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

Where did Mitt’s Flip-Flop label come from?  Why is he seen as a “new” convert to conservatism?  Those of us who have objectively studied this issue have come to the same conclusion that Darlene Wagner, of Christian News Wire has reached.  In this article she gives an absolutely excellent summary of how these myths evolved, and the truth about Mitt’s record.  She did this by personally contacting the Pro-Life community in Mass., where Mitt was Governor for 4 years.  Here is what she found:

Abortion Issue is Behind the Flip Flop Story of Mitt Romney

Contact: Darlene Wagner 860-456-3165, faceofprolife@sbcglobal.net

MEDIA ADVISORY, Feb. 3 /Christian Newswire/ — Abortion, who would have thought that it would be the secret weapon of John McCain and Mike Huckabee going into the Florida primary and now super Tuesday. Did the election predictors ever envision a struggle that would be fought over the precious pro-life conservative vote? Mitt Romney was noted as a late comer to the pro life scene and undeserving of the title of pro life by both McCain and Huckabee. He was stealing the votes intended for them.

Attack ads on YouTube with links placed in articles by a group called GoneRoe headed by attorney Sharon Blakeney, are featured in an article in Life News.com., a well traveled reliable resource used by the pro life community. Also, Janet Folger, the host of a national talk radio program, wrote in a World Net Daily column that “the ads are welcome for super Tuesday.” The goal is to incite Christian Pro Lifers to vote against Mitt Romney.

Darlene Wagner, a producer for a

Connecticut cable access show called the Face of Pro Life, decided to find out the basis of the McCain, Huckabee and news media charges of flip flopping on issues, she contacted the Mass. Family Institute and Pioneer Mass. Citizen for Life. So what exactly was the relationship of Mitt Romney with the

Mass. pro life community?

Wagner said, “I was astonished to find the real story was quite different. In fact, Governor Mitt Romney was well regarded by the local pro life activists. Respected for having made a difference by providing the leadership to bring about significant change.” His influence was short lived because present Governor Patrick who has anti-life credentials has reversed all those gains.

For a short four years,

Mass. was making inroads into becoming a pro life state in spite of the well know Democrat left leaning legislature.

The online newsletter of Mass. Family Institute writes, “In Defense of Marriage Romney appeared at a press conference in June 2006 and called on the Legislature to vote. He also helped to organize a rally at the Statehouse the following November, attended by 7,000 concerned citizens, and announced a lawsuit to force the Legislature to vote. “Although the SJC dismissed the suit, it also reprimanded the legislators for shirking their duty to vote. The Legislature listened and allowed the amendment process to proceed.” No surprise when Gov. Patrick became governor he had already worked to get 11 votes to have the Defense of Marriage Amendment fail.

The newsletter continued, “Governor Romney championed the sanctity of life during the debate over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. He opposed the loosening of restrictions on research on human embryos and, while unsuccessful, used his executive powers to restrict the creation of human embryos exclusively for use in research.”

In sharp contrast, the present Mass. Gov. Patrick has announced a $1 billion “life science” initiative that will provide funding and tax incentives for companies doing embryonic stem cell research. If John McCain is elected president he will do the same because he is only ½ pro-life. According to the Value Voter’s guide he supports federal funds for embryonic stem research. As recently as yesterday McCain garnered the endorsement of Nancy Reagan who champions this embryo killing procedure.

When Gov. Romney discovered that federal abstinence money was being wasted in the Commonwealth on ineffective media campaigns, he helped redirect the money toward classroom abstinence-only instruction through programs like the Healthy Futures program. $700,000 was used to deliver the abstinence message to hundreds of teenage students. When Gov. Patrick became governor he refused to accept the grant money despite the plea of many inner city teenagers.

What a sharp contrast between the real record and the one that has been hyped by the media, John McCain and Mike Huckabee. To local pro life activists like Dr. Shaw, who said he will be voting for Romney in the primary, “Things have changed for the worse in Mass. Pro Life wise and we would like to have it return to the days when Romney was Governor.”

Sources for this article:

Life News.com

Mass. Family Institute Newsletter

Mass Citizen for Life Web Site

Numerous telephone interviews

Pioneer Mass Citizens for Life

This was not a Romney supporter or campaigner, but a person genuinely interested in finding out the truth.  It is amazing to me that she had to go to such great lengths to bypass the lies the media and McCain and Huckabee have perpetrated about Mitt’s record.  Mitt has always stated in debates and stump speeches that as Governor he came down on the side of life every time.  The facts are there to support this.  Mitt’s record as Governor was strongly conservative, and will be as President as well.

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

H/T: K-Lo at National Review’s “The Corner”

Joining Time Magazine and the NYTimes, even the MSM cannot cover up and carry water for McCandidate on this one.

Share on Facebook

Share This

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

Share This

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_conversation_changer_a.html

POSTED BY: MICHAEL SCHERER

TIME/CNN

Kudos to Time/CNN on a fine article that calls out “Open Borders” McCain on his shabby and transparent attempt to change the national political conversation back to national security, his only area of strength, from the economy, where Mitt Romney has been kicking his a**!

That this despicable little man would use the men and women in our military, in harm’s way, as political pawns, to keep his limping campaign alive for another week or so, by trying to change the subject back to the war in Iraq, is an indication of moral bankruptcy. Anyone this desperate for political power is potentially dangerous, because it tells me that he will “push the envelope” ethically to achieve his ends.

Nice try, Mr. McCain, but it’s not going to work.

I must admit I am surprised that a member-in-good-standing of the MSM would nail McCain as TIME/CNN just did, but I guess we should be grateful that they didn’t carry McCain’s water on this one and very admirably stepped up to the plate and hit it out of the park.

Someone said just recently that politics is a “blood sport,” but McCain has crossed a bright line on this one. No wonder that Bill Clinton said that McCain and his wife “are very close.” Their tactics are remarkably similar. Just one more reason to hope the good citizens of Florida do their part to hasten this man’s political departure.

~~John Cronin~~

McCain wants the Florida primary to be an election about national security, his best issue. But until Saturday, the contest was humming along as an election more about the economy, Mitt Romney’s best issue. So McCain went on the attack Saturday, lashing out at Romney by accusing him of having once wanted to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Romney demanded an apology from McCain, which seemed to simply delight McCain, since he used it to escalate the war of words even higher. “I think the apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform,” McCain said. Then his campaign started sending out a blizzard of emails, including comments from former CIA director James Woolsey knocking Romney’s support for the war.

To review: In the course of a few hours, McCain said that Romney once wanted to set a date to withdraw from Iraq, accused him of working on the same side as Hillary Clinton in the Iraq debate, and accused him of disrespecting American servicemen and women. Is any of this true? Not that much.

But even if Romney had explicitly supported withdrawal, what exactly does McCain mean by demanding that Romney apologize to American troops? Is McCain suggesting than any American who opposed the surge was somehow not supporting American troops? Is he saying that it is unpatriotic to debate American policy in Iraq? It sure sounds like it. And it is an unbecoming posture for McCain, who has been boasting in recent days about the “respectful debate” he would have with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama should he win the nomination.

[Editor's Note: Emphasis mine]

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year.

“I know he’s trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq, but to say something that’s not accurate is simply wrong,” Mr. Romney said Saturday. “He knows better.”

But in Sun City Center, Mr. McCain said he owed no apology to Mr. Romney. Instead, he said, it was Mr. Romney who should apologize “to the young men and women who are serving in uniform.”

Go here for the story.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh for this one! There are some great lines in here about the nature of McCain’s changes.

CAMPOS: McCain’s the real flip-flopper

By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News 

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

One of the curiosities of American politics is the media’s ongoing infatuation with John McCain. A bit of this is based on things such as McCain’s opposition to torture (unfortunately we can no longer treat opposing torture like opposing child molestation, i.e., something one assumes is standard equipment in a presidential candidate rather than a luxury upgrade). Yet most of the journalistic love affair with McCain is based on other factors.

Consider this typical endorsement from The Orlando Sentinel: While McCain “has stuck to his principles at the risk of sinking his campaign,” Mitt Romney “has abandoned positions that would have alienated his party’s conservative base.” (Indeed I checked a computer database and discovered that, in the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain).

This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues. Here’s just a small sample of Sen. Straight Talk’s recent series of remarkable conversions to politically convenient stances:

* On abortion rights, McCain has done a 180-degree turn, from favoring only the most minor restrictions and opposing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, to supporting an almost total ban, while advocating that the Supreme Court reverse Roe immediately.

* McCain has transformed himself from a deficit hawk who mocked supply-side economics, into someone who sounds like he’s drunk deeply from the wackiest vats of supply-side Kool-Aid, to the point where he now claims raising taxes decreases revenues (a claim so wildly in conflict with the facts - for example federal tax revenues almost doubled in real terms after the Clinton tax increases - that it’s either a shameless lie or a product of astounding ignorance).

* In regard to ethanol subsidies, McCain has gone from treating them as the worst sort of pork, to becoming a strong supporter of a program despised by economists, but beloved of Iowa farmers and the good people at Archer Daniels Midland.

* Six years ago McCain sternly condemned Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance.” Eighteen months ago he gave the commencement address at Falwell’s university, while openly embracing one of the most noxious figures of the religious right.

These are just a few examples from a far longer list. On topics ranging from immigration, to campaign finance reform, to gay marriage, to accepting support from various sleazy characters he previously shunned, McCain has either completely reversed his views, or seriously equivocated regarding what they are this week.

Yet the media continue to lavish him with worshipful paeans to his supposedly uncompromising commitment to principled leadership no matter what the political cost etc., etc.

Part of this is accounted for by lazy autopilot journalism, which stops people from bothering to check whether the story line they’ve repeated for years still has any relationship to reality.

But part of it is something worse. When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn’t even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor.

All this would be merely amusing if McCain were not a genuinely tragic figure. The young man who showed such exemplary courage in the face of his North Vietnamese tormenters has become an old man whose courage abandoned him when subjected to the more subtle tortures of worldly ambition.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Gov. Romney: Stimulus To Grow Jobs

Gov. Romney: Turning Around Massachusetts

Gov. Romney: Changing Washington

Gov. Romney: General Petraeus Not General Clinton

Gov. Romney: Supporting The Mission In Iraq

Gov. Romney: Working Together On Social Security

For more go here.

http://www.mittromney.com/News/Debates/Florida_Boca_Raton/index

McCain Falsely Claimed That He Won Among Republicans In NH And SC

In Tonight’s Debate, Sen. McCain Falsely Claimed That He Won The Republican Vote In Both New Hampshire And South Carolina:

MCCAIN: “But Look, I Won The Majority Of Republican Vote In Both New Hampshire And South Carolina.” (MSNBC, [Unverified Transcript], Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Boca Raton, FL, 1/24/08)

However, Sen. McCain Lost In Both New Hampshire And South Carolina Among Self-Identified Conservatives And Republicans :

McCain Lost Among Self-Identified Republicans In New Hampshire. “In New Hampshire, a state McCain had won in 2000 and lavished time and attention on this time around, he lost self-identified Republicans narrowly — 35 percent to 34 percent — to former governor Mitt Romney. But, it was among independents where McCain’s winning margin came as he won that bloc by 13 points over Romney.” (Chris Cillizza, “McCain And The Closed Primary Challenge,” Washington Post’s The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/, 1/24/08)

McCain Lost Among Republicans In South Carolina. “In South Carolina, McCain lost Republicans by a statistically insignificant margin, but carried independents by a massive 42 percent to 25 percent margin — ensuring his narrow three-point victory.” (Chris Cillizza, “McCain And The Closed Primary Challenge,” Washington Post’s The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/,1/24/08)

Conservatives Are Wary Of McCain’s Past Tendencies And Willingness To Team Up With Liberal Senators. “McCain has long had difficulty currying favor from his party’s conservative wing. Despite his solid voting record in the senate, many ardent Republicans have been unhappy with his past willingness to team up with liberal Sens. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration.” (Alexander Mooney, “McCain Brushes Aside Suggestion Of Weak Republican Support,” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/mccain-brushes-aside-suggestion-of-weak-republican-support/, 1/20/08)

“Support from the base will be crucial in upcoming contests: McCain now faces a bevy of state primaries where independents are not allowed to participate, beginning with Florida’s vote on January 29. But the Arizona senator is predicting that his support among veterans, his economic proposals, and his record on environmental issues important to many Floridians will carry him to victory there.” (Alexander Mooney, “McCain Brushes Aside Suggestion Of Weak Republican Support,” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/20/mccain-brushes-aside-suggestion-of-weak-republican-support/, 1/20/08)

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This