comMITTed to Romney!

I had a thought today to go back and compare the Presidential Announcement speeches of both Mitt and McCain.  I thought it would be interesting to see how well defined their focus was almost a year ago (Mitt announced in February, McCain in April), and how their campaigns have evolved since then.  It would be interesting to hear what differences you notice between the two speeches, and any discrepancies you see between what each candidate was saying then versus now.

For me, the obvious difference was how much broader Mitt’s vision was (and is), compared to McCain’s.  Notice as you read through them, that McCain mentions absolutely nothing about families, while Mitt’s speech is abundant in references to his family and the need to strenghthen America’s families.  Next, as you scroll down Mitt’s speech, especially towards the end, there are a lot of “we’s” and us’s” throughout.  Scrolling through McMe’s speech, there are a lot of “I’s” and “me’s.”  The very last sentence is actually very indicative of McCain’s whole approach to the Presidency:

I’m running for President of the United States, a blessed country, a proud country, a hopeful country, the most powerful and prosperous country and the greatest force for good on earth. And when I’m President, I intend to keep it so.”

Contrast this with Mitt’s last statement:

With freedom, nothing can hold us back.
 
“Freedom has made the American dream possible.  Freedom will make the new American dream possible.  And with the work, sacrifice, and greatness of spirit of the American people, freedom has made America - and will keep America - the greatest nation on earth. God bless The United States of America.”

I’ve been frustrated over the past 6 months or so with conservatives complaining that there is no true Reagan conservative in the race - no one upholding the 3-legged stool that Reagan advocated.   Mitt has been putting forth this conservative message all along, beginning with his speech:

At this critical time, we must first transform the role we play in the world [i.e. strong military], secondly strengthen our nation [strong economy], and third build a brighter future for the American family [strong families].

So my question to the conservative pundits is - where have you guys been?  Letting the MSM do your homework and thinking for you, without even bothering to check something as basic as the candidate’s announcement speeches to see what platform they are really running on.  Let’s hope the recent wave of endorsements, while positive and welcome, aren’t too little too late!

Mitt’s speech is excellent, McCain’s speech is very telling.  Check them both out and share what you think!

(One last note, I’m not sure about McCain, but I know that Mitt writes most or all of his own speeches, including this one and his Faith in America speech.)

Mitt’s speech

Click “Continue Reading” below for McCain’s speech

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

This excellent article speaks for itself.

It is important for us to remember McCain’s track record of sticking it to Conservatives.

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

Share on Facebook

Share This