GOP Debate: Rudy Endorsed the Wrong Man by Ross Kaminsky

Human Events ^ | 01/31/2008 | Ross Kaminsky

[K-oneTexas]

GOP Debate: Rudy Endorsed the Wrong Man by Ross Kaminsky

The four remaining Republican candidates for president took part in their last debate before Super Tuesday, in the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. As someone who has been supporting Rudy Giuliani, I did begin watching the debate with a strong bias between McCain and Romney, but over the course of the evening I came to believe that Rudy endorsed the wrong man.

After a boring first few minutes, Mitt Romney was asked whether John McCain was a mainstream conservative. Romney’s answer was a laundry list of the many issues which have conservatives uncertain at best about whether they would support McCain if he is the eventual nominee. Not only did Romney mention McCain’s initial opposition to the Bush tax cuts, but he also took on McCain’s positions on free speech, immigration, and energy policy by (accurately) naming the hyphenated bills on which McCain has allied himself with liberal Democrats: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and McCain-Lieberman.

McCain responded with his usual line of being “proud of (his) conservative record”, then fired off some economic criticism of Romney, almost all of which was effectively rebutted by Romney who told McCain twice that “facts are stubborn things”. Indeed, Romney’s retorts again made McCain look like he was willing to say things which are either highly misleading or outright false…more on that later.

An interesting moment was McCain’s naming some of the impressive economic advisers he has, including Phil Gramm and Jack Kemp, and saying “I will rely on people to judge me by the company I keep.” I could not help but infer that McCain would prefer people not judge him based on him or his record. Indeed, dodging his record on everything but supporting the surge was par for the evening’s course for McCain.

In a question about the current “mortgage crisis”, John McCain said he thought “efforts so far are laudable” but that there are “some greedy people on Wall Street who perhaps need to be punished”. He suggested that “we ought to adjust the mortgages of people who were eligible for better terms, but were somehow convinced” to get worse mortgages. In other words, McCain remained true to his very tenuous grip on an understanding of the importance and value of free markets, and the danger of moral hazard.

On immigration, Romney emphasized “no amnesty” and said that what he found “so offensive” about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was the ability of all illegal aliens to stay here permanently with a $3,000 “Z-visa”. One of the most interesting questions and answers of the evening came when Senator McCain was asked whether he would vote for his own immigration bill if it came up for a vote now. He said multiple times that it wouldn’t come up for a vote, but, when pressed, quietly said that he would not vote for it because he “knows now that the American people want the border secured first.” Interesting that he somehow missed that fact earlier.

Bringing up the dispute of the last week, Romney was asked whether he had supported time tables for withdrawing from Iraq, Romney said that McCain’s assertion that Romney had done so was “a lie”…with McCain smiling uncomfortably in the next seat. Romney also called McCain’s timing of that assertion, just before the Florida primary, the type of “dirty trick that Ronald Reagan would have found to be reprehensible.” Romney’s harsh words brought the loudest applause any candidate received during the evening. Strangely, even though media outlets across the political spectrum have backed up Romney’s position, McCain started his response with “Of course, he (Romney) said he wanted a timetable.” Romney interrupted McCain asking him “How is it that you’re the expert on my position?”, again getting loud applause. McCain’s persistence in the face of Romney’s convincing rebuttal and even the moderator’s implication that McCain was wrong earned McCain the only boos of the debate.

One of McCain’s few bright spots came when he replied to Romney’s charge of “old-style Washington politics” by noting that Romney has been the primary source of negative ads in the Republican contest so far, and saying to Romney of the millions of dollars Romney has spent on such ads “a lot of it is your own money. You’re free to do what you want to. You can spend it all. But the fact is that your negative ads, my friend, have set the tone, unfortunately, in this campaign.”

Ron Paul said he finds the argument between McCain and Romney “rather silly, because they’re arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with….We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should be intervening or not, whether we should be the world’s policeman or not….and you’re arguing about technicalities of who said what when?!?” Paul then went into his usual rant about the Iraq war being a mistake and unconstitutionally undeclared war, having nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11, and bankrupting the country. Mike Huckabee said that we must leave as soon as we can, but with victory and with honor. McCain then made an important point that the question of how long we might have troops in Iraq must not be “about American presence, but about American casualties.”

John McCain was asked why he was better suited to manage the economy than Mitt Romney to which McCain gave a rather generic “because I’m a leader” answer and then proceeded to talk about his leadership in the war against Islamic extremism, rather than actually address the economic issue raised specifically by the question. He then emphasized his military record and his time as a POW, all of which was true but which did not answer the question. Romney, after saying that he respected McCain’s service to our country, noted that Americans tend to turn to governors rather than senators because governors as executives “are actually leading something. Senators and Congressman are fine people, but they’re legislators. They sit in committees. They’re committee chairs. And they call that leadership.” Romney then described his 25-year successful career in the private sector and turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics. “In order to have someone strengthen our economy, you’ve gotta have somebody who’s actually done some work in the private economy, who understands how it works.”

Ron Paul typically noted that “the constitution is very clear that the president is commander-in-chief of the military, but the president is not commander-in-chief of the economy or of the people”.

Mike Huckabee emphasized his executive experience, also noting that “Washington doesn’t know how the states work, but the states know how Washington works”, mentioning unfunded mandates destroying states’ budgets. Huckabee also took a jab at legislators “who have the luxury of specializing in an issue” whereas governors “have to be able to handle on any given day several dozen different issues.”

The debate ended with the candidates being asked “Would Ronald Reagan endorse you, and if so, why?” Romney and McCain said “Yes”; Paul said “I don’t know”. Huckabee ended with a great line: “I’m not going to pretend he would endorse me. I wish he would…but I endorse him.”

Of those two candidates who believed Reagan would endorse them, Romney was the more convincing. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul got little time during the debate as most of the questions were about arguments between John McCain and Mitt Romney. To this viewer, Romney had a much better performance than McCain; indeed, had this debate happened just a few days earlier, I would not have been surprised to see Romney win Florida.

Ross Kaminsky blogs at Rossputin.com.

[untrained skeptic]

McCain has supported keeping Roe v Wade more recently than Romney.

From an interview with McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle on Augues 19th, 1999.

I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

McCain has also supported embryonic stem cell research.

Huckabee has a more consistently good record on abortion, but he's also a liar and an idiot that would destroy us economically, and wouldn't likely have a positive effect on abortion.

As much as I would like to see it, a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn, isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

So the question is would Huckabee appoint conservative, originalist justices to the supreme court? To me the answer seem to be pretty clearly no. If you listen to him talk about the constitution, he doesn't consider it to be a consistent, binding document. He believes it should be reinterpreted to fit the current beliefs of the courts.

If he appoints justices that share that belief, it is very unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned. It is also likely that he will make our constitutional rights less secure.

So the only top tier candidate that has good, consistent pro-life beliefs isn't really a good, pro-life candidate because he's far too much of a big government liberal.

He may hold strong pro-life beliefs, but it's doubtful that he would turn those beliefs into results, and results are what matters.

Romney is the most likely candidate to appoint conservative, originalist justices. That's why Bork supports him.

The fight against Roe v Wade will be won in the Supreme Court, and of the three leading candidates, Romney (despite his many faults on the issue) is the best candidate to make that happen.

Huckabee would be the second best choice because he's at least consistent in his support of the right to life for the unborn. McCain is not consistent, nor would he likely appoint justices that would overturn Roe v Wade.

[VxH]

Ronmey is a political chameleon who will say whatever the folks with the power to elect him want to hear.

 

Furthermore, Romney is a Mormon.  I see the history of the Mormon cult with its disregard for separation of church and state as a big problem for Romney.  What happens when some Mormon prophet has a revelation and starts whispering in mit's ear?  Romney's lack of military service is also troubling.

 

Bottom line is that Romney is a liar and not to be trusted.

 

At least McCain is somewhat consistent.  That's honorable.  Even if i don't agree 100% with him, I respect him.

 

So....  This is how I see it:

 

[untrained skeptic]

At least McCain is somewhat consistent.

On what? McCain is no more consistent than Romney, and has engaged in more political double speak and underhanded tactics in his campaign than even Romney.

Romney unquestionably adopted some liberal positions to get elected in MA. He not only publicly stated his support or at least his compliance with those liberal policies, he kept his word once elected.

That definitely does not make him an ideal Republican Candidate. I wouldn't be voting for him if the alternatives weren't even worse, and McCain is worse.

McCain says he opposes abortion, but when interview by liberals has said that he wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade because it would cause women to seek unsafe and illegal abortions.

He supports stem cell research.

He is for the war in Iraq and for the surge, but he is against Guantanamo Bay, and is for the international criminal court. He's for the war, but would make it so our soldiers couldn't fight it without serious risk of ending up being tried in a highly politicized international court that doesn't abide by our constitution.

He opposes tax cuts on a regular basis.

He keeps bringing up Romney's wealth as if it's something evil, but avoids the fact that he married into money and is worth close to $30 million dollars. The McCain family business is one of the country's largest beer distributors.

McCain has resorted to personal attack after personal attack on Romney that have been outright lies, and when he's confronted with the facts, he gets angry and nasty.

McCain has most every flaw he tries to pin on Romney, except that McCain has never had to lay anyone off because McCain has no business experience. He leaves that to his wife.

Yes Romney has changed his stance on abortion. However, at least when Romney takes a position in a campaign, he sticks by it. Romney has flopped, but he's far better than waffle boy McCain on illegal immigration. Does anyone really believe that McCain would genuinely work to secure the border first?

There is a reason why people like Judge Bork and a host of seasoned conservative political commentators endorse Romney over McCain. It's not because they are too gullible to see through Romney's slick politics. It's because Romney is far less slimy than McCain.

When Romney was governor of the very liberal state of MA he supported more liberal policies that the citizens of MA wanted. It should also be pointed out that the role of a Governor of a State and the role of the President are somewhat different because the State has authority over a far broader range of issues than the limited role of the federal government as dictated by the US Constitution.

I would expect the Governor of a State to deal with a lot of issues that are better left alone by the federal government. They are supposed to do so.

Romney was a relatively conservative politician in a very liberal state.

McCain is a liberal politician from an relatively conservative state.

Did you watch the debate last night? Did you see McCain's reaction when caught in his lies about Romney's positions on issues? McCain is not an honorable man. His military service to our country was honorable, and he once may have been a very honorable man. He isn't one now.

[VxH]

>>On what? McCain is no more consistent than Romney,

What has McCain flipped on?

Romney is phony. From his Grecian formula hair, down to his tips of his shoes.

He reminds me distinctly of another Mormon I’ve seen in action up close, - James P Lewis. Phony Phony Phony.

Like Lewis, Romney pegs my BS-O-Meter every time he opens his mouth.

>>He is for the war in Iraq and for the surge

I see no problem there.

>>, but he is against Guantanamo Bay,

I remember when the 4th amendment meant something. Maybe McCain feels the same way.

>>He supports stem cell research.

So do I, as long as it’s not embryonic.

At least McCain shows the liberal knife up front. Romney will smile in your face and then stab you in the back as soon as politically expedient.

[untrained skeptic]

What has McCain flipped on?

His stance on abortion.

His reasoning for opposing the Bush tax cuts.

He claims to have flip-flopped on securing the border, but it doesn't appear to be genuine, so I'm not sure that counts.

He's less of a flip flopper than just not genuine in his claims to conservatism.

I remember when the 4th amendment meant something. Maybe McCain feels the same way.

The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Did you mean the 6th amendment which guarantees the suspect the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, and the right to confront their accuser.

Although it may surprise you to hear it, we have released a lot of the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and have later found out that a number of them were not only terrorists, but relatively high level terrorist. We just didn't have enough evidence for us to in good faith keep them there at the time.

We are at war. Although some of the people in Guantanamo Bay are criminals in the regular sense that they have committed criminal acts of violence, others are simply guilty of working with our enemies in the war on terror. That doesn't necessarily make them criminals, but it does make them prisoners of war. There isn't the same standard of evidence for holding someone as a prisoner of war as there is of convicting them of a crime, and we definitely don't need to let them have access to terrorists we have captive or intelligence that would undermine our intelligence assets and put our sources in danger. After all, we have released people who did turn out to be terrorists. If we give them access to such information, we could not release them anymore.

An if you place such importance on constitutional rights, why are you supporting the only candidate in the Republican field that supports the International Criminal Courts, which would try our soldiers and their commanders in highly politicized courts without the same rights the have here in our courts. McCain is a complete and total hypocrite on that topic.

If McCain were commander in chief our soldiers would be at serious risk of ending up before the criminal court every time they go into battle, because as we have seen, the "civilians" in Iraq have no compulsion against bearing false witness against our soldiers. Our military has been severely hampered by the insane rules of engagement they were forced into by the current administration, and the fact that many have had to face false charges because of politics. There is every indication that McCain's administration would be considerably worse.

At least McCain shows the liberal knife up front. Romney will smile in your face and then stab you in the back as soon as politically expedient.

Quit basing your opinions just on the string of sound bytes that a lot of dishonest Romney opponents have strung together in a misleading way.

You obviously don't know much about McCain, the candidate you do support, nor does it seem likely that you really know much about Romney.

Romney did basically run on a platform of supporting abortion on demand 14 years ago. Over the years, it became clear that his personal views on the issue changed, but he continued to promise to keep his campaign promises and maintain the status quo. He kept getting attacked by his more liberal political opponents for not being pro-abortion enough, and he would respond over and over again by saying he would continue to live up to his promise and would not weaken the abortion laws on the books, but he would not strengthen them either.

A lot of dishonest people have taken sound bytes from those statements and debates and used them in misleading ways.

Unlike most politicians, he kept his word. He opposed reducing the age of consent in MA. He also maintained the existing abortion laws as they were.

The claims that he signed into law a bill that included paying for abortions with tax dollars is simply a lie.

He did sign the bill creating the health care program. However, it was after the bill was signed that a government committee later decided that abortions would be covered under that program. That's wasn't Romney's doing and it wasn't in the legislation that he signed.

Why do you think that pretty much all the consistently conservative pundits in the Republican Party are supporting Romeny and are vehemently opposed to McCain?

Anyone can be made to sound like a completely unreliable flip-flopper if you allow people to just string together some sound bytes and take comments out of context.

Romney hasn't been the most consistently conservative candidate we could hope for. However, he has been consistent in trying to live up to his campaign promises. His word actually seems to mean something.

McCain's doesn't, and unfortunately Huckabee's doesn't either.

[VxH]

[ The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

 

Did you mean the 6th amendment which guarantees the suspect the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, and the right to confront their accuser.]

 

Ahh, no, actually what I had in mind was the 5th, and fourteenth amendments as they relate to Due Process and how it is meted out to both citizens and non-citizens.

[why are you supporting the only candidate in the Republican field that supports the International Criminal Courts]

 

Whose jurisdiction is Blackwater under?  They're certainly not being held accountable under the UCMJ.  Who's going to yank that chain?  Romney the shark suited "Bidness" man? 

 

McCain has experienced tyranny 1st hand and I think his views reflect that.

 

I don't agree 100% with McCain, but to me he seems to be a man of conviction, and honor - characteristics which Grecian Romney appears to completely lack.

 

Sorry, but I see McCain as being the lesser of 2 weevils; and I haven't listened to what Romney's attackers have said - I've listened to what Romney himself has said . His own words condemn him.  The man is a phony, untrustworthy liar.

[longtermmemmory]

unfortunatly as good as this is, it will not recieve distribution or convince one single former Giuliani Supporter or Huckabee fanatic.

[longtermmemmory]

BINGO!

Take that you pesky second amendment

AG Giuliani will put you in your place!

[littlehouse36]

To this viewer, Romney had a much better performance than McCain; indeed, had this debate happened just a few days earlier, I would not have been surprised to see Romney win Florida.

 

The debate was the most eye-opening event I have seen all election season.  McCain was revealed as a small man, and the real Romney blossomed.  

 

I just hope it's not too late.

 

 

[patriotspride]

I’ve noticed that when Mitt speaks the others don’t roll their eyes, wince their brows, etc.

They look as though they know he’s better.

Sadly, he’s taken too long to make himself better recognized.

Sure he has had some positions that have changed over time, but after all they are all politicans, so that’s a given.

He’s at this point the closest we have to a conservative that we will get.

My view is he will hang in to the end, and position himself for 2012 regardless of the outcome Rep or Dem of this election.

Reactions ???

[trisham]

I'm not so sure. He certainly has liberal positions in his background, but he gives clear reasons for a change of heart. The problem, unfortunately, is that we don't have a track record since said change to determine whether or not the are real, or even if real, to what lengths he will go to fight for them.

McCain is bad news. I think Romney is a hope.

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

I have misgivings about Romney, but I am certain about McCain.

[trisham]

Take that you pesky second amendment

AG Giuliani will put you in your place!

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

Exactly. Imho, that is one of Giuliani's biggest weaknesses.

[littlehouse36]

“My view is he will hang in to the end, and position himself for 2012 regardless of the outcome Rep or Dem of this election.”

Agree. I think Romney is finally filling the void that FDT was supposed to fill, but with much more energy and capability.

We had one centrist in this race and varying degrees of conservative. There were just too many for one to stand out.

When I hear Reagan’s speech from 1964, and realized he didn’t win until 1980, it puts things into perspective. Hopefully Romney has the patience. I think he does.

[ChessExpert]

“McCain is bad news. I think Romney is a hope."

Exactly!!!

There is some uncertainty with Mitt. He might turn out badly. He might turn out very well.

I think the odds are that he will turn out well. I think he truly believes and understands free markets. I think it more likely that he socially conservative than socially liberal despite select quotes from his MA years. I think he understands the dangers of Islamic supremacists. He’s been more loyal to Bush and conservative principles in this campaign cycle than his current competition. He is smart, competent, and dynamic.

There is little uncertainty with McCain. He will turn out badly. He’s as bad, in his way, as Hillary or Obama:

Obama has a 100% ADA record. He seems to be a nice liberal who Republicans (in Congress, radio, and internet) would have to fight.
Hillary will extend the thuggish Clinton machine. She is a nasty liberal who Republicans (in Congress, radio, and internet) would have to fight.
McCain is a liberal who says he is a Reagan conservative. Republicans (in Congress, radio, and internet) will be unable to fight him effectively, because he we (and the liberal media, and independents) elected him.

[lepton]

McCain has resorted to personal attack after personal attack on Romney that have been outright lies, and when he's confronted with the facts, he gets angry and nasty.

That's consistant with what McCain did when he was presented the evidence that his wife was fraudlently writing prescriptions for herself with the physician's ID of a doctor that worked for her charity...McCain fired the guy and hired a PR firm to slander him.

[untrained skeptic]

Whose jurisdiction is Blackwater under?

As US citizens they are accountable and can be tried in US courts. As a US citizen you can always be tried in US courts for breaking US laws, regardless of where you are at the time you break the law.

The media tried to sensationalize the issue by quoting people who said it might not be possible to prosecute them. The only reason that they wouldn't be able to prosecute them is if they were granted immunity. Some were in exchange for their testimony, but it wasn't clear to me how many were offered immunity. It was clear to me that the press was doing its best to make it sound like they were unaccountable murders.

McCain has experienced tyranny 1st hand and I think his views reflect that.

The International Criminal Court is a political institution, rather than an unbiased legal institution that advances justice.

Do you see the International Criminal Court indicting terrorist leaders? The leaders of Hezbollah, Al Queda? How about brutal dictators like Castro, Kim Jong Il?

McCain endorses things like the International Criminal COurt that are popular with liberals and the media, but don't actually do what they profess to do. Cap and trade global warming schemes such as McCain-Liberman are another example of that.

I don't agree 100% with McCain, but to me he seems to be a man of conviction, and honor - characteristics which Grecian Romney appears to completely lack.

Romney actually seems to be the one facing his record. McCain just keep blatantly lying about his.

But you say McCain is a man of conviction. OK, what are McCain's convictions?

He's a populist that rarely has anything good to say about the free market, and instead talks about punishing companies that are making profits.

He fights for the same rights for terrorists as US citizens would receive in our criminal courts, even though they aren't being charged with criminal offenses, they are being held as enemy combatants in a war.

He's all for right for terrorists and illegal aliens, but where is he when the right of American citizens are being threatened?

McCain-Feinglod muzzled individuals in elections and shifted even more power to the media and the political parties and away from the people. It helped give wealthy liberals a bigger voice than than the rest of us through a web of 527 groups.

McCain is also almost always on the wrong side of gun control issues. Terrorist aren't a significant enough threat to justify keeping them at gitmo, but the threat of terrorism is enough justification for McCain to join up with the "Americans for Gun Safety" to close the "Gun Show Loophole". He's worried about possibly curbing the rights of terrorists captured fighting us, but he's not worried about placing more restrictions on buying and selling guns in the US.

John McCain is like the ACLU when it comes to Civil Rights. He supports the ones that advance his agenda, and opposes the ones that don't. He doesn't believe in Constitutional Rights being something the government can't infringe upon. He believes in using the Constitution when it suits him, and ignoring it when it doesn't. He's a liberal to the core in that respect.

I've listened to what Romney himself has said . His own words condemn him. The man is a phony, untrustworthy liar.

You mean the string of short clips strung together by his opponents that are seriously lacking in context?