comMITTed to Romney!

“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

That sort of sums it up.

David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, 01/29/08

Michael Medved keeps citing McCain’s ACU ratings. Well Michael the chairman of the American Conservative Union, along with National Review, and Human Events, has endorsed Mitt Romney over John McCain.

I wonder if Michael Medved will point this out?

Click here or below for the whole article:

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Medved out did himself: He said 4 of the stupidest things I have ever heard on the radio in the space of about 30 seconds.
1. Medved said that Romney should apologize for using the word “time line” even though McCain supported the exact same thing that Romney did: setting benchmarks so that we can pull our troops out, when we have accomplished what we came to do. Time lines are good when they are pre-conditioned on success in Iraq. But Medved is just as stubborn as McCain and continues to say that Romney should just apologize for saying the same thing that McCain has said in the past.
2. Medved made this big deal about how Romney should apologize, but then went on to say, “but this is would not effect people voting for Romney even if McCain didn’t lie about him.” So according to Medved, McCain said this, and made a big deal about it, even though it would not effect the way anyone voted? You can not believe the above position that Medved advocated (Romney should apologize for saying something he never said)and also believe that it doesn’t matter. Why does Medved think Romney should apologize if it doesn’t matter? Because Meved is an idiot that is still crying about not getting his amnesty bill.
3. Medved said McCain must be the best candidate because he is the front runner. Well Michael, just before Florida Romney was ahead in the delegate count by the same number of delegates that McCain is ahead now. Does that mean that Romney was the best candidate, but magically he no longer is?
4. Romney pointed out the truth about the other candidates (according to independent truth squads) and so he deserves to have lies made about him, because the truth about the other candidates was unflattering. According to Medved it doesn’t matter if what you say about your opponent is true or not all that matters to him is that you never say anything negative. But if the candidate who disagrees with you on immigration says something bad about the candidate who agrees with Medved on Immigration, than you can say anything you want about the first candidate. You can make up any lie you want about him, because he criticized your partner in amnesty promotion: McCain.

I can’t stand listening to him. I feel all icky after I am done. But it is better to know the stupidity in the world than to be ignorant of it. So I continue to leave the radio on, even when he is on. By the way, does any other radio talk show have as many commercials as him?

Share on Facebook

Share This

Every time I hear Michael Medved he says something that is not true.

He just said that “John McCain has never voted to raise taxes, in his 25 years in the Senate”. What Michael meant is McCain never introduced an ear mark for “pork” spending.

Does anyone know what percentage “pork” spending makes of the federal government? I know we all hate pork. It is very stupid, and we need to fix it. That is why we need the line-item veto. But, if I hear McCain mention the bridge to no-where 1 more time I am going to puke. We could build millions of bridges to no-were and it would not equal the budget problems we are going to have with entitlement spending.

Medved lies every time I listen to him. He never retracts the inaccurate stupid things that he says. I can not stand him any more.

They typically don’t say that senators “raise” taxes or “lower” taxes. All senators do is vote for or against different spending bills. But yes McCain has voted for a lot more spending, not to mention the new carbon tax that he wants, and social security taxes that he has supported. But what really ticks me off about Medved is the way that he lies and misrepresents the truth. Medved keeps talking about McCain’s “American’s for Tax Reform” score. Well as they say, the devil is in the detail.

# From 1994 through 1997, McCain scored a perfect 100 in each year representing a Reagan-type approach to taxpayer issues.
# From 1998-2002 McCain’s average rating was just 66 percent.

So in 1994 he was good on taxes. But in 2002 he ended a period of time that the “American’s for Tax Reform” gave him a 66%. So he is getting worse over time!

# In 2001 McCain scored just 55 percent and in 2002 he scored 60 percent!
# n 2003 he scored an 85 percent but the votes he was scored against were related the 2003 tax cut – arguably the most important taxpayer vote since the 1993 Clinton tax increase.
# Out of favor with the Republican base, McCain has slowly tried to reinvent himself as a taxpayer friendly Senator and has scored a 90 percent in the past two years.

McCain voted no on 6 tax cuts including the two big votes - final passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

McCain voted yes on 3 tax cuts including 2 which received near unanimous support in the Senate and were relatively non controversial.

So, lets see, he voted for 3 small tax cuts and against 6 big tax cuts, but according to Medved McCain is the most conservative guy in the race.

# McCain does not support permanent repeal of the estate tax, a major goal of the taxpayer movement.
# McCain has told reporters “off the record” that he would raise taxes if elected President

Go here.

For more go here and here.

But the real question is who is going to cut spending and cut taxes: someone who has been in Washington for 25 years teaming up with Ted Kennedy and more often than the republican party, or someone who has been fixing budgets, and bottom lines by cutting fat, reducing duplication, and finding efficiencies his entire life?

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who’s been extremely disappointed with Medved’s propping up of the Huckabee campaign while taking every petty opportunity to tear down Romney’s. In fact, a few weeks ago I sent him the following email on disagreement day outlining 10+ instances where his coverage was woefully biased. For those that have followed his show, Medved’s coverage began with benign and petty criticisms (calling Mitt “too perfect” and chiding him for not appearing sincere enough) and evolved into outright ridiculous and hostel attacks prior to the Iowa caucus. Take a look at see for yourself:

Michael,
I’m a loyal MedHead who’s been listening for years now.

I’m writing because I (and many of my listener friends) have noticed a recent trend in your campaign coverage that favors Governor Huckabee to the point of almost becoming an apologist, while on the other hand constantly undermining Governor Romney. The culmination of this was your December 18 show with Rich Lowry. Rather than spending the segment learning more about the reasons for National Review’s endorsement of Mitt Romney, we were instead treated to numerous swipes at Romney and shifting the conversation to Huckabee.

This very week you conflated Huckabee’s legitimate problems with totally unrelated attacks on Romney on three separate occassions. I assume this is an attempt to create confusion in listeners minds.

1. You compared (A) Huckabee’s abuse of power charge relating to his son killing a dog at scout camp and then Huckabee firing the law enforcement officer that wouldn’t help him cover it up with (B) Romney taking a vacation and placing a dog on the roof.
2. You compared (A) Huckabee intervening to free a convicted rapist at the request of one of his pastor friends with (B) Romney appointing a judge who later released a criminal who went on to murder.
3. You compared (A) Huckabee’s inappropriate self-promotion as a “Christian Leader” and floating cross with (B) Romney’s speech on faith in America.

It seems that any time a scandal comes up relating to Huckabee, you’re ready with a dubious comparison to Mitt Romney’s past as if to say, “see… every politician has these kinds of problems – Romney is just as bad as Huckabee.”

I have tremendous respect for your fairness, intellect, and influence, which is why I believe you would be receptive to a few examples of how your personal affinity for Huckabee may be tainting your opinion and coverage of Romney.

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

There are always such great comments from this Blog’s readers, that I want your post on the front page not just the discussion session. Here are a few:

From Nivek:

Medved has lost a listener in me. He doesn’t have to agree with me on who to support for president, I am not that shallow. That is not the issue here. My beef with Medved is continual distortion of the campaigns of both Romney and Huckabee.

Medved has gone negative while harping on Romney for apparently in his mind going negative. He has some real intellectual dishonesty here I cant stomach anymore.

Michael also fails to differentiate for his audience the distinction between attack and contrast ads, the former about character and the latter about issues.  Neither does most of the media which is very disappointing for people who are supposed to think critically and break issues down for us little folk. The distinction is not rocket science to understand.

Also I have never seen an attack ad which starts off with a complement being paid upfront about the character of the opponent. Romneys contrast ads do just that. They make it a point to NOT go personal, but parse over issues.

I still believe Mitt will ultimately prevail…

Michael says,

Michael Medved was a great proponent of the immigration plan advocated by McCain and I think he felt slighted when it did not come to fruition. I think this is his way of getting vindication. I like John McCain because he did indeed help bring about the success we are having in Iraq, but he is not the right man to lead our country at this time. We need a person who is right on all of the issues, not passionate on just a few.

Tracey also has problems with how the media sometimes oversimplifies things:

I just heard a political commentator on CNN say (I’ll paraphrase) That in some respects Romney is correct in saying that he is running contrast ad and that should be acceptable.  I think the press should make the distinction between contrast ads based on a rivals record and personal attack ads.  Thus allowing Romney to contrast the positions of his rivals and allowing Romney to focus on his very positive message for the future.  McCain and Huckabee are trying to dub him as the negative candidate.  He is the most positive candidate we have.  Romney has vision and hope and know how. He is the real positive candidate in the race.

Romney is “positive” about our future, that if we do the right things, we can have a “positive” future. But the only way we can have a “positive” future, is finding those things that we have done wrong in the past, admitting them, and not doing them in the future. Romney has pointed out that John McCain got isolated there in Washington DC, and didn’t think he had to listen to any of us outside of washington, and he tried forcing McCain Kennedy down our throat in the middle of the night, without letting any one even read it…

We can’t fix our problems if we won’t even admit we have problems. And we can’t find our problems if anyone who tries to find them gets beat up. Are we supposed to pretend that we have never done anything wrong?

Share on Facebook

Share This