comMITTed to Romney!

AP broke the news a few minutes ago.

Discussions on Fox News are saying that this makes Romney a favorite for VP (helps with unifying the right and talk-radio folks, helps in Michigan and the west, helps with potenially drawing upon Romney’s money).

Also speculation that Romney’s delagate going to McCain get him close to the magic 1191 that will be when Huckabee drops out . . . so this could be the move that makes Huck get out of the race . . . ah, sweet justice.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

Sweet Irony!

HT to Devon Murphy for this link from Rudy’s website that is still active and still has lots of anti-McCain up.

This one’s good enough that I’m going to post it en toto just in case Rudy realizes that he shouldn’t have anti-McCain stuff up on his website after he’s endorsed him.

Just the Facts #1: MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR HIGHER TAXES MORE THAN 50 TIMES
MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR HIGHER TAXES MORE THAN 50 TIMES

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): “We Would Have Had A Much Bigger Tax Cut If It Was Not For John McCain.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “A Conservative Case Against McCain,” National Review, article.nationalreview.com, 1/14/08, Accessed 1/18/08)

In His Twenty-Year Senate Career, John McCain Has Voted At Least Fifty-Two Times For Higher Taxes On The American People – That’s More Than Twice A Year.*

McCain Was One Of Only Two Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush’s 2001 Tax Cuts And One Of Only Three Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush’s 2003 Tax Cuts. (H.R. 1836, Senate Vote #170, Conference Report Agreed To: 58-33: R 46-2, D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; Lori Nitschke and Wendy Boudreau, “Provisions Of The Tax Law,” CQ Weekly, 6/9/01; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay)

• And McCain Questioned The “Economic Premises” Of The Bush Tax Cuts. “Nor does McCain spare the rod in rejecting Bush’s tax cuts, especially the $1.37 trillion blockbuster Bush pushed through Congress in 2001, criticizing its economic premises and its likely impact. At best, it’s a long-term economic stimulus, not the immediate boost the economy needs, McCain said. ‘All the predicates for the 2001 tax cuts and all the predictions for its results were absolutely, completely wrong,’ he said. And it will worsen the deficit before it ever helps the economy, he added.” (John Farmer, Op-Ed, “Maverick McCain Maintains A National Constituency,” Newhouse News Service, 2/24/03)

McCain Has Voted At Least Seven Times Against Repealing All Or Part Of Death Tax Through 2002. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, Senate Vote #151, Motion Rejected: 54-44, McCain Voted Nay, 6/12/02; S. 1730, Senate Vote 28, Amendment Agreed To: 56-42, McCain Voted Nay, 2/13/02)

McCain Has Voted Against Capital Gains And Dividends Tax Cuts At Least 5 Times. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43; 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/9/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-49: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1; With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; Alan Ota And Martha Angle, “Senate Clears Tax Cut Package For Bush’s Signature,” CQ Today, 5/23/03)

McCain Sponsored And Voted For A Bill To Raise Cigarette Tax By $1.10 Per Pack. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; Senate Republican Policy Committee, “Tobacco Bill/Strike $755 Billion Payments,” 5/20/98)
IN 2004, MCCAIN SAID HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT EXTENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS

In 2004, McCain Said He Would Not Support Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. McCain: “I would have–I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 4/11/04)

* (S. 1920, CQ Vote #403: Agreed To 53-41: R 21-24; D 32-17 12/10/87, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1630, CQ Vote #45: Agreed To 71-26: R 28-17; D 43-9, 3/28/90, McCain Voted Yea; S. 3209, CQ Vote #285: Rejected 49-51: R 12-33; D 37-18, 10/18/90, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 11, CQ Vote #235: Motion Agreed To 56-38: R 28-14; D 28-24, 9/24/92, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #224: Motion Agreed To 53-47: R 44-10; D 9-37, 5/25/95, McCain Voted Nay; S. 949, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 12-42; D 29-16, 6/26/97, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/07/98, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1429, CQ Vote #243: Motion Rejected 58-42: R 13-41; D 44-1; I 1-0, 7/30/99, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #55: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 51-4; D 1-44, 4/05/00, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/07/00, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #69: Adopted 51-49: R 6-49; D 45-0, 4/07/00, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #194: Motion Rejected 14-84: R 11-43; D 3-41, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #71: Rejected 47-52: R 1-49; D 46-3, 4/04/01, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #82: Adopted 54-46: R 5-45; D 49-1, 4/05/01, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #84: Adopted 53-46: R 4-45; D 49-1, 4/06/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #112: Rejected 44-56: R 2-48; D 42-8, 5/17/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #117: Motion Rejected 48-51: R 3-46; D 45-5, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #126: Rejected 49-49: R 5-44; D 44-5, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #127: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 1-48; D 42-8, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #138: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Rejected 50-50: R 4-46; D 46-4, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 49-51: R 49-1; D 0-50, 5/23/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1052, CQ Vote #214: Sustained 57-41: R 7-40; D 49-1; I 1-0, 6/29/01, McCain Voted Yea; S.1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay; S.1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #62: Adopted 51-48: R 47-4; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/20/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 46-53: R 1-50; D 44-3; I 1-0, 3/21/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 48-52: R 47-4; D 1-47; I 0-1, 3/26/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/09/03, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 4/11/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A “Yea” Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #38: Adopted 51-48: R 4-47; D 46-1; I 1-0, 3/10/04, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 4520, CQ Vote #210: Motion Agreed To 66-14: R 41-3; D 24-11; I 1-0, 10/10/04, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #53: Rejected 50-50: R 5-50; D 44-0; I 1-0, 3/16/05; S. 1932, CQ Vote #283: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 6-49; D 43-0; I 1-0, 11/3/05, McCain Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #340: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 6-48; D 43-0; I 1-0, 11/17/05, McCain Voted Yea)

Pretty funny, eh?

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

This message is going out along the Christian News Wire. Hope it makes it far and wide QUICKLY!!

The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), in his capacity as a private citizen, today released this statement regarding tomorrow’s primary votes:

“I have spent the last 33 years as an active evangelical Christian. I am an ordained evangelical minister. I graduated from an evangelical Bible college and an evangelical seminary. I serve on the board of America’s oldest association of evangelical church leaders, and I head one of the most active evangelical ministries in Washington, DC.

“I have thought long and hard about the upcoming elections. I have prayed earnestly about them, and I have met many of the candidates and their top campaign people and I have studied their platforms and policy proposals.

“After careful and prayerful consideration, I have concluded that an evangelical vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain, and a vote for John McCain will be a disaster for this country.

“Let me explain. It’s clear to me and many others that Mike Huckabee is not broadening his appeal enough to win the primary. Therefore, his only contribution is to siphon off votes, giving McCain a clear path to victory. It’s very possible Huckabee is being positioned to be John McCain’s pick for vice president. In order to win, McCain needs Mike Huckabee and the evangelical votes he brings with him. The specter of a McCain-Huckabee ticket is bad for evangelicals.

. . .

“Evangelicals must consider both the stakes and the realities in this election. Mike Huckabee’s continuation only helps John McCain. The consequences are just too great to take this risk. A McCain victory will hurt this country because of the long-term damage of the wrong judges and justices. Worse, McCain’s court legacy will continue to hurt our children and our grandchildren, perhaps even our great grandchildren.

“Evangelicals must choose wisely from among candidates other than Mike Huckabee and John McCain as they vote tomorrow, February 5.”

For identification purposes only, the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) is president of Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance and co-founder of the annual National Memorial for the Pre-born and their Mothers and Fathers, the only pro-life worship service held inside the U.S. Capitol complex in Washington, DC.

Strong words there, and from someone who hasn’t endorsed Romney . . . just a pragmatic leader who sees how horrible McCain would be as both a nominee and/or President.

Let’s hope this makes the rounds QUICKLY!

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’m getting a sense of way too much “resignation” among some online Mitt supporters. In the last few days Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rick Santorum have all endorsed Romney and said that they would be voting for him. Although I wish these endorsements came earlier, it’s clear that Romney is the conservative alternative to McCain (despite McCain’s ads recently that call him “The True Conservative” . . . I spit out my milk when I heard that line).

I will also go on the record (again) that, should he become the nominee, I will not vote for McCain and will not encourage anyone else to vote for him either (probably not even if Romney is his VP). There are several reasons for this:

1) McCain lied about Romney’s record on Iraq saying that Romney favored a “timetable for withdrawl like the Democrats.” I’ve detailed the more-than-copious evidence that this is an outright and blatant lie here. I don’t want, and we don’t need, a liar as our nominee.

2) McCain has made quite a practice of “poking his finger in the eye” of conservatives. I’m guessing that he’s man enough to realize and understand that many/most of us feel like returning the favor.

3) If McCain is the nominee, it’s clear that, regardless which party wins, our country will have a President to the left of Bush. I don’t want the GOP (and, by extension, conservatism) blamed for the ensuing mess of taking our country more to the left. Let the Democrats take the full blame of getting what they’re asking for. That could be the best thing in the long run for the GOP and for conservatism.

Granted, I still am fighting and working to make sure that Romney is our nominee and not McCain. I would LOVE to be able to vote for the GOP nominee. We must all Rally to Romney!! He’ll be the best President of anyone still in the game. His competence and leadership are unrivaled. People just need to wake up and realize it.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

(Apologies to the film Network for borrowing the headline above . . . YouTube here–a great moment in cinematic history and worth the 4 minutes)

Much has been said on Romney blogs and elsewhere expressing outrage at McCain’s desperate tactic to dishonestly smear Gov. Romney’s stance on “timetables” and the Iraq war. It’s blatantly apparent that McCain only did this to bring the issue of “Iraq” back into the race. McCain knows (and has repeatedly admitted) that “the Economy” is not his strong point, and that he’ll lose to Romney in a head to head fight when that is the #1 issue. So, McCain’s solution is to invent a controversial position for his main rival that plays to his own strength. Pitiful politics at its worst.

I’ve heard this false “timetables” accusation once before (good old Huck), so I was initially willing to believe that McCain was maybe just going off of bad information–that he would correct the situation once he realized the context. But when Romney’s recommendation for a McCain apology was met with a “Romney should apologize to the troops for being willing to abandon them” (paraphrased) rebuttal I started getting downright angry.

When I realized that yesterday McCain said “My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal” my anger turned to OUTRAGE!

Then on Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert went softball on McCain on this issue with no follow-up, allowing McCain to repeat his position unchallenged with the follow-up of “please read on Senator” when Romney says that he would, like President Bush, veto any legislation setting timetables for Iraq. That’s either biased or shoddy journalism folks.

McCain is LYING! He’s inventing this pseudo-smear to bring back his preferred issue into the limelight . . . Iraq. Then I find out that, last year, McCain recommended a similar strategy (and his would have been PUBLIC . . . in contrast to Romney’s) of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain date, would lead to pulling out of Iraq before success was achieved!! This took my OUTRAGE to the next level . . . the “I’M MAD AS HELL! AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!” level.

Who’s with me here?

I’m sure every Romney supporter is at least outraged. Most may be outraged enough to make it harder for McCain to count on any significant support from Romney’s base if he were to get the nomination. I can tell you that I’m mad enough that I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND I’LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO INFLUENCE OTHERS TO WITHHOLD THEIR SUPPORT AND VOTES FROM HIM AS WELL. Romney has always supported the troops and the war, even while governing liberal Mass. For McCain to imply otherwise is sickening (McCain went further and actually implied that Romney’s position was the same as Hillary Clinton’s on timetables!).

Beyond Romney’s supporters “McCain Disdain” should be felt by every conservative and pro-Military American, who should view him with much less respect for dragging the American soldiers into this contrived controversy. Utterly shameless Senator McCain.

I know a lot of conservatives with influence see how dishonest McCain is being. But even the liberal MSM is calling this “scuffle” for Romney. This isn’t just a nuanced misunderstanding, this is dirty politics full of tricks and lies, and it’s pretty easy to see where the facts stand.

The evidence:

I’ve documented before how slanted the AP has been in their pro-McCain/anti-Romney bias.

So when the AP sides with Romney over McCain, you KNOW it’s iron clad and there’s no way for ANYONE to honestly see things from McCain’s point of view.

The Arizona senator stood before a crowd in Sun City, Fla., and said he was quoting Romney as favoring a ”timetable for withdrawal.” However, quotes circulated by McCain’s campaign didn’t show Romney making that comment.
. . .
By raising Iraq, McCain sought to shift the campaign in Florida back to his strength, national security, and away from Romney’s, the economy.
. . .
During the campaign stop later in Sun City, McCain clipped three words from a quotation of Romney’s last April, saying the former Massachusetts believed the country should set a ”timetable for withdrawal.”

In an interview with ABC News last April, Romney never uttered those words
. . .
Romney aides labeled McCain’s charge ‘’stunningly false” in an e-mail to campaign reporters.

Other liberal sources that see McCain’s misleading dishonesty include the New York Times (yep, the same paper that just endorsed McCain again . . . and yes, McCain sought out that endorsement), and Time Magazine (yep, the same magazine that just ran an incredibly positive cover and story about McCain being the “Phoenix Rising” in the race).

And CNN legal analyst calls it right in the YouTube below:

Text here:

JEFF TOOBIN: Speaking of straight talk, no American politician has gotten more adoring press coverage than John McCain. But let’s be clear about what John McCain is doing about Mitt Romney. He’s lying. He’s lying about Mitt Romney’s position, no question about it. And you know I think that — this idea that Mitt Romney supports timetables, in fact most Americans support timetables to get out of Iraq, Mitt Romney doesn’t happen to be one of them. That’s really outrageous what McCain is doing bringing up this ancient interview and distorting it at the last minute so he doesn’t have to talk about the economy.

Among conservatives there’s plenty of displeasure with McCain’s tactic as well:

Brit Hume flat out said that “McCain was dishonest” on this issue on Fox News Sunday this morning. Hume said it TWICE! He was even exasperated that Chris Wallace was trying to present McCain’s side of it by rebutting (paraphrased) “Chris, as journalists we have a duty to try to present things accurately . . .”

Sean Hannity was railing on McCain for this tactic last night on a special Saturday edition of Hannity and Colmes. Expect more of it from Sean on his Radio and TV shows tomorrow (not to mention what Rush will have to say tomorrow!!)

“The Great One” Mark Levin, has seemed to make somewhat of a personal crusade out of this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here.

Center-Right influential blogger Ed Morrissey has plenty to say about the whole affair, but even his title “The Low Blow” pretty much sums it up. (BTW, he just endorsed Romney over at Captain’s Quarters)

Katherine Jean Lopez of the National Review has chimed in too.

Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff blast’s Lindsey Graham for trying to defend McCain (and mis-characterize Romney) on this issue.

Bill Bennett (a strong McCain apologist and friend) said on CNN that McCain’s Iraq hit on Romney [was] “below the belt” and said “honor has been McCain’s watchword” — he should admit that was wrong to do.

Mark Steyn gets in on the act at NRO’s “The Corner” by calling McCain’s petty attacks unseemly for a candidate trying to give the impression that he always “takes the high road of honor”

Hugh Hewitt presents the Romney Campaign’s defense.

Andy McCarthy also chimes in with a little sarcasm directed McCain’s way (saying he should follow his own Campaign Finance Reform guidelines and not drop baseless bombshells within 30 days of an election)

By contrast, Huckabee (on Fox News Sunday) said that McCain has NEVER been dishonest, and sided with the Senator’s opinion that Romney really did support a timetable for withdrawl. Big surprise there, eh?

If Romney survives this tag-team from his two main GOP rivals in addition to the nearly incessant negative media coverage (present topic excluded) he’ll really be “The Resilient One”–a nominee we can put up against the Dems and their MSM machine with no fear of whether he can survive such a media/DNC onslaught.

Jeff Fuller

Update: Adding to the sources above, Kyle Hampton’s post adds some more confirmatory evidence of McCain’s lie.

Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney’s position on the troop “surge,” etc. This is no surprise. McCain’s “straight talk express” has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush’s tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney’s stance on “torture.” He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani’s position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.

Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq. (I wrote this morning that McCain “stretched” history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)

David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I saw a couple of minutes ago Carl Cameron (boy I’m getting sick of his pro-McCain/anti-Romney bias BTW) announce that during the next 24 hours Fred will be bowing out of the race. He’s a solid man with prinicpled many stands. We all wish him the best.

Marc Ambinder is reporting as well.

Jeff Fuller

UPDATE:

A Statement from Fred Thompson

Posted: Tue. 22 Jan 2008

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.

posted by Fred

Share on Facebook

Share This

FredHeads will play a vital role in this race and WILL end up choosing the nominee, though, to their obvious chagrin, it will not be for their first choice candidate.

I’ve been watching and analyzing this race for two years now, reading and commenting nearly daily at forumns such as RedState, FreeRepublic, and Race42008. I’ve seen the slow dance of Fred’s entrance, his surge in popularity and polls, and his steady decline. I’ve debated with FredHeads about both Fred and Mitt, their strengths and weaknesses. Interestingly, there has been a significant “warming” to Mitt among FredHeads and vice-a-versa over the last several weeks. Most Mitt supporters I know have Fred #2 on their list (me included . . . though it’s a close call with Rudy because I like his executive experience).

Whether or not Fred officially drops out, it’s clear that he does not have a realistic shot at becoming the nominee. His supporters will probably join other camps shortly.

Two online polls taken in the wake of last Saturday’s results asked folks who they’d vote for in a “Fred-less” field.

Over at RedState (jokingly referred to as “FredState”) this poll was asked . . . and here are the results as of now:

Now that South Carolina is done, who will you vote for in your state?
Selection		Votes
John McCain	14%	307
Mike Huckabee	6%	135
Rudy Giuliani	11%	233
Mitt Romney	68%	1,458
2,133 votes total

Over at HotAir.com (another very pro-Fred blog), the question was even more direct:

For Fred Supporters: If Fred Thompson drops out of the race, which major candidate would you support?
Selection		Votes
Rudy Giuliani	15%	706
Mike Huckabee	4%	213
John McCain	7%	341
Mitt Romney	74%	3,535
4,795 votes total

There is much speculation that Fred will endorse McCain, so HotAir’s readership was asked if such an ensdorsement would effect their vote:

If Fred Thompson endorses John McCain, what impact would that have on your vote?
Selection		Votes
No impact	88%	2,862
Somewhat more likely to vote for McCain	6%	205
Much more likely to vote for McCain	5%	172
3,239 votes total

Looks like FredHeads are the independent-minded voters that we’d expect of those supporting such a plain-spoken candidate.

For further evidence of FredHeads breaking for Mitt check out the comment section at HotAir (sorry, I didn’t read all 1400 of them).

Some are even calling for a Romney/Fred ticket! I wouldn’t have a problem with that personally. As Mitt supporters, we welcome any and all FredHeads into the fold.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

I wrote the following blog back on Jan 5th . . . and the issue has only become more and more important. However, with the worldwide stock market crashes today (here too) and Wall Street likely to suffer as well (the Dow Futures look dismal) it bears repeating now. I think it’s becoming clearer and clearer that we NEED Mitt Romney at the helm of our country and economy. And we absolutely DON’T NEED John McCain anywhere near the control panel of our economy . . . . :

So “The Economy” constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn’t think so. His new economic plan isn’t impressing many. And let’s not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain’s economic record (Their main points are that “John McCain is No Supply-Sider” and that he has a “Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative”)

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. — John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn’t know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:

McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign’s alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he’s weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he “may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night,” McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” McCain said. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.“

Sorry John, but if you haven’t gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you’re not ever going to “get it” . . . even if Greenspan’s book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.

Update Jan 14th:
I was just watching Road to the White House 2008 on C-Span (DVR’d) and John McCain, in a Saturday town hall meeting in MI, got a question about the economy and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

He promptly said he knew it was a problem, but didn’t know much about the details and so he brought up Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard to discuss the issue. After she answered the question, McCain mentioned that he wasn’t an expert on every issue, but that he’d get people like her to advise him. I mean, this is a major issue in our economy and every other POTUS candidate can grasp it enough to say a few nice lines. Even Huck can sound conversant on the issue!

Update Jan 20th:
McCain is showing his lack of depth on economic understanding . . . and is proposing policy based on his faulty logic. It’s SCARY folks!

I also noticed that the Romney campaign has been reading my blog
Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

Total voters thusfar: 1,731,000

Total non-Evangelical voters: 996,800

Huckabee — 36%

Non-Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 58%

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

New RedState poll: Who would you vote for now that Fred’s gone

Romney’s ahead now, but let’s get him a convincing win!

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

Check out this . . .

Dems Exit polling shows that 3% of those participating in the Democratic were Mormons.

I’m guessing NONE of them voted for Romney (sarcasm intended).

With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for ROmney.

By contrast, 25% of the GOP caucus in NV that were Mormon with nearly 45,000 total GOP voters — therefore around 11250 LDS voters and 94% of them were for Romney . . . but that means nearly 500 were not.

So, 4000 LDS in Nevada voted “Not for Romney” and 10,750 voted for Romney. That breaks down to 73% LDS for Romney and 27% LDS that were not for Romney. Not quite the absolutely robotic block-voting groups that many media outlets are trying to play up.

Interesting, eh?

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

Total voters thusfar: 1,226,000

Total non-Evangelical voters: 760,850

Huckabee — 31%

Non-Evangelical Numbers

Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 62%

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

When McCain won New Hampshire by 5% (37% for him vs 32% for Mitt) the AP headline read: “McCain wins in New Hampshire, where he bet it all” (incidentally, if you look at the top bar of your Internet browser it reads “McCain Triumphs Where He Bet It All.”

The contrast . . . When Romney won Michigan by nearly 10% and nearly 100,000 votes the AP headline reads: “Romney Edges McCain to Win Michigan”
And if that’s not bad enough, check out the lead paragraphs to those AP articles . . .

McCain:

John McCain rode the Straight Talk Express straight into first place in New Hampshire, and back into the thick of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

”I hate to use to the word kid, but I think we showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like,” the Arizona senator told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday, savoring victory . . .

Another AP article about McCain’s NH win leads with:

CONDORD, N.H. (AP) — Arizona Sen. John McCain won the New Hampshire Republican primary Tuesday night, completing a remarkable comeback and climbing back into contention for the presidential nomination.

“We showed the people of this country what a real comeback looks like,” McCain told The Associated Press in an interview as he savored his triumph. “We’re going to move on to Michigan and South Carolina and win the nomination.”

The Arizona senator rode a wave of support from independent voters to defeat former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a showing that reprised his victory in the traditional first-in-the-nation primary in 2000.

It was a bitter blow for Romney, who spent millions of dollars of his own money in hopes of winning the kickoff Iowa caucuses and the first primary — and finished second in both.

Now the contrast to the AP article linked to above about Romney’s Michigan victory:

DETROIT (AP) - Mitt Romney scored his first major primary victory Tuesday in his native Michigan, a win he desperately needed to give his weakened candidacy new life and set the stage for a wide-open Republican showdown in South Carolina in just four days.

Romney was the third Republican victor in the first four states to vote in the 2008 primary season, further roiling a volatile nomination fight that lacks a clear favorite.

No agenda there, eh?

Then they have the audacity to give McCain the last word in the AP article about Romney’s win!

McCain said he had called Romney to congratulate him “that Michigan welcomed their native son with their support.”

“Starting tomorrow, we’re going to win South Carolina, and we’re going to go on and win the nomination,” McCain declared, also in an AP interview.

Yes folks, McCain got more quoted words/sentences in the AP article about Romney’s MI win than Romney himself did. Shameless.

I’ve blogged before that McCain’s resurgence in NH and nationally has been a completely media created, directed, and propagated affair. I repeat my questions here:

Which do you think will have a better chance in the general election . . . the one who’s a front-runner DESPITE the MSM coverage or the one(s) that’s a challenger BECAUSE of the MSM coverage? I think the answer to that is clear. I’d want the guy who’s truly battle-tested.

Lest there be any doubt, that guy is Mitt Romney!

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

Most Romney supporters were pretty peeved about how the media has downplayed his WY victory. (a recent Newsmax story addresses this) However, I can see how it was easy for the media to ignore WY results since it’s the least populous state and due to the odd caucus system they used (mostly party insiders and/or major activists.) However, their 12 delegates were as many as NH awarded, and Mitt actually got more delegates out of WY (8) than McCain got out of NH (7).

But that’s in the past already . . . but NV looms in the future and we need to insist that it should count. Sadly, we’re already seeing how downplayed NV is in the national media coverage.

Even though the the media is covering NV pretty heavily for the it for the Democratic side, they’re relatively ignoring it for the GOP. My paranoid side says: “Figures, since Romney stands a good chance of winning it . . . of course the MSM will downplay it.” I’m actually convinced that Romney will win it (and if he wins MI, Romney will win NV BIG). Unfortunate timing has the NV caucus on the same day as the SC primary (which is monopolizing the media’s coverage.)

But is SC inherently more important than NV for this nomination?

OK, so we know that in recent history, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning SC. But this year is very different with at least three candidates still with very credible claims to taking it all, and two others who are still considered “top-teir” candidates. Usually, someone has established themselves after IA and NH and races into SC with the mighty momentum. Or, in the past, the race has been winnowed down to two people already and SC has been the final elimination round for one of them. Not so this year. Some are arguing that FL may play the role this year that SC has played in the past.

But lets look at the two states objectively.

Both are on Jan 19th

NV: 34 delegates up for grabs
SC: 24 delegates up for grabs

NV: Important swing state/purple state (i.e. we need someone who can show/run strong in such a state for the general election)
SC: Solid Red state . . . whoever the nominee is will win SC and most of the south no matter what.

NV: First western state on the docket (and much of that region are swing states)
SC: First southern state primary . . . and the south is pretty much locked up for the GOP.

Objectively, NV looks MORE important than SC to me!

Romney supporters need to start trumpeting the importance of NV relative to SC. Let’s get this message on blogs, in comment sections on important blogs/articles/etc . . . I encourgage people to forward this message to your friends/contacts. It would be great if we could get an email campaign together focused at news organizations/journalists/prominent bloggers and asking them why it’s being ignored so much . . . demanding that it get fair coverage (at least as much as their giving to the Dems in NV. I don’t think any of us want another of Romney’s wins to be written off like WY was. LET’S MAKE NEVADA COUNT!

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This

The CNN New Hampshire exit polling confirms that those with the liberal mindset were the ones responsible for vaulting John McCain to win there and thereby granting him somewhat of a “front-runner” status.

Numbers don’t lie (and remember, these are just the numbers from the voters in the GOP NH primary):

52% think that Abortion should be “legal”

53% go to church “never” or “a few times a year”

49% have a negative opinion of Bush

57% do not “strongly oppose” civil unions

50% support a “path to citizenship” or a “guest worker program” for illegals already here.

39% of them are not Republicans

Only 21% say they’re “very conservative” (BTW, Romney beat McCain 43% to 18% among them).

45% admit to being moderates or liberals.

Finally, 50% made their decision within the last week (with a full 19% admitting to deciding on the day of the primary).

So they’re not just liberals . . . they’re fickle liberals.

Thanks for nothing New Hampshire.

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Share This