John McCain is going after Mitt Romney for going after Mike Huckabee. Per the chairman of his Iowa campaign:
News that Mitt Romney will launch a new attack ad tomorrow is another move by a campaign that continues to insult Iowa voters. Iowa families should not be subjected to this negative style of campaigning, especially during the holiday season.
Governor Romney has flip-flopped on several major issues that voters care about. It’s particularly amazing that Governor Romney would attack anyone on immigration when he’s on his third position. John McCain has run an honorable campaign that all Iowans can be proud of. I call on Governor Romney to drop his plans for this negative attack and follow John McCain’s lead. Candidates need to raise the level of the debate, not lower it.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Thoughts from the McCain-site publisher-
I would agree w/ the assessment of Byron York in the article – namely that it’s certainly to McCain’s advantage to see Huck do as well as possible in Iowa. The best chance for McCain is for Huck to destroy Mitt in Iowa, and hope that the impact knocks Mitt down in NH as well…
Per his relationship w/ Mitt – the silence, I think, speaks for itself. They don’t like each other.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Awesome.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
And that points to one of my main problems with McCain: he lets personal animus get in the way of sound policy judgment. Looking at the respective governorships of Romney and Huckabee, is there any doubt that Romney would be closer to McCain governmentally than Huckabee would? Romney is likely to be very tough on pork-barrel spending, for example, and much more realistic on dealing with our enemies abroad.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Wow.
Romney’s only on his THIRD immigration position? That leaves, what, five to go?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Yawn. That was one of the best ads of the political season; unfailingly polite, complimentary to Huck, with serious contrasts of records. This reflects poorly on McCain methinks.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
It’s hardly an “attack ad” . . .
It states Huckabee’s and Romney’s records and even compliments Huckabee as a strong family man. Huckabee hasn’t backed away from his in-state tuition breaks/scholarships for illegals and so he’s not highlighting a “previous” or “changed” position. He’s highlighting Huck’s weak immigration record since the MSM is giving Huckabee a major pass on this issue.
McCain has attacked Romney for quite a while . . . once McCain realized Romney was kickin his booty in the talent primary and the money primary last year.
McCain has no room to speak (nor any money to run “attack ads” of his own . . . that’s hardly taking the “high road”)
Romney’s had negative ads running against him on TV and on the radio for weeks now (from 527s) in Iowas/NH/SC etc . . .
December 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
“Per (McCain’s) relationship w/ Mitt – the silence, I think, speaks for itself. They don’t like each other.”
That’s because McCain has class and isn’t a charlatan panderer.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Is there anything more hypocritical than that statement by McCain?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
“It’s just the negative style of campaigning that we’re denouncing,” a McCain aide told me a few minutes ago. Of course, there are other, more strategic, ways to read it, and it’s likely McCain sees an advantage in helping Huckabee beat Romney.
But there might be something personal as well. When I was riding around in Iowa with McCain in late October, he was pretty effusive about Huckabee. “I just like the guy,” McCain told me. “Huckabee and I have stood next to each other in several debates, and we’ve had several conversations. In one of the earliest debates, there was the issue of evolution versus intelligent design, and Huckabee described it so well that I found myself saying, when they asked me, that this guy just said it far more eloquently than I can. That kinda had something to do with our relationship.”
-byron york
I thought that was interesting…
December 10th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Follow John McCain’s lead….does he mean the 7% that he’s at in the last Iowa poll?? McCain seems confused. How does 7% constitute a lead? Could it be that team McCain knows that it’s all over for them if McCain doesn’t win New Hampshire, and might be trying, desperately, to bring down the guy who IS leading in New Hampshire? If Romney were to also win Iowa, the bump he would get would pretty much end McCain’s political ambitions and career….hence this piece of garbage.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Once again, when did pointing out how you differ on a policy issue from your competition become an attack. McCain looks like a loser here. The straight talk express is off the track and now spewing garbage.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The only candidate McCain has never criticized is Huckabee.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Bush 43 got 41% in IA beating Forbes by 11% after leading by as much as 25% in December. Huck can get that number and could beat Romney by 20% if he can get all his supporters to vote. That margin of defeat could bring down Romney’s numbers in NH helping McCain. So good tactic by JMac.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
#12, I agree, that is interesting.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
egs,
No. He hasn’t attacked Thompson, and Thompson hasn’t attacked him.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
MWS,
Romney has a RECORD to back up his immigration position . . . Huckabee has NOTHING IN HIS RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT HE WOULD BE TOUGH ON IMMIGRATION. Huck’s journey from where he was to where he is now on immigration is MUCH FURTHER than Romney . . . and Huck doesn’t even have a RECORD to back up his current position.
Huck wins the pandering flip-flop award on immigration hands down (even Rudy hasn’t made such a drastic switch on it, and that’s saying a lot).
December 10th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
What an absolute joke. Tell you what, John. Why not bring Mommy out for “another round of Iowa families should not be subjected to this negative style of campaigning”.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
McCain is a tool. Hasnt he had 3 positions on immigration too. Lets see, his 1st amnesty bill didnt work, so he created another and changed the amnesty word to Z visa. That wasnt popular either so he scraped it for another bill that would secure the border. Why didnt the 1st two suggest tougher border security.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Jeff Fuller,
But didn’t Romney support McCain’s immigration plan in 2005 only to change his mind the instant he began running for President?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I don’t really get the flip-flop charge when it comes to illegal immigration… it’s one of the issues that Romney has actually been rock solid on throughout his entire political past. This attack from McCain makes no logical sense whatsoever and just tries to score cheap political points by playing off of rather lame stereotypes.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Romney Camp complains about consistency?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I have watched that ADs like 4 or 5 times. I do not see in what way howsoever is Mitt going after Huckabee. He only pointed out their differences on immigration issue. This is unlikely McCain calling Mitt a flip-flopper over and over without a fact to back up this statement.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Tommy, McCain has criticized Thompson. John said Fred wasn’t at the NH debate because “it was past his bedtime”.
McCain has never even had a sharp word about Huckabee.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hasnt Mccain changed his position on a few things too.
IA is important/IA isnt important
Ames is a must/straw polls are silly
SC confederate flag is ok/no wait it isnt okay with me
Vote against the Bush tax cuts/now supports Bush tax cuts
These are just a few. He is a dem in republican sheeps clothing, and I can tell you when I lived in Arizona for 13 years, even many in the GOP thought he was a joke. He always seek after something to disagree with Bush or his party about, and runs to the MSM to lament his party. He will finish a distant but respectable 2nd in NH and will go home broke and defeated. It cant happen soon enough really.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Jeff Fuller,
“Romney has a RECORD to back up his immigration position ”
You’re not talking about his mansion again, are you? Because that’s really much ado about nothing. Anyway, I have a question for you in “Tony defends Mike.” #25.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I agree with McCain attacking Romney for flip-flopping, but Romney’s ad itself was ok I think. Assuming the information in the ad is correct.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
LJ (#19), Nope, he did not. He only said that it was “good” and that we should work on making it better from that point. He never went out for it in its form.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Husky,
” He always seek after something to disagree with Bush or his party about”
Now that’s an interesting thought, because McCain stood by Reagan in the ’80s, whereas Romney tried to disown him when running against Teddy. Romney declared he was NOT a Reagan Republican, but an independent, in the ’80s. Now he wants Reagan’s stool.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
On the question of Mitt and McCain-
I think that back at the start of the campaign, they each thought the other was the main obstacle the nomination… Rudy – they figured his popularity nationally was entirely due to his heroics on 9/11, but that once conservative voters in the South and Middle America found out about his positions, they would walk away from him.
Huck – non-factor, obviously. (Obviously, none of us thought Huck would be a factor, either.)
Fred – Fred had supported McCain in 2000 (when few other Republican officeholders did) and would have likely played a big part in the effort, had he wanted to..
December 10th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
McCain attacks Romney for one reason, its only Romney right now that stands in the way for him to drop out altogether. McCain isnt thought to beat Huck in IA or even be competitive, but NH is his people that gave him a solid win in 2000. This time around he is getting beat like a drum (rudy also) by Romney. If Romney wins as I think he will, and McCain loses as he promised wouldnt happen, its game over for Johnny Mac. So why not take this opportunity to attack Mitt, even though it wasnt an attack ad.
Maybe his mom can call out mormons on TV with him again too. Anything to get elected.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Jeff Fuller #16,
So wrong. In 2005 Huckabee signed legislation so that illegals could not get drivers licenses. Funny that Romney mentions that he did it in his attack ad but forgot that Huckabee did as well.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Jeff Fuller #16,
So wrong. In 2005 Huckabee signed legislation so that illegals could not get drivers licenses. Funny that Romney mentions that he did it in his attack ad but forgot that Huckabee did as well.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
#27. Indeed, he said that the very early proposals being passed around by the media sounded “reasonable”. But, I distinctly remember videos in late 2005 where he was very critical of even the “non-amnesty” amnesty McCain offered up. So it’s likely he simply hadn’t considered the issue very seriously, gave his immediate reaction, and came to oppose it once it’d been more fully fleshed out. I’d also note all this “Mitt supported it” nonsense comes from exactly 1 quote. They’ve never, to the best of my knowledge, been able to find any other indication that he was even favorably inclined to CIR.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Husky,
“Anything to get elected.”
I thought that was an interesting strategy when Mitt! was thinking through his positions for this race. At least that philosophical core which you cite there has been one constant about Mitt!.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Fred was virtually a co-signer on so-called Campaign Finance Reform in 2002 and is now against it, but McCain hasn’t said much about that, has he?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Marskal,
“but McCain hasn’t said much about that, has he?”
Fred’s dead, what’s the point?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
MWS, Romney is a Reagan republican today, maybe Huck ought to be as well instead of a Dukakis liberal who lets murderers and rapists murder and rape again. Mitt cant get a pass for an old comment he made and no longer stands by, but if he was in an Arkansas prison convicted of rape or murder in the 90′s, I’d bet Huck would give him a pass then. Wouldnt he.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Mark,
After he called the whole question “mean-spirited” and tried to get that anti-drivers license provision stricken out of the bill.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
That should have ended “I’m John McCain, and I approved this attack”. Notice how Romney contrasted they’re records whereas John McCain made a personal attack. What a scumbag and a hypocrite.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Except for his fight with Romney and a very brief spat w/ the Mayor (which I think has blown over), McCain has tried to remain on good terms with the rest of the field. Perhaps he is gunning for a Cabinet position? Maybe VP?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
there is absolutely nothing negative about this ad whatsoever!!! Since when is aking the voters to compare the two Governor’s records considered negative? Negative would be more like “Did you know that while Governor Huckabee was at a Southern Baptist convention in Salt Lake City trying to convert the Mormons, his son was back home hanging, stoning, and slitting the throat of his dog—don’t you think he could have been doing some proselyting closer to home?”
December 10th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
A better headline would have read:
“McCain Attacks Romney in Desperate Attempt to get Some Much Need Free Publicity for his Campaign”
December 10th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
SGS,
Actually he did.
Sorry. Romney has done a blatantly dishonest flip flop there. He supported the same exact plan as McCain but decided to turn around and pound McCain with it after entering the race. No wonder McCain despises him.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
It’s Hucks RECORD that’s negative.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
McCain is doing the right thing…Romney has run the most negative campaign out of all the candidates in the race, even on the Democrat side.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
“all this “Mitt supported it†nonsense comes from exactly 1 quote. They’ve never, to the best of my knowledge, been able to find any other indication that he was even favorably inclined to CIR.”
Here! Here! Now Matthew knows what he’s talking about. One can never know what Romney’s position is by only asking him once! Indeed, it often takes many quotes and several years before we can determine his “finalist” position.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Matthew,
Can you very specifically tell me exactly what he identified as mean spirited and can you tell me exactly when and why he attempted to get the drivers lience provision removed? I think the answers will be revealing.
And of course at the end of the day he still signed it. Reminds me of Romney talking about how he did not want to not let illegal immigrant children not recieve tuition aid.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Huckabee is McCains only hope, so what do we expect?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“MWS, Romney is a Reagan republican today”
Romney’s words “I don’t want to return to Reagan/Bush” ring in my ear as I read this. He was, and is, a very good faker.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I guess its called an attack ad because it discusses another candidate in an unflattering way. “Contrast” ads are considered negative even if done politely.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
MWS, you dont get it. Its not about this old comment vs that old comment. Its about a record. Mitts record against gay marriage is clear. His message on cutting and vetoing taxes is also clear. His non support of illegals by denying licenses and scholarships is also clear. And lets not forget that he didnt pardon anybody, no one!
Likewise, we can throw out stupid and silly Huckabee comments and look at his record too. Most agree he is weak on taxes and immigration, in spite of any rhetoric that he throws out there today. That combined with giving everyone who was saved in prison a get out of jail free card will hurt him. Hucks record is clear. Clearly weak!!!!
The record
December 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
LJ, so do you have a copy of the 2005 immigration proposal by McCain? Is it exactly the same as the one he was trying to push down our throats this year? Somehow I doubt it because McCain himself said this bill wasn’t the bill he would have written.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Feltcher, as Huckabee has said in the past, candidates should be running for something not against someone, Romney’s ad clearly violates this.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
bjalder,
“What a scumbag and a hypocrite.”
Now I know that McCain’s 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton will never compare to the service to the country given by Mitt’s sons, but can’t you cut the guy some slack?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Husky,
“Romney is a Reagan republican today”
Maybe, but the bigger question is, what will he be tomorrow?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Ben, 1 “I don’t want to return to Reagan/Bush†referred specifically to deficit spending, which Romney honestly does have a better record on than Regan or Bush.
Do you want the deficit spending of the Reagan/Bush era?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
bjalder26,
I was pointing out the fact that it’s more than a bit disingenuous of Romney to attack someone else on immigration when he held the same exact position two years ago.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I despise how Romney has basically calculated every position of his to enable him the greatest chance to win the nomination and then his supporters respond to the flip-flopping charge by saying, “he’s so good on the issues, you have to attack his character”.
We need more responses from Romney supporters like #16. That is actually much more persuasive then playing victim.
In addition to not liking politicians who pander, the worry for me is that if there’s, heaven forbid, an issue on which the Republican party is wrong on will Mitt have the courage to try to change the party? Probably not.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
MWS, McCain gets plenty of slack already.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
LJ, my point is that it is not the exact same position, for you to say so is a flat out lie.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Remember when McCain said he was mad no one was attacking him? This is his attempt to get his name in the news. Everyone has forgotten about Johnny boy.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Mark,
http://arkjournal.com/2007/11/newsflash-mike-huckabee-supported-bill.html
December 10th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
On #60. This is one of the reasons Governor’s and not Senators get elected. Senator’s have had to take positions and votes on national issues, while Governor’s merely have some words quoted in a newspaper. As a result, it’s much easier for a Governor to change his/her positions for the nomination fight.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Matthew,
First of all that is far from a reliable source, second, it is talking about something in 2001, not 2005. The issue was not stopping illegals from getting a license, it was the way that they were going about it.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Matthew,
Here is the key quote from your link. From Huckabee’s human services liason:
“”We just don’t want to be treated as second class. We don’t have a problem with prohibiting illegal aliens from getting driver’s licenses. We have a problem with hassling those who are here legitimately.” ”
Oh, NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Huckabee’s AGAINST RACISM!!!!!
Seriously, what do you find objectionable in the Governor’s position here? He said (through a spokesman) that he was AGAINST driver’s licenses for illegals, but was tired of good people getting harassed for their skin color and accent. What part of that do you have a problem with?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Romney haters, save your youtube videos and cheesy Romney comments of old, and just look at his record. I dont dislike Huck because of his comments and many do to Romney simply because of his comments. Its Hucks weak record on pardons, illegals, and taxes I have a problem with. I dont care so much what somebody said years ago. I agreed with McCain 90% of the time in 2000, and voted for him. But I was wrong on McCain Feingold as he was, and I came to realize the foolishness of McCain Kennedy. I have evolved too. Hucks record is weak and Romney simply pointing that out to others doesnt constitute going negative. The voters will get that.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
MWS,
The bill his government supported was intended to repeal a provision that specifically took drivers’ licenses from illegal immigrants; Huckabee’s administration claimed it wouldn’t, but they were being dishonest. Eventually, a revised bill came through that dealt with the broader issues, while specifying that illegals weren’t to receive licenses. But, as the article points out, the original bill that Huckabee’s administration supported “to stop people from being hassled”, gave them drivers’ licenses. All the above quote amounts to is something like “we don’t care if you prohibit illegals from getting drivers’ licenses. But, we have a broader problem here, and we’re willing to sign a bill that just that, if we can address that broader problem”.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
McCain doesn’t need o be negative. HE just brings his Mom with him on the campaign trail, so she can disparage the religion of Mitt Romney, and he can distance himself from the attack, but then blame it on, “crazy old mom”. McCain is the biggest panderer, and he wil take any position that will get him elected. He will support any candidate that furthers HIS ambitions for the White House. For him to say that he doesn’t know Romney at all, then how does he explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA7JTDjG-Po
Romney a Flip-flopper???? What the heck do you call that???? Going from a GLOWING endorsement of Romney that he is a man of “unimpeachable integrity” to “I don’t even know him” What a joke McCain is turning out to be, and it makes me ask, what is in it for McCain pushing Huckabee other than his last ditch effort to show up in NH wit no money and losing there by double digits? PATHETIC, and he should be ashamed of himself.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
This is an interesting perspective on Huck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNGClzb-mGM
December 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Has everyone had enough of this religion back and forth? Well, apparently not Mike (although he’d probably say something whitty about the non-stop press on his case about it)… But in this interesting exchange where Mike is asked about the prayers, etc – he gave a very straightforward answer that he feels that people’s prayers helped him run & for strength, etc. Ok, I can definately agree with that statement, but then he goes a little further when asked if he’s ‘God’s choice…
Mike Huckabe: “I can’t go out on the platform and say you should vote for me because I’m God’s choice. I can’t say that. I don’t know that. And I think it would be completely inappropriate for me to say I’m God’s candidate.”
Ok – let’s break this down… First, he concedes that God ‘could’ have a choice when he made the remark “I don’t know that” when referring to God’s chosen candidate. Second, how does Huckabee square these comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjxWZT53gQ8 with these other comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpz1KHLkQhU ?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Here are the strategic problems as I see them.
Rudy-big state strategy will be a collossal failure as a years worth of work on several big states will be gone when he goes 0-6 before Florida, where he will also lose.
Huck-has done great in the polls of late but turns many Americans off when he compares his race to “feeding the 5000″ and thinks his lead is divine providence. His weak record on taxes, immigration, and pardons will cause evangelicals to give him a 2nd look
McCain-nice job lately but too little, too late. Maybe he would have won if he hadnt done so incredibly poorly for half of 06.
Romney-2nd in IA, 1st in NH, 2nd or 1st in NV, SC, and MI too. He’d better hope that his national numbers springboard as I expect them to do. Seemed very real during the speech to those who otherwise found him phony, he needs more of that. I like his chances.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
bjlader26,
Here is the text of the 2005 immigration bill that McCain authored and Romney supported.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I saw the ad, and it didn’t look like a “negative attack” to me, more just pointing out the differences between the two.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
McCain just lost my vote. I’ll definitely vote for him in the general if he gets the nomination but if it comes down to him and someone else (besides Huck) I’ll vote for the other.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am
“Yawn. That was one of the best ads of the political season; unfailingly polite, complimentary to Huck, with serious contrasts of records. This reflects poorly on McCain methinks.”
Basically.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:11 am
bjlader26 – that Jackie Mason video was funny but true. I’m sending the links to my family and friends. Thanks for that.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:11 am
bjlader26 – that Jackie Mason video was funny but true. I’m sending the links to my family and friends. Thanks for that.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:13 am
McCain is calling out the ad for political reasons which is OK, this is a campaign but don’t come across as altruistic. McCain is the least “phony” of all the candidates but this is disengenuous and out of character for even Mccain.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Thanks for the tip, my latest post mentions it. Speaking of Romney going negative, I called it when I saw the first newsweek poll a few days ago.
Great works guys!
JX
December 11th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Having just watched the ad (it wasn’t working at work), I found it incredibly disingenuous, even by Romney standards.
Romney wants to scrutinize Huck’s RECORD on immigration, but wants to sweep his own RECORD off the table regarding abortion by simply stating “both pro-life.”
Well, dang. Huck could EASILY reverse this ad, and start off saying, “Two governors. Both anti-illegal immigration. But lets look at the RECORD on the right to life.”
December 11th, 2007 at 2:06 am
MWS, that’s actually a very good point.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:45 am
78: MWS, I agree that is a good point. However, that’s not the way the Huckabee has chosen to respond to it, and this is why this ad is very solid for Romney. Huckabee could have taken issue with the statements that they are both pro-life, but instead he chose to claim that the ad smeared him. Any reasonable voter (ie, one not voting because their pastor told them to) is going to see this ad and ask, “where’s the smear?”. However, they will accept Romney’s pro-life credentials, simply because they are going unchallenged.
With this one ad, and with Huckabee’s response, Huckabee is now on the defensive, trying to claim that honest representations of his position are smears. I think Romney should follow up with another ad, with the same introduction, this time emphasizing differences in tax policy.
As long as Huckabee is on the defensive, and as long as Romney sticks to facts about Huckabee’s record, Huckabee will come out looking weak. The only thing that would be better is if a similar situation plays out in the debate.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am
hw does mccain get away with accusing others of lying when he is completly lying.
he is so arrogant it makes me sick. the most self loving candidate and self rightwous candidate ever.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Not sure why there is so much negative comments here. Facts are that Romney has been a flip flopper for years. Just watch the debate clips with Kennedy when he called him multiple choice. If Romney can’t beat him what chance does he have against Clinton who can match him dollar for dollar in advertising.
Romney’s only plus is that he can spend gobs of money on attack TV ads and direct mail pieces. That is it. Nothing else. He can’t be trusted and he can’t beat Clinton. What he has been able to do is fool all of you supporters with flashy ads and flip flopping on issues.
McCain is right. Romney is running a negative campaign and knows that is his only hope to beat Huckabee in Iowa. After Romney loses Iowa, McCain will beat him in NH proving that Romney is not the brilliant marketer and in reality a wasteful spender. That will just add more to the flip flopping conversation about him.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:55 am
McCain: Do as I say, not as I do.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Last time I checked McCain was the only one that can beat Hillary in head to head polls when you look at the polling data on a state level. Not Rudy and certainly not Mitt “Flip Flop” Romney. If Romney won the primary all of you Romney supporters should start practice typing Madame President.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
75% republicans can be swayed to a different candidate. What’s going to matter in this compressed election cycle is not a “Rove” type agenda but a passionate pull by the average voter. Look at “polls” of the Huck he’s up so high because the public knows he’s not like rudy or mitt. Nobody has really heard of McCain so much because of his early issues with campaign but that is really not going to matter because so many people are sick of politics as usual. Most say that they only make their decisions in the last few weeks. With people getting upset with being force- fed on the news they will be increasingly doing their own research. This in which leads to moderates like me strongly backing McCain and actually going to the early polls. So all i’ve really got to say is jump on the McCain bandwagon cause it’s going to pennsylvania ave.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Mitt can’t even manage his own backyard on this issue! Can you say PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Instead, he blames the contractor. Kind of like what he’s doing now with Huckabee, McCain, and the rest of the GOP field. He’s happy to distort their records, and slime them on immigration. Why? Because he’s running scared. Good on Johnny Mac for speaking out against this atrocious behavior.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I watched the show that Mitt Romney did on his Mormon belief, and although he only really mentioned the word Mormon once that I remember, I think he has a problem with it himself. No one asked him to do that add so why did he find it necessary unless he himself is the one who is concerned about the fact he’s a Mormon. As for attacking any of the other’s canidates in reference to their beliefs, I do think the Romney has many problems of his own to deal with before ever thinking about becoming President and dealing with the Nation’s problems. He’s from Mass. a huge State with many problems so they all just keep moving to NH. Sure wish he could of straighten out that State so they stop moving to NH as don’t think we like having them all up here.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Why in the World does anyone especially a Mormon think it necessary to run any negative ad’s against another person who’s running against them. I for one am sick and tired of seeing all these negatives ad’s running. If you can’t say anything nice about something then don’t say anything at all would be much better way for Romney to go, don’t you think.
Maybe he should take a good look at his religion he’s preaching.