comMITTed to Romney!

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

Share This

I’m updating and bumping this post to highlight an update below. This story is gaining major traction.

From the San Francisco Chronicle on 2/18/2000:

“I hate the gooks,” McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. “I will hate them as long as I live.”

As you can see from my picture, I am Asian by heritage (specifically Korean). I immigrated (legally) with my parents when I was four months old. They had two suitcases, a baby, and hope for a better life for themselves and their future children and grandchildren. We have lived the American dream.

Growing up, I heard stories of what life was like during the Korean War. My parents and grandparents fled down the Korean Peninsula to make it past the Pusan Perimeter with North Korean Communist troops at their backs. Their generation reveres General Douglas MacArthur and loves the United States of America for the brave sacrifices made in the defense of liberty and freedom. These were not small sacrifices: 36,516 American dead, 92,134 wounded, 8,176 MIA, and 7,245 POW in only 3 years.

John McCain was one of 2,459 POW/MIAs from the Vietnam war. I honor his service. I am thankful for his sacrifice in a way that only someone who understands all too well that were it not for the United States and men like John McCain, I would likely be digging trenches for Kim Jong Il in a labor camp or dead instead of sitting here writing this blog post in the comfort of my home here in Silicon Valley.

I can only imagine the pain inflicted upon John McCain and his fellow POWs by his North Vietnamese captors. I can understand his hatred for these evil men. I don’t judge him for his emotions when he remembers his experience.

At the same time, I am dismayed by a United States Senator and Presidential candidate’s use of the racial slur “Gook.”

Despite being called out on it by the media and Asian American advocacy groups, he refused to apologize. He claimed that he only uses it in reference to the specific North Vietnamese who were holding him captive, as if this should make it okay.

What an individual former POW says in the privacy of his own home, or amongst his personal friends is their business. What the most famous Vietnam POW in America says to the public using the MSM’s megaphone aboard his campaign bus is not just his business. It’s America’s business.

If John McCain had been beaten and robbed by a couple African American gang-bangers, would he be justified in announcing aboard his campaign bus that he hates niggers? Or what about a couple ’spics or wetbacks? Would it be okay as long as he clarified that he was only referring to those individuals who had robbed and beaten him?

Of course not. Words have meaning no matter how many caveats you put around them. The backlash from black or hispanic groups would have been fast, furious, and justified.

I don’t believe that he is a racist. I believe that he is angry and it is a deep seeded anger which has been refined in the fires of hate deep inside his soul for decades. Nonetheless, a man of John McCain’s position and stature using this kind of language sends the message across the country that racial slurs have an acceptable role in our national public discourse. He is contributing to the coarsening of America and validating the some of the worst instincts of the ignorant among us. Afterall, if it is acceptable for John McCain can use the word “Gook” why should anyone else or society at large be held to any higher standard?

*******************************************

UPDATE: This story is getting major traction. Here’s McCain’s response from the San Francisco Chronicle via Jonathan Martin at the Politico:

“I’m not going to waste my time,” a visibly tense McCain said when reminded of his quotes in the column. “You can say what you want. I’m proud of my record, my service with my comrades. And if anyone has any criticism of that, I can only say I stand on my record and my Silver Star, my three Bronze Stars and my Distinguished Flying Cross.

Huh? What do his medals and commendations have to do with his use of a racial slur? This is the classic McCain response to anything he doesn’t want to discuss…become indignant and hide behind his military service.

Please help Mitt get the nomination. Make a donation to his campaign today.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Before you pull the lever for John McCain on Super Tuesday, please consider the following information first. As a Mitt Romney supporter, I would prefer to convince people why they should vote for my candidate, rather than against John McCain. However, I’ve tried this approach for the past 18 months, but people haven’t been able to get past his religion or the false impression that he’s a flip-flopper. As governor, Romney never contradicted a position he campaigned for in 2002 and while he did change his stance on abortion, he upheld his campaign promises throughout the end of his term. You can trust that the stances he is taking for America (which are decidedly different than the needs of Massachusetts in 2002), will be consistently adhered to while he is in office.

McCain on the other hand consistently changes positions, or blatantly lies about his record and the records of others. As accounts continue to surface about his private dealings with fellow legislators, staffers, and other private individuals, it is abundantly clear that John McCain is concerned about the one thing he’s always been concerned about—himself.

Perhaps you’ve resigned yourself to the “electability” argument, and believe that John McCain is the only Republican who could win in November. McCain will be the first one to tell you not to trust polls that come out 6 months before an election (just look at last July’s polling data for McCain). Additionally, you give the Democrats too much credit. As the economy and budget woes worsen, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama has any credibility to solve this impending crisis. On this issue alone, John McCain would be much easier to beat than Romney since he can’t run effectively on the economy. If we nominate John McCain, it will be like nominating Bob Dole all over again (and he was supposed to be the most electable at the time).

For all you know, everything I have just said could simply be made up charges for political reasons. So I ask you to take a look at the whole picture of John McCain’s life and his accelerated advancement through the naval ranks—in spite of his poor record and actions unbecoming of a Naval officer. As you read the following story of McCain’s Naval record, compare this with Mitt Romney and answer the following questions:

· Both had influential fathers, what did this give them in life?
· Both were accepted to prestigious universities, what did they do with that opportunity?
· Both had careers that ended in high-profile positions. How did they get there?
· How do their personal and family lives compare?
· What kind of people do they associate themselves with?
· What have these two candidate shown that they are good at?

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

It’s still the economy

There, I said it. Last night’s debate once again proved that McCain and Huckabee have no sense on the economy. Are you kidding me? A cap and trade system with no limit to the taxes it imposes on the U.S.? Who does McCain represent, anyway? Mitt continues to show that despite good sounding proposals from the other candidates, his knowledge of the economy trumps their half-baked solutions. Want to solve global warming? McCain’s approach taxes U.S. citizens without a cap for a problem we’re only a part of. Want to stimulate the economy? Huckabee’s solution of using infrastructure projects sounds good, but as Mitt points out, they take years to develop. These are insights that McCain and Huckabee couldn’t come to on their own, suggesting their programs as President would continue to have similar flaws. As usual Mitt’s responses were the most thoughtful, substantive and intelligent. For me, in my relatively few 41 years, I saw Reagan take office with little foreign policy experience and end up winning the cold war. McCain’s Vietnam experience was 30-40 years ago and not as relevant now. Mitt would be a fantastic commander-in-chief. But I’m not ready to see John McCain try to run an economy he barely understands, taking risks with my pocket-book along the way while collecting his government salary and living off his wife’s riches. Mitt’s lived in the real economy and has had to perform in a real job, as well as in government. He’s lived in both worlds; McCain has lived in one, out of touch with me and mine.

Kudos to My Wife

Kudos to my wife for finding the following useful information pre-Super Tuesday:

1. Someone on a Canadian website calls it like it is for U.S. Republicans and their choice of Mitt vs. Mac. This person isn’t even a Mitt fan, but recognizes the choice of McCain would be disastrous. If you’re a Republican reading this, whether conservative or moderate, think about John McCain essentially having free-reign to sign bills into law that a liberal Democratic Congress sends to his desk. Do you think he’d stick with Republican ideals? I really don’t think so as his record indicates otherwise.

2. The National Review seems to remain a voice of reason on Mitt vs. Mac. McCain’s coronation is pre-mature. Sure we would have liked to have had Florida, and we’d have been saying the same things about our being a front-runner if we’d won. But the truth would have been, as it is now, that Mitt’s leading in a number of Super Tuesday states, and the race is unlikely to be decided even afterward. See this link for recent analysis from National Review Online.

Super Tuesday: Who Wins Your Confidence?

With 23 states and, as I recall, a thousand or so delegates up for grabs Tuesday, McCain’s “imposing” lead is how many? Twenty-eight whole delegates, according to CNN. This race is not about those delegates, but about winning the 40X that amount available Tuesday. And even then, the GOP nominee still won’t be decided. This cite is from USA Today:

There will be more than 1,000 Republican delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to give a candidate a substantial boost toward the 1,191 needed to win the nomination — but only if one man emerges victorious in numerous states.

“I think you could have two or three viable (GOP) candidates” following Super Tuesday, said Ohio Republican Chairman Robert Bennett.

“Somebody’s going to have some big wins, but you’re going to go into March 4, and you’re not going to have an apparent (GOP) nominee,” Bennett said.

So the race is still up for grabs.

If you’re a California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, etc. etc. voter voting this Tuesday, and you’re choosing between Mitt and Mac, think about who’d you rather have trying to stem the tide from a Democratic Congress: Mitt Romney, the consistent choice of the conservatives in every state so far, or John McCain, choice of the liberals.

Don’t think it matters? Remember the recent debate about expanding SCHIP, the welfare program Congress wanted to expand by multiple billions of dollars? Democrats in Congress passed it, but who stood in the way? President Bush. Without his veto pen, we’d be looking to foot that tax bill now when it’s become clear that tax rebates are required to stimulate the economy, and not huge welfare projects that increase the deficit. When the next bill comes to the desk of the President, and we know it will come, are we confident McCain would vote according to Republican principles? If you think so, think again: McCain was one of two Senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts (McCain admits he was wrong, but if he’d had his way the economy would have been tanked); illegal immigration (McCain supported a permanent residence for illegals, and now only partially admits he was wrong and has assumed Mitt’s position on securing the border); campaign finance reform (he’d do it again); global warming (bad approach, and he’s a co-author). It’s nice to admit when you’re wrong, but it’s even better not to be wrong in the first place on issues that will cost us billions. On issues as complicated as the economy, and even on national security, we need an intelligent man who can figure out what to do before he forms an opinion.

We are not alone.

All us Mittsters, and those who feel they align with Mitt but aren’t sure about voting for him due to the press’ coronation of McCain, should realize that there are a lot of people out there that are looking at Mitt vs. Mac for the first time, whether because they left Fred or Giuliani, because they realize Huckabee isn’t going to win (just look at the Ron Paul-like marginalization of Huckabee in last night’s debate) or whether they just can’t stomach McCain and his liberal past, and Mitt will win among principled Republican voters. Let’s also remind ourselves of the hundreds of thousands that have already voted for Mitt: the total number of voters who have decided 1st vs. 2d in Iowa, NH and FL has been very small. I’d be interested in seeing what the current popular vote count is (the difference between McCain and Mitt is not large). And if we work to get Mitt more delegates than McCain on Super Tuesday, McCain’s 28 delegate lead will recede into memory.

No Scaling Back Now

Some reporting went on this morning about Mitt scaling back advertising, but the National Review pointed to this article at Yahoo to the contrary.

McCain Stole Florida

For those of you first-time readers, you should realize that John McCain’s apparent momentum (all of 5% of the voters in Florida) was the result of what many have reported to be dirty politics. In 2000 McCain got am-Bushed in South Carolina with lies and innuendo. The people who did it to him worked for George Bush, and now work for McCain. And they pulled a similar trick last weekend: they purposefully distorted Mitt’s record supporting the surge and as Massachusetts governor. Issues aside about the actual record (both issues are Mitt strengths), many media outlets have continued to ask McCain about this (including in the debate last night) because it takes a real contortionist to come up with an argument that McCain was using “straight talk,” and Mitt of course called McCain on it. The media then said the fight was getting “nasty,” but in reality it was Mitt responding to lies about his positions. The resulting swing, based on McCain’s untruth’s and the public’s perception of the race getting ugly, turned some in McCain’s favor. Of course it’s ugly to call someone dishonest, but it’s even uglier if that claim is true. In addition there were reports of lots of mis-deeds reported elsewhere on this site. Bottom line: don’t be fooled by the reported “momentum.” The margin of victory wasn’t significant, conservatives are voting for Mitt, many when faced with Mitt vs. Mac are repulsed by the latter, and, last but not least, the most qualified candidate is still Mitt Romney, who hasn’t resorted to the sorts of dishonesty as McCain has.

Huckabee Supporters’ Coming Crisis of Conscience

If you’re a Huckabee supporter, I believe you have a real crisis of conscience developing. Should you support Mike, who represents your views on social issues but is unlikely to get beyond Tuesday, or do you bet on Mitt or Mac. With McCain’s less than solid record on social issues (other posters help me out here), you may want to consider whether you’d be comfortable with McCain as the candidate. Mitt may be your only choice for a real, pro-life, pro-family, anti-gay marriage candidate. It’s been nice to have Mike in the race I’m sure, as he probably looks like folks you know and see in church on Sunday. But who’s closer to your real ideals, Mitt or McCain? I believe it’s Mitt, and would encourage you to really think about who you’re voting for Tuesday. Damaging Mitt for Mac’s gain is counter-productive to your real concerns, and I believe it’s time to switch horses. It looks like Fred Thompson’s supporters have come our way, and it’s likely many Rudy supporters (though not all) will move to McCain. Who are you most like? Conservative Fred, or socially liberal Rudy? Notwithstanding our candidates’ disagreements, we’d welcome you into the fold.

What you can do to help win

Super Tuesday isn’t about Mitt, it’s about us. He carried the load in the “retail politics” states of Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. But now we need to get out in our own areas with signs, buttons, phone calls and reach out to everyone we know to pull them into Mitt’s fold. So, no. 1, get out and vote. No. 2, make those calls if you’re in the campaign. Talk to friends. If they’re pro-Mitt, or supported Fred, Rudy or Huckabee, tell them they have a choice: Mitt vs. Mac, and they need to choose who they really want. Let’s go.

Share on Facebook

Share This

There are a few things that are important to me in a President.

First, that he (or she) be someone I can trust. Second, that they share some core conservative principles that I do, like family values and being pro-life. Third, that they be conservative fiscally so as to promote the economy and not have to raise taxes. Finally, I want someone who will support the military. To me, Romney does the best on all these tests.

Someone I Can Trust

On the “someone I can trust” scale, I’ve met some of Mitt’s family and have been impressed without exception at the quality of their character. I trust Mitt will make the right decision for our country, even when no one is looking.

I’ve heard the charges Mitt’s changed his position on issues, but I’ve been paying attention and the only meaningful change was on abortion, where he had been pro-choice on the theory the government shouldn’t get involved, and changed to pro-life when presented with an issue about embryonic research. He realized that Roe v. Wade had cheapened our view of human life, and that life needed to be protected. He didn’t need to make that change: Rudy Giuliani, for example, was comfortable running as a pro choice Republican. To me, the fact he changed shows he was thoughtful, honest and not sticking to a position out of political expediency. And I believe his sincerity on this issue. Readers should note that Reagan started life as a pro-choice politician, but ended up one of the strongest supporters the pro-life movement has seen. As I watch the debates I feel I can get a sense of Mitt’s genuineness. He’s very business-focused, the best-spoken and the most presidential, and I see him as sincerely wanting to debate the issues and do what’s best for our country, while other candidates, McCain and Huckabee in particular, seem to be jockeying for jokes or personal attacks. I trust Mitt, but I don’t trust Huckabee or McCain. Particularly after McCain’s vacation from the truth this weekend in distorting Mitt’s position on any number of issues (see George Will’s article about this, calling McCain’s move Clinton-esque). I trust Mitt so much I’m up at 1 a.m. writing this, flew myself to Iowa on my own nickel to help the campaign, and drove to Vegas to help again. Mitt inspires that sort of loyalty.

Conservative Principles

On conservative principles, he has pledged to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. I don’t believe any other candidate left in the race has Mitt’s commitment on this point. See above.

The Economy

On fiscal matters, I think Mitt Romney stands head and shoulders above the other candidates. With his experience in business, the Olympics, saving a liberal state from a $3 billion deficit without raising taxes and his current economic plan (which I’ve said before I consider to be genius in certain respects, such as the 2 year window to expense capital purchases, which would incent businesses to make large purchases now, creating jobs), he’s got an expertise no other candidate can come close to. And with the economy’s current state, I think this expertise will become even more important. I don’t trust the other candidates to learn how to run the world’s biggest enterprise on the fly, particularly McCain (who’s been inside government his whole life and whose economic stimulus package was roundly criticized as doing as much to harm the economy as help it).

The Military

Finally on the military, I know McCain would support the military but I view that as his only strength, and in some ways this could be a weakness. Pat Buchanan said tonight he believes that if McCain is the nominee, we will go to war with Iran. That’s not what we need after being bogged down in Iraq, but McCain’s likely too stubborn to see that, and too likely to get upset and do something rash. Don’t think that will be lost on the Democrats, either. And we need someone with a broader skill set than just defense. Romney has said he’d build up the military, replace aging machinery and provide better veteran care. And I trust his judgement and temperament much more than McCain’s.

Summing Up

Some of the biggest problems our nation faces have been ignored and festered during McCain’s 24 years in Congress, such as illegal immigration, failure to preserve manufacturing jobs, etc., so I don’t view him as a solution, but part of the problem. He’s not an agent of change, he’s a symbol of the status quo. If he really were a leader, I think he’d have found a way to address some of these issues in Congress. I don’t want to send McCain back as President when he admitted he came to change Washington, but Washington changed him. I trust Mitt to go to Washington, cut the pork, raise military spending, cut taxes and balance the budget. Mitt will lead, he will carry the flag on conservative principles, fix the economy the right way, make our military strong and preserve our national security both economically and militarily. That’s why I think he’s the right man for the job.

Share on Facebook

Share This

In this article on the Real Clear Politics website, George Will aptly compares John McCain to the Clintons. He starts by reminding us of Hillary’s mis-characterization of Obama’s statement that Reagan had been a candidate of ideas. He says Hillary’s twist of Obama’s words:

… was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was … not as gross as — St. John of Arizona’s crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to “surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do” in Iraq because Romney “wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster.”

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain’s Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, “a series of timetables and milestones.” That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain’s sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said “you haven’t had a real job” if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.

But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject concerning which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so. And in South Carolina, Obama, more than doubling Clinton’s 27 percent, won a majority of the votes, becoming the first person in either party to do so in a contested primary this year. He won a majority of men and of women, which pretty much covers the rainbow of genders. And he used his victory speech to clearly associate the Clintons with “the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election” (hello again, Bill, you political ethicist who famously said “you gotta do what you gotta do”) and “the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea — even if it’s one you never agreed with.”

Obama is running against two Clintons — or one and a fraction of one, given how much she has been diminished by her overbearing spouse. Romney is marginally better off running against a Clinton impersonator.

From George Will’s pen to Florida voters’ ears. It hasn’t been lost on some that the similarities between McCain and Hillary seem to be shrinking, if there ever were many.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Looks like McCain’s McCain/Feingold reform has come in handy for him.  The Maverick Conservative has a great post on McCain’s attacks over the weekend.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out, look how McCain is taking advantage of his attack on the Frist Amendment here (McCain/Feingold).  McCain’s “reforem” prevents organizations from pointing out LIES of a candidate (or organization supporting a candidate)  within 30 days of a primary.  That means that NO GROUP could point out McCain’s LIE about Romney in Florida.  Now ROMNEY himself can talk about it.  But otherwise you have to rely on the MEDIA (that is why McCain/Feingold was really a MEDIA POWER GRAB, as well as being an attack on the First Amendment)…

I can assure you:  McCain is full of it:  a suck up to the media rather than a true “straight talker”.  He got the REPUTATION for straight talk by SUCKING UP TO THE MEDIA.  He has always said what he thinks will endear him to the press atany particular time–whether it is consistent with what he said yesterday or not.  McCain has NEVER been intellectually consistent, or interested in FACTS.  It is no accident that the McCain/Kennedy immigration (amnesty) bill is all about DECEPTION (see the more than fifty entires in this blog under the general heading of “illegal immigration deception”).

Here’s what Andrew McCarthy had to say:

I’m starting to think Sen. McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates’ names within 30 days before a primary. I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that’s just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an add calling him on it, they would be in violation of his “reform” of campaign finance regulations. What a racket!

Also, I believe there may be some Latter-Day Saint readers of this blog.  Mitt made a statement today on yesterday’s passing of the President of the Mormon Church.

“I was saddened to learn of the death of Gordon B. Hinckley. Ann and I respect him as a man of great faith and character. Like all people who knew him, we were deeply touched by his humility, his sense of humor and by the way he inspired so many people around the world. We will miss his leadership.”

Here is a more in-depth article on Mitt’s reaction.

Any predictions on the outcome of tomorrow’s Primary?

Share on Facebook

Share This

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

Share This