Mitt Romney has failed to earn the trust of a majority of Republicans that he would not go wobbly during wartime when things get tough.
That is why McCain won Florida.
McCain was vilified by the most of the conservative press, as well as many in the MSM, for his primary election eve’s eve attack against Romney accusing him of favoring a “timetable” for withdrawal early last year when the war was not going well and the leaders of new elected Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress were trying to force President Bush to set a public date certain for withdrawal for Iraq.
Many even called McCain a liar. (more later below on that)
I remember the time well. I remember arguing in January of 2007 that President Bush would not go wobbly since he knew that the only way he could be stopped from fighting our enemies in Iraq would be a two-thirds super majority override of a defense appropriation budget veto. I remember that only a handful of liberal Republican House members and Senator Chuck Hagel(R-NE) explicitly agreed with the Democrats that we publicly set a date for surrender.
I knew the President had a spine.
I remember that Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham and many other Republicans called for sticking with the President and his new surge strategy and rejected timetables and defeat. I remember Fred Thompson praising President Bush and those that refused to settle for anything but total victory as he filled in for Paul Harvey on the radio.
McCain and Thompson had spines.
Regrettably, I also remember my disappointment in too many Republicans, including some of our then declared candidates for president, trying to have it both ways. Senators Brownback, Lugar, and others come to mind.
Another Republican also comes to mind. This republican was one that I had written many columns in support of, as I defended him against attacks by the media that his religious faith would prevent him from winning the White House.
I have been vindicated in my defense of Evangelicals as they gave this former governor a plurality of their votes in the Sunshine State.
What I remember most about this man back in early to mid-2007 though, was my disappointment at his equivocation on the war when things were tough. Violence was up in Iraq. The Democrats had just taken over Congress.
Democrats were calling for public timetables for withdrawal. Mitt Romney did not do that, but neither did he sound an unequivocal clarion call for victory. Instead, he…well, let’s see the quote:
McCain, Romney, and Timetables
Here is the exchange in question, from ABC’s “Good Morning America” on April 3, 2007:
MS. ROBERTS: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, there’s no question but that – the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement. You don’t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you’re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
MS. ROBERTS: So, private. You wouldn’t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven’t reached the Rhine by this date, why, we’ll go home, or if we haven’t gotten this accomplished we’ll pull up and leave? You don’t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don’t do that with the opposition.
Reading that, I think it’s fair to conclude that Romney was saying he was in favor of Bush and Maliki setting a secret timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. (By the way, I didn’t think that was a bad idea, on the grounds that the Iraqis needed to be pushed hard before they would get anything done.) Certainly people who were listening took it that way; at the time of Romney’s statement, there was a fair amount of reaction, much of it from the left, to the effect that Romney was coming around to the idea of a timetable.
The left got the message, and so did gamecock. I was so disappointed by this at the time, that I stopped writing blogs for Mitt and looked around at Duncan Hunter, and then Fred Thompson.
Rich Lowry of NRO had a different take, but I basically concluded what Robert Kagan did:
Robert Kagan on the McCain/Romney Surge Controversy
Hi Rich,
It is true, as you write, that “Romney wasn’t as enthusiastic about [the surge] and in his body language, if nothing else seemed ready to distance himself from it if it failed.” But he went further than that. In June 2007, when there were already good signs that the surge was working, Romney told an interviewer, “I think we would hope to turn Iraq security over to their own military and their own security forces, and if presence in the region is important for us than we have other options that are nearby.” (This is quoted by Dobbs in the Post) That may seem innocuous enough now. But you remember how things were at the time. That was the way both Democrats and Republican supporters of withdrawal described their plan in those days. The idea was to pull U.S. troops out of the fighting in Iraq, hand over the fight to the Iraqis, and station U.S. forces “nearby” or “over the horizon.” That was how advisers to Hillary Clinton described their preferred option. It was how people who supported the Baker-Hamilton commission report described their ideal option. They didn’t call for immediate and total abandonment of Iraq – and very few do so today. When people who favored withdrawal explained their plan, it was as Romney described it. The fact that he also talked about “timetables” in an earlier interview, albeit secret “timetables,” also puts him in what was then the withdrawal camp.
Everyone who was fighting for the surge in the early months of last year – and that was not a very large number of people back then-was desperately looking around Republican ranks for support. Most Republicans on the Hill were quiet. Most conservative commentators were not working up any enthusiasm, to say the least. And aside from McCain, the leading Republican presidential candidates at the time were being careful. It was clear that both Giuliani and Romney were tempted to let McCain take the issue and self-immolate. But of the two, I remember, Rudy was the one who decided to put himself most clearly on the side of the surge. He began speaking out on the need for more troops in his public appearances. The contrast with Romney is even more striking in this regard. As best I can recall, Giuliani never talked about timetables, withdrawal, or about stationing forces “nearby.” Among the three leading candidates, only Romney took that line.
I was all ready to endorse Mitt after Fred’s SC defeat. But when McCain reminded me of the above, it gave me pause.
Can I trust Mitt to stay the course when all of Washington is against him?
I honestly don’t know. I do know that when it comes to not losing wars, I can trust McCain. I don’t trust McCain on many issues, or should I say I do trust McCain to do wrong on lots of issues, but when it comes to national security, if a President won’t defend us, we won’t be defended.
Rush, Gamecock and RedState stand an even chance of stopping McCain from doing some liberal things he is inclined to do, but we can’t force a President to act in our defense overseas.
I am still open to being convinced that Mitt Romney has a Bush and McCain-like spine on this issue, but he better be about the business of convincing me and many others in Super Tuesday states of same starting in tonight’s debate.
Mitt, don’t accuse McCain of lying. You can’t win a defamation suit given the mealy mouth language you used in April, and the exacting words McCain used last week.
Rather, look into the camera and tell us in no uncertain terms why you had no thoughts of surrender in April and why, why you have none now, and why enemies of the United States should fear you in the future.
We are the target of all the enemies of freedom. Osama bin Laden thought he saw a weak horse after the 90s. Not all enemies can be deterred, but many can, and many are today due to Bush’s spine.
Mitt, show us your spine.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
January 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Gamecock how do you then defend McCain’s comments that if certain benchmarks aren’t met by Iraqi government then the US could not complete their mission??? Does McCain have no spine then??
Romney’s timetables included Iraqi military and political strenghts, so they could take care of themselves. I damn well hope any GOP Pres. is willing to bring most of our fighting boys home once the mission is complete!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
ilfigo,
Why the hell do you hate McCain so much, it seems like you have no life at all, you just sit at home and go to political blogs and just bash McCain! You need to get a life and go away b/c no one wants you here doing this crap, and i for one am starting to get ticked off. You need to realize that Romney is done and McCain is going to win, so i guess you’ll have to go buy a gun and shoot yourself b/c you’ll be so devastated! Get lost Moron!
January 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
wow….everybody should just chill out. this is not life and death people…this is politics.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
#2 John,
Wow, that was a little harsh, why get so personal with Ilfigo? No need for personal attacks. He is just showing passion for his candidate and his opinion on what Romney said.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
John,
Utterly brilliant….er not so much. Conservatives dislike McCain. Ilfigo is a conservative therefore he dislikes McCain. Can your brain understand that concept?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
what a ridiculous post. don’t overestimate your support gamecock. conservatives backed romney in much greater numbers than mccain. i believe mccain wons among veterans by only 1 percent. I don’t believe the facts on teh ground support your assertion.
i would accredit mccain’s victory to latinos backing him by 50 PERCENT! that is what did it. so i would say the facts support the notion that mccain’s open border policies are what carried him to victory, not some outlandish inference that romney is weak on resolve to win the war in iraq.
lame post.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
#1 & #2
ilfigo brings up some valid issues. John doesn’t talk issues.. just name calling.
John, I’m fine with you being here, but lets stick to the issues!
January 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
John,
What would it take to get you to be a front page poster here? I mean, what’s your price?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Spine rankings:
1 – Washington-Lincoln
3 – FDR
4 – Dubya
5 – HST
and what #3 said
and #1 I would say that McCain did use some “Americans won’t stay the course” language at times that was less than salutary.
But McCain doesn’t have to prove his spineworthiness.
Mitt does, and quick, and I hope he can.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
John, do you know sampo? I fits your description in #2 quite well accept directed towards romney.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
#6 I lean to Mitt, barely.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
#8 LOL
January 30th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
i think John is McCain blogging. His little rant is very reminiscent of mccain’s many isntances of blowing his lid off when people don’t agree and back him. calm down john mccain, things are looking pretty good for you.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Johnny boy…is Jmac your daddy?? Cause you get kinda personal without discussing the issue. Can you not explain your daddy’s own comments about timetables???
I hate John McCain because he has represented me and he is not that good! Sadly, due to McCain-Feingold we can’t get a true Republican to run against him. McCain has proven his ASSHOLE qualities in my work’s various business relationships with him. I hate McCain because he is a CROOK and I adhere to the rule of law. Is that sufficient for you johnny boy?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
once again, rombots are sore losers.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
if having a spine means supporting a dumb war in iraq, then i dont want the president to have a spine. going to iraq was NEVER a good idea. there is no way to “win” the war there, because the only goal we went there with was to find weapons, that there weren’t. now they’ve moved the goal post and say we are there to establish an iraqi democracy. well, thats not really something worth giving up the lives of our troops for. romney is a pragmatist, and he knows that anything we do in iraq isnt worth the cost, but he cant say so, because the GOP primary voters would reject him as they have ron paul. but a president romney never would have gone to iraq with no goals, no measurement for success, and then stubbornly pour more and more resources into it, under the guise of “having a spine.”
January 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I am not defending Mitt or anyone. But I am wondering if this is significant: McCain serves on the military committee, hence he has the first hand reports as well as access to ALL military top-secrets. Romney, being an outsider that he truly is, has only the second-hand accounts, and no access to any of the military reports outside of what they released through media.
We have seen many instances where once Mitt has the data, he would end up fighting for the issues. But here, he really was in the dark as to the real affair that was Iraq, so he was being cautious with confirmation of anything.
But then, again, considering that McCain knew much more about how things really are going on in Iraq (because he has access to data, not because of his brilliance), he did express that we may seriously consider benchmarks. To me, this is telling us McCain has no confidence in the Iraqi government to do its job.
But then, we also know that Mitt has been studied with seriousness about the Islamic terrorists. He really do get them, when he talk about them. Perhaps how the society who has been anxiously supporting those terrorists for many decades (at least 50 years!) may give him a pause to trust the new Islamic government to do something about it. Mitt may have a much bigger picture, and what he saw he knew no one could resolve this war by the end of next administration (which is true, as we truly are in this war for many more years to come). Then, we have seen how McCain have talked about this threat of terrorists, which is not much, really. He has been about military (more of WW2 mind set which we know does not work too well) or about Iraq war (which is only a part of the world wide war on terror, can you say intelligence gathering, stopping societies that breed terrorists, protecting Americans (closing Guantuamula base) and more?). McCain has a very narrow focus, so it’s easy for him to claim success with much smaller picture.
Sorry, I am rapporting on here. I am just throwing out a few thoughts I have about why Mitt is not as committed, “or have a spine”, as McCain. Gamecock did ask and I am just wondering if this are the reasons.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I left this comment where Gamecock posted this on Redstate and I will leave it here:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Whoops! #18 should say “I am not so sure I agree on every point here…”
My bad.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Gamecock…I sure hope Mitt takes the gloves off tonight. Stand firm to conservatism. If he does so and still loses Feb. 5, the GOP may look his way again in 2012. If not, he has no chance in 2012.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
#18 Thanks Jason, and I wrote this partly because i still lean to Mitt. As you know, I was an advocate for Mitt from day one. I admire him immensly. He could be a great President. But he has to address this issue. He has to be able to say “Yes”, and nothing more sometimes or “No” and nothing more at times. He has to resist the impulse to nuance and covering bases sometimes. He has to lead. He has to take risks.
more later
January 30th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
No, no, a thousand times no. Just look at the actuall polling and the exit polls. Romney came in second and not first for two reasons: One, he didn’t attract much Hispanic support, while McCain did; and two, Guiliani stunk so badly that lots of moderates who would have voted for a competitive Guiliani voted for McCain instead.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I want to give a summary on my comment #17:
McCain:
- Has access to all top secret military materials
- Has first-hand access to any military personnel
- Is pretty focused on the War in Iraq
- Have not said much about Islamic terrorists themselves, outside of they being in Iraq and going after Bin Laden.
Mitt:
- Has no access to military materials
- Has no present association with any top military command
- See the big world of global-wide war with terrorists and their breeding grounds.
- Talked more about the global-wide war more often than the war within Iraq.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
#22 This is a threshold issue for Romney. Given McCain’s liberal record, Mitt should have won much more of the con vote. Plus, many Hispanics are just like Whites (who knew), and want to see a spine.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Gamecock, You’re right. Mitt is a smart savvy dude. But the Business model of branding is at odds with the political model of branding. Mitt needs to reassess this and hit McCain like a politician. I hate it. I wish politics was more thoughtful, and introspective, but it’s a bumper sticker world.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
#24, Hey you’re right again. My Mom is hispanic, but who would have guessed.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Mitt does not have much to lose…let’s see how he does tonight. The odds are that he will be even better tonight. The last time he had nothing to lose (2nd NH debate), Romney was tough and GOOD!!
Romney should just go after McCain, HUCK is a waste of space on the debate floor and I hope the moderators will assume the same thing and focus on the 2 real candidates.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
How do you Romney supporters defend the fact that Romney lost to McCain by 6 Points on the economy last night in the primary????? That’s the answer i’m waiting for! Romney has flip flopped on so many issues ranging from abortion to immigration to taxes and so on and so on, theres to many issues to name that he has changed positions on. And although McCain’s positions may not be well liked, at least he’s not going to say something else to win votes, like Romney did in Michigan promising to bring back lost jobs. Romney is the worst politician i have ever seen, and i’ve been around politics for a long time and have seen many politicians.
McCain is a hero, anyone who spends 5 years as a POW getting tortured for the sake of our country can be called nothing else but a hero. And John McCain will be the greatest president this country has ever had!
January 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I first have to acknowledge what a brilliant political move McCain made by reintroducing Iraq. He was able to change the subject from the economy, a McCain weakness, to Iraq without any justification. He caught Romney flat-footed.
I therefore do not think Romney needs to show a “spine” tonight as much as he needs a better response to the charge. Personally, I think Romney loses nothing by staking out a position different from McCain’s by stating the obvious – the US cannot afford to maintain a timeless presence in Iraq. This would allow Romney to attack McCain for saying he was willing to have our army in Iraq for decades.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Dont you just love life’s ironies?
That the GOP nomination is decided by hispanic voters? From probably the only hispanic sub-group that the party can appeal to?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“Plus, many Hispanics are just like Whites (who knew), and want to see a spine.”
Insulting and racist.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
This debate tonight will mean nothing b/c many voters dont put to much into debates, so as long as McCain soesnt fall asleep in the debate then he will still be ok. B/c if Romney attacks McCain then he will look like the bad guy, and he wont be able to attack McCain b/c all mccain has to do is say hey I won the first Republican only Primary and i beat you on the economy issue in Florida, and oh by the way i won NH and SC, the 2 other strongly contested primary’s, so Romney is basically in a lose,lose position tonight and there’s no way he can win, he needs to drop out now and save his kid’s some money, b/c he has spent far to much so far and look where he has gotten!
January 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Johnny boy…A war hero (which John McCain is) does not entitle you to the POTUS. Sorry!
What is McCain’s position now on Bush’s tax cuts?? What is his poistion on securing the border first? RIGHT!! Different than his original. You johnny boy must be his son or a dumb ass. Before you make stupid allegations about your own candidate, make sure it is true. McCain flips and flops like all politicians. Mitt has flipped.
Also, I would rather have a candidate promise to return jobs to Americans rather than a candidate (McCain in this instance) who wants to promote amnesty for non-Americans an.d to push more jobs out of the country through another liberal bill with a Democrat (McCain-Lieberman)
January 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
#17 good points all, but what I am trying to figure out is if Mitt understands how important it is that the CINK NEVER!! show weakness to the enemy, that he has the discipline to bridle his tongue, that he understands that we must not even consider anything other than total victory in Iraq and whether he can stand up not only to the enemy abroad, but also to the msm and libdems at home
like Bush has.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Johnny boy…Romney has enough money for his boys, who are actually making their own, not being dependent on their dad or spouse (by the way how is Cindy’s 100+ million doing? and why wouldn’t she support John when he was contemplating taking public funds?)
January 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You Romney bum’s have an excuse for every loss by your man. You all said that he couldnt win a closed primary, and he WON! And now you say that oh it was b/c of hispanics and moderates! Bull Crap, they are still Republicans and Romney could not appeal to them! If we nominate a candidate that only appeals to the Top Core Conservaitves, then all hisanics and Republican Moderates will vote Democrat and we would lose by a 2 to 1 margin in Nov. You people need to wake up and realize that McCain is the greatest thing that ever happend this election cycle for Republicans!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
#25 Yes Mitt needs to hit McCain as well, on all kinds of issues, but on this, I wish he would admit his language was vague and then look in the camera and talk directly to the America people and the enemy and tell them he will never falter before victory.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Yea there you go again, McCain sucks b/c of Amnesty and Tax Cuts…riiight! The reason he voted agaisnt the tax cuts is b/c they didnt have a cap on spending, and what happend? Spending went out of control and we lost in 06′, so McCain was right, and he is in favor of extending the tax cuts now b/c if not it would mean raising taxes. And on his website he has posted a tax plan that cuts taxes for the middle class and has a cap on spending! Its the greatest tax plan that i’ve seen in a while.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Yes but Gamecock…McCain hasn’t either so I don’t knwo why the media is only against Mitt. WAIT…because the media wants McCain to win the general and McCain is whom the DEMS fear. I am just glad that McCain got the liberal media to finally support the GOP, maybe there is hope that McCain can get all liberals and liberal leaning indies to support him too! WOOHOO
January 30th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Off thread Illegals will get rebate in the stimulus package.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
#40 See Drudge for details
January 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#29 That would be political suicide in the GOP.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#37 Gamecock
I think you are right, no one in a debate setting is going to resolve who said what and who meant what.
It is time for whoever is going to be president to look the public in the eye and tell them they are ready and will not backdown. And of coarse strike a deal with Paul to ask McCain an economy question.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Again, if Romney comes out attacking McCain he will look like an arrogant ass! All mccain would have to do is remind people that Romney spent 50 million of his own money and lost in Florida,NH,and SC after spending about 30 Million in those states. Face it, Romney is a loser in this debate regardless of what he does, and the party is now starting to coalesce around John McCain!
MAC IS BACK BABY!!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
#43 good one!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
WOW…thx for changing your name johnny boy!
Actually, McCain’s first position (which may shock you who truly thinks he says how he feels and remains with that position) is that he voted against the tax cuts because it overwhelmingly helped the rich!! Good try! Wanna play again!???
Johnny boy, you also forgot that I said I hated him about curtailing 1st Amendment rights, the fact that he is a CROOKED politician (bribes, trips, obstructing justice), he wants to curtail our dependence on foreign oil, yet unwilling to drill our own oil, and he wants to shut down industries by limiting their abilities to expand! Any explanation son??
January 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Johnny boy…are you incapable of defending your dad??? Or are you just like the MSM, boost JMAC no matter what and then he will crumble in the general??
January 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Well if you say everyone in Arizona hates McCain, then let’s see if he wins the primary in Arizona on Tuesday, and if McCain wins, will you please shut the hell up from now on! B/c if people in your state hate mccain so much, then certainly he wont win the primary!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
#31 Yes, it is insulting to view Hispanics as a monolith voting block, so that one assumes that voters that care about a strong stance on the war is mutually exclusive from Hispanic voters.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
johnnyboy…that is a stupid argument!!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I didn’t say everyone hates Johhnymac, there are many idies and Dems here as well!
Conservatives do not like them; however, many Arizonans are willing to vote for him because a JMAC presidency would bring jobs to AZ. Others may not like Mitt and there are only two choices left. Others just may not vote.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
By the way, how old are you johnny boy??? Does your dad allow you to use the internet without someone watching over your shoulder??
January 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
McCain supporters: Why should we believe McCain today, when today’s positions don’t reflect his positions in the past? Example: immigration
Romney supporters: Why should we believe Romney today, when today’s positions don’t reflect his positions in the past? Example: Abortion
January 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Yea i thought that’s what you would say! B/c you know that JMac is beloved in Arizona!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
#53, show me a politician who has not changed any of their positions throughout a political career
January 30th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Good Question IAHAWK…
My theory…what does his record show?? JMAC..McCain-Kennedy and he has said (incl. after his SC win) that his position has not changed on immigration. He may secure borders first and then push the bill.
Mitt…as a candidate he thought an elected official should not impose his personal beleifs and therefore would protect a woman’s right (which is the law and Senators and Governors do promise to uphold the law), yet as Governor he actions were all pro-life. When Mitt had the power, he was pro-life. When McCain wanted power, he thumbed his nose at the GOP and oftentimes the Constitution (McCain-Feingold)
January 30th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
<- not beloved of McCain in AZ
January 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
At some point the tattered remains of the Republican party will coalesce around McCain, once Mitt has either dropped out or been mathematically eliminated….right now both men are between 70 and 100 delegates, so the contest is far from being decided yet….but if McCain does win, a lot of us will not sail on that ship of fools. I have never gone through a presidential election passively, without campaigning, but like all habits, it’s probably one that I can break. America will survive…..if it survived 4 years under Carter, it can survive anything….and life will go on.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
ARE THERE ANY ARIZONANS HERE THAT LIKE JMAC AS A POLITICIAN???? (Please don’t respond affirmatively simply because he is a war hero, we are focusing on his role as a politician)
January 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I honestly doubt about 2012. America will be a completely different nation without Mitt at the helm coming January 2009. There will be chaos even violence around the nation and the world. There will be millions of people greatly oppressed they would no longer fight as a group to bring back conservative principles… hence a sign of the times… So… now or never, really.
We must rally around Mitt if we want a better tomorrow. I have complete faith and trust he can do it… He did it in the past and will do it again.
He is a true turnaround artist. He will open up Washington for us to look inside and ask us to support him in cleaning it up… think about it.
What say you
GO MITT!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
As you can see, since last night, I have already gone through Anger, Denial, Bargaining, and Depression, and have moved on to Acceptance.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
BTW, GO MITT!!!
January 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I am not sure anyone should even want to be president right now. We are in for a rough time and no one seems to actually know what we need. There is no solution to the housing/mortgage mess and just letting all those homes go into foreclosure will not be good for any of us. Oil is hovering around $95/barrel and so we have to move toward energy independence. And we have to get control of healthcare. We need about four presidents at the same time.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Just because you have a blog doesn’t mean you know what you speak of.
This is/has quickly become the ugliest and most dishonest primary season that I can recall. And, it’s not Romney, it’s McCain and Huckabee.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Or a true businessman who has to tend to many problems or numerous companies. Wait sounds like Mitt is best prepared for the job.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Those of us who dislike McCain should try to remember that he was a good conservative prior to the first George W. Bush administration. His apostasy since then surely erupted in part from his belief and pique that W. was an unqualified imposter and that McCain himself should have been the GOP nominee in 2000. Perhaps now that McCain has no one left to hate he would return as president to his roots as a limited-government conservative. At least, we can hope.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
By the way, SGS, I TOTALLY agree with your synopsis!!!
Its easy to go after someone when you have firsthand info and their info is incomplete as best – and then rub it in there face that “they didn’t believe” as they did!!
For Romney to have gone on and on about things he did not have firsthand (and then, much of it limited) intelligence would have been very impulsive.
I think Romney is much more studied than that when he weighs in – which is why his answer at the time was, in my opinion, very neutral.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Gamecock, not really a Romney guy, so I guess I carry a bias, but the political junkie in me thinks your advice for him is bad, bad, BAD. Bringing this up will do two things: (1) get off the topic of the economy, where Mitt shines and McCain does not, and (2) remind everyone that McCain was the guy who stood up for the surge when few others did. Even the most rabid of the ABM crowd can surely admit that, and acknowledge that it was one time when the “maverick” worked for, not against, the GOP and conservatives. I agree that McCain distorted Romney’s ambivalence/stance, but I also think that on this issue, Romney, a man with no military credentials, and who said that STUPID thing about his sons “serving” by getting him elected, is never going to measure up to or beat McCain. It is the ONE topic I think Romney should avoid, if possible; he can’t win there.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
McCain is only winning because Huckabee is making it possible. He is staying in the game to split conservative voters so that McCain can win. Huckabee knows that his followers will blindly follow him and cause Mccain to win. Withour Huckabee in the race, Mitt wins Florida and several other upcoming states. Huckabee has become McCain’s lapdog, and Mike likes it. The conservative base is by far the largest part of the GOP, but McCain has Huckabee doing his bidding. Romney should call Huckabee out on it.
Word on the street is that Norris’s comments about Mccain age was orchestrated to curry favor by Mccain with the seniors in Florida. It’s all a set-up.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The biggest thing that nobody is talking about is the danger of a McCain presidency in starting MORE wars. For Pete’s sake, to even joke about bombing Iran with his “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb Iran” comment scares me. If we want a full out war with the entire middle east, McCain’s the man. That should give you pause Gamecock…a lot of pause. Mitt sees the big picture here. McCain wants to fight everybody ’til the death, which for him, isn’t that long…but he could ultimately leave the U.S. in shambles for the next generation with his liberal government regulating fiscal policies and potentially dangerous foreign affair policies. I don’t want that hot-head, arrogant, stubborn, old jerk anywhere near the “button”.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Bill – GET IN LINE SOLDIER!
This thing is done – it’s time for the GOP to unite around John McCain. He deserves it. He’s worked hard as a career legislature gaining valuable experience about how things work on the Hill – how to scratch the DEMs back, how to fight the GOP and how to blame America first time and time again when they reject McCain’s conservative bashing agenda.
All of the McCain-haters clearly have forgotten that this nation OWES the POTUS to McCain for his honorable service in Vietnam after crashing 5 planes bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars – which, by the way, is the same way in which McCain travels around the world and gloats about his traveling on the taxpayer dime.
I’ve tried to be strong for too long – I now know that the only way to be strong is to side with the Maverick Senator from Arizona. Afterall, McCain is the only GOP candidate who competes against the DEMs in the national contest. And we need to take these as gospel – I mean afterall, we are still 9 months away from the election and THINGS CANNOT CHANGE. McCain is the only way for the GOP to win the election.
All resistance is futile. McCain is inevitable – join now and enjoy the ride, or stay bitter and remain insignificant.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
#70 I want Iran’s mullahs to fear they will be bombed.
deterrence
Reagan: Peace thru strength
see also that Libya gave up their nukes after we invaded Iraq and Iran stopped nuke weaponization at the same time.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Gamecock – on a serious note – I enjoy your posts – I haven’t seen anyone pontificate about how the Middle East would view a woman POTUS given the view and position of women in the muslim world. Maybe its a toxic subject and I haven’t done any research on it myself, but it might be an interesting discussion.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
#73 I major in toxicity. In general, I think men are much better equipped for leadership.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Mitt didn’t show any spine because he wanted to give himself leeway should things go badly in Iraq. He was hedging, as many politicians do. Mitt proved he isn’t a leader but a politician.
GO McCAIN!
January 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I’m sorry gamecock, but Mitt’s been strong on the war on terror, and winning in Iraq. You need to look at everything he’s saying-in context.
Oh, and McCain did lie. It’s just a fact.
“when we consider moving to a support role and bringing, at some stage, our troop levels back, we’re going to be doing that from a position of strength, because the surge has worked.
There’s no question: It’s essential for America to show that we are committed to success in Iraq. Our men and women are the bravest and most patriotic in the world, that are over there fighting. We deserve to give them the kind of support they need to make this mission successful. (Applause.)”
January 30th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
The only difference between McCain and Romney’s position on Iraq is that McCain wanted to wave a huge “mission acomplished” flag, before the reports of success came out, and Mitt wanted to point out that there’s a lot more work to do, and we’re not leaving until we can do it from a position of strength.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
#76 I agree. Mitt has satisfied me. He did what I requested he do in my column. He looked in that camera and MORE!!! amen
January 31st, 2008 at 12:01 am
In that old interview, Romney clearly meant that the timetables were for pressuring the prime minister of Iraq to get stuff done, they were NOT for withdrawing troops. McCain is misrpresenting/close to outright lying about what Romney said.
As far as “going wobbly,” McCain is the one who consistently makes deals with Democrats, such as the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill.
Regarding Iraq, there’s no “war” in Iraq any more, we WON that war in just a few days. Somehow, people have spun the fact that the people in Iraq hate each other too much to form a stable government means we are “losing” a “war.” I never heard of any war before in the history of warfare where the condition for victory was that the people you beat have to have a democratic government afterwards.