11 posts tagged “romney”

Romney flip flops on a couple issues (abortion, stem cells -- and naturally to the conservative side) and he is given a pass because he is coming over from the dark side so to speak.  He has seen the light, right?

McCain flip flops on the immigration issue admitting to the conservative masses that he was wrong about the z visas, etc. and that he would put priority on border security, yet he is still crucified over his original position.  Again -- coming over from the dark side.  He has seen the light.  But it doesn't count?

Now... maybe it is because immigration is the political topic of the hour.  Or maybe it is because some can never accept McCain.  I wonder if it is a little of both, but the way some went after Giuliani with regard to abortion -- I have to think certain issues are used as excuses to never accept certain candidates; however, they are not problems accepting other candidates.

It is interesting watching part of the Republican base foam with symptoms of hydrophobia as if bitten by the rabid illogic of emotional politics.  Because you know... conservatives aren't supposed to get emotional about politics, right?  They're supposed to be based in logic and reality, not swirled up in fervor.

In the end, it is about who you believe is telling the truth.  Is Romney truly a changed man with all of his flip flops concerning key issues of the Republican party?  And/or is McCain serious about deferring to the masses with regard to the immigration issue?

Talk radio doesn't like McCain and the fact that conservatives vote for him is a slap to their faces.  But why are Republicans voting for McCain if he is so evil and so far from conservative issues?  Are they not listening to the radio pundits?

They say that the Romney is the candidate that closely resembles Reagan out of the whole bunch.  Oh, really?

That is what was said of Bush when he ran in 2000.  And honestly, I think enough of the base doesn't want another Bush.  And Romney out of the bunch, to me, most resembles Bush.  That is what hurts him in my opinion.

They say that senators make lousy Presidents and governors have better management skills.  Oh, really?

Need I remind you that Bill Clinton and George Bush were governors.  But Kennedy was a senator.  Lincoln was a senator.  This one size fits all deal is such nonsense.

These molds that talk radio tries to put these candidates into is just bull crap.  There are lousy governors and there are good senators.  There are good governors and there are crappy senators.  I won't use that as a prerequisite.  And the way McCain is winning these states, I don't think the masses agree either.

Bush, a former governor, has done more to screw up a bunch of issues, including the management of the war in Iraq to make me think that overall governors don't necessarily make good presidents.  And don't get me started on Bill Clinton.

So what of McCain?

I think what most rings with the base with regards to McCain is his push about curbing spending and earmarks.  I mean Bush never saw a spending bill he didn't like.  The Republicans have turned into Democrats over the last twenty years or so...  And not to sound retarded -- I think the straight talk that McCain tries to personify resonates with voters who have had enough with the smirky smiles of politicians and political rhetoric.  And I am sorry -- but Romney has that smirky politician smile.

And if the case is being made now that McCain and even Giuliani (who may be looking for a VP nod) are liberal Republicans and that the party is making a shift away from "true" conservatism...  I make the case that shift has been taking place *since* Reagan.  This shift is not a recent event...

Now, overall, I don't think Romney is a bad guy -- I would be happy to vote for him if he was the nominee.  But I do think he would govern just like Bush.

So as I have always been a Rudy guy -- I am going to back McCain. 

I think McCain has the best shot competing with Clinton or Obama.  And a McCain-Giuliani ticket is a dream ticket in my opinion.   And just because they may have some liberal beliefs on issues doesn't mean the bottom of the conservative bucket is going to fall out.  I for one would rather see McCain than Clinton and if McCain can match up -- trust me -- the sky is not going to fall.

And one last thing.  Romney is running on this I will change Washington because I am an outsider rhetoric.  Yeah, well, Bush ran on that too and I didn't see him unite Jack with sh*t.  Bush ran on this I am an outsider and I united the Texas legislator (Republicans and Democrats) and I can do it in Washington.  Well, just because Romney touts his successes in Massachusetts doesn't mean he will be successful in Washington.  In my mind, Romney is a Bush clone in a lot of ways and I don't see him changing anything in Washington.  Romney just seems like too much of nice guy.

Same old promise and it would be the same old outcome.

I would rather have a feisty older senator taking on Congress than a nice guy.  And we had a wimpy guy taking on the Democrats for 8 years.

Some may say that McCain is too close to the Democrats and that he would be agreeing with them on some issues.  This may be true on a few issues.  But overall, when Republicans have just as much earmark spending as the Democrats -- I think McCain will do more to reduce the size of government than any of the other *electable* candidates.

According to Rudy:  "The winner of Florida will win the nomination."

Looks like it is McCain v. Romney the way the current polls are shaping up.

Ouch...

“I expect that by the time this is finished, I’ll be the one with the nomination. See you in New Hampshire.”

This is just the first battle in a long war...  see you on the other side.

HT:  Patrick Ruffini

Here is the winner for Mitt Romney's ad contest.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Romney - 1 for 1 - home run deep to center.

Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

George Will addresses the downtrodden feelings some of conservative base has toward the three main candidates for the Republican nomination.

Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state's history and the nation's most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages -- the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.

Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today's fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan.

Food for thought for those disappointed with the top guns on the right side of the aisle.

Rudy posts a strong following at CPAC (and everybody is surprised).

Erick Erikson:

Truly, the surprise is Rudy's showing -- again, without a visible presence for a guy who almost did not attend. He received 17% and was the number one choice for who is everyone's second choice. In fact, Patrick Ruffini, a Giuliani partisan, points out that if you combine the first choice and second choice votes, the percentages shape up like this: Giuliani at 34%, Gingrich at 30%, and Romney at 30%. Conservatives are willing to deal with Rudy.

Captain Ed:

Take a look at Giuliani's numbers. Here's a candidate who supposedly didn't impress in his speech on Friday, whose consistent positions have him in conflict with more than a few of the groups comprising CPAC, and who didn't have any organization at the conference or spend any time with the attendees outside of the speech. Despite all of these handicaps, 17% of the conservatives at CPAC selected Rudy over any of the other candidates -- only four points lower than Romney.

Liz Mair:

Assessment: it's worrying when paying 200 people to vote for you only enables you to beat an unapologetically pro-choice, pro-gay candidate with no organization present on the ground at the country's biggest conservative conference, dominated by social conservatives who should like your pro-life, pro-FMA line.  It's also very good news for Giuliani, who had no real presence at CPAC, apart from he himself speaking there and about six staffers milling about, and who obviously does not fit the ideology of your average CPACer, that he came second on the first choice poll-- and only lost by 4% to a candidate who had obviously done his utmost to engineer winning the poll by busing hundreds of people in to vote for him from everywhere from Utah to Michigan.

Can McCain climb back into this race?

McCain also trails Rudy Giuliani by almost 20 points in the latest Time and ABC/Washington Post polls. For now, the McCain team is taking a measured approach to the widening gap. Their principal strategy is to wait and let Giuliani fall of his own weight. Once conservatives learn about Giuliani's pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay-rights positions, McCain aides expect, their rival's support will diminish considerably. Giuliani's commitment to conservative judges took a knock Thursday, and Giuliani supporter and former solicitor general Ted Olson went right on the air to rebut the charges to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. As Giuliani's own research suggests, the press is also likely to cover his three marriages, business dealings, and experience during the Vietnam War. The McCain campaign will make no Clintonlike efforts to draw their rival off-sides, at least for the moment. They will hope the press does their work for them (sometimes with their guidance).

I don't buy this at all.  We should be questioning why McCain is down so far and why it is even necessary for him to climb back into the race.  The reason McCain is off base is because conservatives don't trust him.  His strategy to catch Giuliani should be a proactive one based in regaining trust with the conservative base, not a hands off strategy based on letting Rudy fall from grace.

If in the end conservatives have issues with Rudy's standing on social issues, they won't be rushing to McCain's camp.  They will be rushing to Romney's.

It was only a matter of time before the MSM would start to question Romney's religious practice and try to drag up skeletons in the closet.  And these are literally skeletons...

Normally, the press doesn't have much interest in the foibles of candidates' ancestors. You didn't have to go far back in Bill Clinton's family tree to find discreditable conduct, and Rudy Giuliani's father was a part-time petty criminal who served time in prison. Yet the media either ignores these antecedents entirely, or else credits the candidate with rising above them.

Why, then, this interest in Romney's great- and great-great grandfathers? It gives the press an opportunity to take a pot shot at Romney's religion. He is a Mormon, and Mormons are Weird; the best evidence of this proposition is their former practice of polygamy. (Yet to come are articles on how the Mormons once discriminated against African-Americans. Watch for it: "While Mitt Romney insists that he himself is not a racist, ... ")

There is something odd, though, about trying to hang the polygamy albatross around Romney's neck. One of the obvious differences between Romney and his Republican rivals is that Mitt is the only one who has been married just once. So isn't the polygamy rap a bit unfair?

It is ridiculous to imply that because some ancestor from the 19 century did "x" that somehow you are going to do "x."

And the reason the MSM doesn't care about how many times a candidate has been married is because divorce is so prominent in our society.