a whole other level of opportunistic pandering” Actualy I see some of that as pretty good evidence for McCain being principaled. I think people like to think that if someone goes against their opinion than they must be doing so for some bad motive ( say getting media attention) because any reasonable person would obviously see that their opinion was right. Thus people view McCain’s position on immigration as pandering, because they think ” there’s simply no way someone could disagree with me on principle”. To say that McCain’s position on immigration was this June was pandering seems pretty silly, because I imagine he wanted the presidency more than whatever fawning from the press you think he was getting. All of the top five
have changed positions. I’m willing to give Romney the bennefit of the doubt on his changes because he seems to devoted to his religion and his family, McCain I’m willing to give a pass becasue he has taken principal stands, and showed himself to be a man of principal in the millitary. If you accept Romney flip – flopping than you ought to accept McCain’s.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:53 am
I’m not surprised McCain would group Republicans with Democrats in this attack; McCain has always sought out the moderates in New Hampshire to try and propel himself to the presidency.
Let’s just face it-McCain’s a moderate, and he’s running as a moderate. That’s what he means by “straight talkâ€; deviating from the conservative movement-compromising conservative principles.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:41 am
#34 John -
You see, here’s the thing. RomBots have no problem with acknowledging that there can be an evolution of positions by any of the candidates. It’s when we see the old “[fill in candidate's name here] is consistent and principled while Romney is a flip flopper and a panderer” meme that we get a little excited. Then, when we show specific examples of that candidate’s “flipping” and pandering, we’re called out on it. The RomNots want to have their cake and eat it, too.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:20 am
#36 Romney’s changed on the life issue, and not by nearly as much as detractors like to make it out to be. When he ran for governor, he ran on a platform of not allowing abortion rights to be advanced. If I remember correctly his opponent wanted to lower the age girls could be abortions, without their parents getting notified and he ran against that.
He also seems to have changed his opinion on the gay agenda, not believing before that gay rights groups had a secret agenda to integrate homosexuality into the main stream. But then again, gay rights groups have changed as well. Now pushing for a redefinition of marriage, and trying to get homosexuality taught to kindergartners. So maybe his change here, reflects a change in the groups activities.
I think if your honest, and not just spinning, and look at the issues (not out of context statements), you’ll see that Romney has been amazingly consistent. You probably won’t agree, but you probably don’t spend hours everyday researching things about Romney either.
In regards to other candidates changing, I think it’s great when they change to more conservative views. Apparently Rudy does support securing the border now, and I think he doesn’t support partial birth abortion anymore. McCain has softened somewhat on supporting amnesty. All the leading contenders support the kind of Health Care reform Romney innovated. These are all improvements, yet their positions still aren’t good enough to be President, and frankly, I don’t think their experience is as impressive either.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:45 am
It’s a good commercial, but the allusion to money incompetence is not believable on Romney’s part. It undoes the commercial.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am
bjalder, you misunderstood my point. I’m one of those vicious RomBots as well. We’re on the same side of this one. i was trying to point out the intellectual dishonesty of the RomNots.
November 1st, 2007 at 9:38 am
Tom Brady?? Unfortunately this is an all to typical slam from the McCain campaign . . . but pretty lame IMO.
Romney has the most diverse and successful executive experience of anyone in the field. It’s a strong argument that he is the most qualified to lead the largest organizational entity on earth.
McCain can’t even run a successful campaign . . . that’s not inspiring confidence.
He knows the military, good (he better after his career), but he’s not going to win this election by saying that all he has to offer is the best military experience.