Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Dirty Campaigning'

| Subcribe via RSS

***Ads Do Not Necessarily Represent The Opinions of the Staff of comMITTed to Romney***

***Support comMITTed to Romney by visiting our sponsors***

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

The Republican Party Establishment

Flag Waving
.
Do you ever get the feeling that the Republican Party insiders don’t really want to change Washington, D.C.? They absolutely know that Mitt Romney always executes against his promises and strategic plans. WE THE PEOPLE need to deny the establishment types of their bureaucratic brother who will certainly perpetuate the status quo.
.

Artwork by Michael Ramirez — Courtesy of IBD Editorials

.
.
~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

John McCain: “…desperately trying to change the subject” by David Keene of the ACU

David Keene of the American Conservative Union (ACU) has a great article entitled “Double-Talk Jeopardy” discussing McCain’s dishonesty in the days leading up to the Floriday Primary. David has endorsed Mitt Romney. Read the whole thing, but here are a couple choice quotes below:

Most politicians who identify their interests with the national interest eventually conclude that whatever they have to do to advance those interests is justifiable; that in their case, the end almost always justifies the means. Such politicians can be dangerous and John McCain is just such a politician. In McCain’s world everything is personal: to disagree with him marks one not just as wrong, but as almost definitionally evil.

Stories of McCain’s intolerance abound in Washington. He’s attacked his fellow senators personally when they have had the temerity to actually disagree with him. Indeed, one Republican senator told me several years ago that he was confronted by an enraged McCain after voting against a minor amendment in committee and dressed down in “language that would be inappropriate in a barroom, let alone in the Senate.”

It is these qualities that concern many who know McCain best. Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran (R) is universally liked and admired by his colleagues. He’s known McCain for decades, and while he’s no camera hog, his colleagues listen when he speaks. In endorsing Romney over McCain in what many now view as a two-man race, Cochran said of McCain, “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Help Mitt Romney win the nomination. Make a donation today and ask your family and friends to turn out for Mitt on Super Tuesday!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Like shooting fish in a barrel…Lindsay Graham

H/T: Hotair and a tip from a friend of mine

First, here’s Grahamnesty playing dumb under an onslaught of facts from Sean Hannity and attacking Romney for allegedly supporting a timeline for surrender.

Putting that clip together with this link from Time Magazine from back in September, however, makes me think that perhaps Grahamnesty was just confused and projecting onto Romney his own desire and advocacy for a timeline to surrender.

Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007
Lindsey Graham’s Iraq Deadline
By Michael Duffy/Washington

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a pivotal Republican vote in the U.S. Senate on Iraq policy, is willing to give the government of Iraq until Christmas to get its act together.

But not much more.

Graham told TIME Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. “If they can’t do it in 90 days,” he said, “it means the major players don’t want to.”
Graham, who has been to Iraq nearly a dozen times, including spending 11 days in August on duty as a reserve Air Force officer, pointed out that Washington has spent the last few weeks debating Iraq policy and emerged with a commitment to continuing the surge through the spring. That commitment, he said, is the green light for the Iraqis to finally take action on resolving their disagreements.

But Graham, who is up for re-election in 2008, said he will not wait forever. “If they can’t pull it together in the next 90 days,” he said, “I don’t think they are ever gonna do it.” He followed that prediction with a promise: “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote.”

Graham said he believed the “conditions are ripe” for political deals between factions on de-Baathification, which would ease the way for participation of Sunni tribes in local Iraqi politics, and on the holding of local elections, which would allow Sunnis to take a greater role in the Shia-dominated country.

Graham first hinted at a 90-day clock in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee September 19. In his comments before that panel, he merely predicted the world would see progress by Baghdad in the next 90 days.

In his conversation with TIME, he held out a stick in the event that progress does not materialize. Said Graham: “We’ve won the day here politically, to give them the infrastructure they need to do this. It’s been missing up until now. I am vocally saying it’s up to [the Iraqis] to deliver. We’ve done our part.”

Though he would not elaborate on what kind of plan he would push if the Iraqis fail to meet the deadline, Graham did say a change in strategy would be warranted. “If they can’t do it by the end of the year,” he said, “how do you justify a continued presence?”

In response to Graham’s comments, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday, “The President urged the Iraqi government to make progress on the political front in his meeting with Maliki yesterday. The President has also said that Petraeus and Crocker will report back in March, when they will be able to make a further assessment.”

Do McCandidate and his lap dog Grahamnesty really think that Republicans are this stupid?

By way of contrast, here’s the link to Mitt’s interview with Wolf Blitzer today. Note the good nature and humor with which he responds to McCain’s lies. Night and Day.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson

Defending against dishonesty

How do you defend against attacks that are purely dishonest? Barack Obama had to struggle with that issue last week when the Clinton machine went after him. Perhaps we can take solace in his resounding win in the Democratic contest that took place yesterday. But I believe the short answer to that question is: control the message (i.e., change the subject).

Readers here know what McCain said about Mitt’s comments weren’t true. I’d seen the clip McCain was referring to weeks ago, and there was nothing in there about Mitt proposing or supporting a timetable for withdrawal: it was about whether there may be a Bush administration timetable and how if there was one it was important not to share any such timetable with our enemies. So why the manipulation of the facts by McCain? As others have said here, it’s likely that he’s seen his lead slip in Florida and felt he needed to do something to change the subject. So let’s change it back.

Unfortunately, as Senator McCain likes to say when he’s not the source of the attack, “you don’t mud wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it.” Of course it’s quite hyporcritical for McCain to be doing what he did today (e.g., abandoning “straight talk” and his “principles,” going negative, criticizing Mitt for a position McCain endorsed, etc.). But it’s apparent a discussion of any topic but the economy would be an improvement for him.

So let’s remind ourselves of what Mitt’s message is:

1. Washington is broken. Nothing serves as better evidence of this than McCain’s recent attacks. If we want more of the same we can send the same sorts of people back to Washington. McCain has been there 24 years; now he wants to be President. If we obliged, it’s hard for me to see how things would change, in particular given McCain’s legendary inability to work well with others in the Senate and the vendettas / back room favors he’ll owe if he goes back.

2. The economy needs Mitt. Since the days of Clinton and before, it’s always been about the economy. You can’t have a strong national defense if we dont have manufacturing and a strong economy at home. You can’t be a strong nation if you have to buy all your equipment from your enemies. And the American economy won’t be strong if we can’t keep the jobs from flowing out to our overseas competitors. So we need to send someone to Washington who has an intimate knowledge of the economy and can fix the many manifestations of problems we’ve had recently: stock market crashes, surging oil prices, real estate collapse, mortgage melt down, etc. Unfortunately, John McCain does not have the requisite experience, and has repeatedly said he’d have to find someone else to help him with this issue. McCain didn’t support the Bush tax cuts, then he did. Then he said he wanted to cut government spending to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately in the short run cutting spending would harm the economy and make it more likely to push the country into recession, or at least offset the benefits of any tax rebates. Unfortunately, as he’s said himself, he just doesn’t know enough about economics.

3. Mitt stands for strong families, and he wants to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as the framers intended it, not in a manner that creates new laws without a democratic process. Not all the other candidates have this same priority. McCain in fact has gone up against his own party on the issue of judges being appointed, and has a very spotty record on issues of family values.

4. Mitt stands for legal immigration, but “turning off the magnet” on illegal immigration. McCain very recently proposed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to stay in the country indefinitely. His own party rejected this stance only a few months ago, but he seems ill-at-ease saying he was wrong.

We’ve got lots of positive parts of our own message to spread without getting distracted by McCain’s attack. I’m positive that staying on message will benefit Mitt incredibly (as it’s done in Florida so far), while indulging in mud wrestling allows the media to just report on the wrestling match. I’m hoping that the media really gives it to McCain today for his intentional misrepresentations, but even if they don’t, let’s keep on task and keep spreading our own message.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

John McCain’s Chutzpah — DECEPTION AT ITS BEST

Flag Waving
.

What the heck is John McCain trying to do now? What do they call it when you (or your surrogates) out and out try to change history from what actually happened? I call it flat-out lying. Unfortunately, there are Americans who have just started to pay attention to the race who have no real clue about John McCain’s actual record. Many of those Americans will actually believe what he and his buddies tell them in the press.

One thing is for sure; McCain has a lot of guts to blatantly lie like this. By simply not answering the actual history as to how McCain voted against the tax cuts, his advisor is cunningly able to convey an erroneous message to voters that McCain has always been for the tax cuts. There are so many places where McCain is on record as being against the tax cuts.

I sure hope the MSM will expose his cunning, shrewd attempts to deceive. Check this:
.
.

.
.
One thing about John McCain, he has chutzpah! In Spanish, the phrase would be: “!Sin verguenza!”

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson

Looking at the numbers

Here are a few encouraging details from tonight’s contest, from the CBS News website:

According to CBS News exit polls, self-described Republicans made up 68 percent of the vote - and they supported Romney by a wide margin. Independents made up just 25 percent of the GOP primary vote today while just 7 percent were Democrats. In 2000, independents made up 35 percent of the vote while another 17 percent were Democrats.

The economy overwhelmingly topped the concerns of voters, with 55 percent of primary voters citing it as their top concern. The Iraq war ranked second, but lagged far behind. Just 17 percent said that was their top concern. Discussion of the economy dominated the Michigan contest in its closing days, as Romney sought to strike an optimistic tone about the future of a state which has seen some 76,000 jobs lost in the past year alone.

… Romney also won among late-deciding voters, indicating that his arguments may have won some supporters.

Takeaways? The GOP is supporting Mitt, and “it’s the economy, _______.”

Additional takeaways? Mitt sticking to his message seems very productive. Mitt gained a head of steam and connected with people, which he’ll need continue. Meanwhile McCain lost momentum as he had to defend his truth-distorting, sack of fibs mailer. In addition, earned media seems much better at conveying and building momentum than paid media.

And lest we forget, the big difference maker in Michigan was Mitt’s “no job left behind” theme, giving hope where the Washington insider offered only pessimism and job retraining. Now that Mitt’s found his stride I expect the good vibe and the connection he’s making with voters to continue.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Curling
Ann Marie Curling

Slimeball McCain Stoops To New Lows in What “Certainly Smells of Dirty Politics and Dirty Campaigning” in South Carolina

Check Out The Following Transcripts/Videos:




SCARBOROUGH: He’s about straight talk. Let me show you this flyer that John McCain is sending out in South Carolina. This is my favorite flyer thus far in the political campaign season. John McCain, who criticized negative, distorted campaigning in South Carolina in 2000 and swore he wouldn’t do it, sends out a flier attacking Mitt Romney for not supporting George Bush’s tax cuts early enough. What’s left off of here, Willie, is the fact he called those tax cuts tax cuts for the rich. He voted against them, and he told Tim Russert last week he was proud that he voted against them. But he’s criticizing Mitt for not supporting them early enough. Problematic or Straight-Talk Express kicking it into overdrive.

GEIST: You’ve run for office. What’s the thinking there? You just bank on the fact that people in South Carolina don’t check their facts? What’s the thought there?

SCARBOROUGH: Seriously, I would never send out a flier like that. I really wouldn’t because, if people do catch you doing that, then it suggests that you think they’re stupid, and it also opens up the tax issue.




SCARBOROUGH: Also, very interesting, John McCain mailer went out. Now you’ll remember John McCain attacked in 2000, and he was going to be very positive. This is a McCain mailer that went out that’s talking about abortion. I don’t know if we have the other side of that or not. That’s one mailer that went out. There’s another one.

GEIST: What you’re talking about, it’s also related. He attacked Mitt Romney. He said Mitt Romney funded taxpayer funded abortions. Calls Massachusetts tax-achusetts, criticizes him for not supporting the Bush tax cuts.

SCARBOROUGH: I’ll be very careful here. I will only say this. That John McCain accused people of attacking him unfairly in South Carolina. I would suggest, if you’re flooding mailboxes with mailers that say Mitt Romney didn’t support George Bush’s tax cuts early enough and yet you voted — actually, you, the guy sending out the mailer, voted against George Bush’s tax cuts, were one of only two people that voted against George Bush’s tax cuts, called George Bush’s tax cuts, tax cuts for the rich. And you were on Tim Russert two weeks ago, and you said you were still damn proud that you voted against George Bush’s tax cuts. To send out a mailer attacking Mitt Romney for not supporting George Bush’s tax cuts early enough certainly smells of dirty politics and dirty campaigning.

Share on Facebook


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]