Posted on 02/01/2008 1:39:54 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Usually the guy who's ahead finds it within himself to be gracious to his competitors whereas the desperate runner-up goes negative and reaches for any stick. So it was peculiar to watch John McCain sneering and slicing his way through the debate with Mitt Romney at the Reagan Library. When McCain was given up for dead last summer, he was witty and fun on the stump. Now that he is the front-runner, he is snarky and obnoxious. Dr. Freud, call your office.
They say that McCain harbors a particular dislike for Romney. And why would that be? Well, Romney is pretty much the only candidate in the race who has had the temerity (aka cash) to run ads criticizing McCain. The senator from Arizona has some fine qualities, but no one has ever suggested that enduring criticism manfully is one of them. He tried his best to make such effrontery illegal with the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law. Romney found a loophole and McCain is irritated.
McCain lashed out at Romney for supposedly endorsing "timetables" for withdrawal from Iraq last year, saying that Romney, like Hillary Clinton, wanted to "wave the white flag" and "Timetables was [sic] the buzzword for those that [sic] wanted to get out." The two tangled over this question for many rounds during the debate. After vigorously denying the lie, Romney, ever the gentleman, injected a note of graciousness by saying, "He's a fine man and a man I respect, and I particularly respect his service in the military and his integrity and courage for our nation."
A few moments later, the audience no doubt leaned forward in their seats, waiting for a correspondingly polite compliment from McCain about Romney and instead heard, "Oh, I'm sure that, as I say, he's a fine man. And I think he managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs." Sucker punch.
Well, say McCain enthusiasts, the senator is simply offended by those who lack the courage of their convictions. Remember his snide dig at Romney ("Oh you're the candidate of change all right")? There are two answers to that. In the first place, only a willful misreading of Romney's timetable comment could yield the interpretation McCain ascribed to it. Second, Senator Unswerving himself had unambiguously talked of changing course in Iraq in January of 2007.
Ed Morrissey of The Captain's Quarters blog reports that McCain spoke of benchmarks in a newspaper interview a year ago. "McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them,' he said. Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.'"
"I don't change my positions depending on what year it is or what office I'm seeking" McCain has boasted. Yet in the California debate, he was forced to admit that he no longer supports the immigration legislation he himself proposed last year.
He was asked, would you vote for the bill if it came to the floor? "No, it [the bill] would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first." Oh. So McCain has (whisper) changed his position? While we're on the subject of political flexibility, let's recall that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts (thought they were too nice to the rich) but now wishes to make them permanent.
It's no crime to change one's views, of course, and it would certainly be welcome if McCain were to reexamine a few more of his positions; for example, on detainee interrogations, drug reimportation from Canada, or suitable Supreme Court picks (he confided that he found Alito too conservative). And he could stand a little refresher course on Economics 101, particularly the part about where the wealth of this nation comes from. (Hint: Not from senators.) But his own flip-flops leave him with a huge H (for hypocrite) on his forehead when he singes Romney for opportunism.
McCain's phosphorescent patriotism is his most appealing trait. But in the past few weeks, as he has been winning, his love of country has been riding in tandem with a signally unattractive love of self.
The answer lies in the definition of liberalism.
I think Cain has not received a paycheck from other than the state.
yitbos
I just want to say I am oh so happy with those who started lecturing me when we lost Congress in 2006, who told me it was a GOOD thing, as it meant we'd come back in 2008 with a strong conservative presidential candidate who'd wipe the floor with the liberal dems in the final election. Yeah, it was such a GOOD thing that we lost Congress because we weren't conservative enough, and that strategic loss was just paving the way for a REAL conservative to win over the hearts of America with his conservative views. Because of course Jimmy Carter led to Ronald Reagan, so it ALWAYS works according to plan, these victories for the left.
I reflect on all those who pissed and whined because Fred Thompson wasn't cute enough and didn't put on enough flashy ads to hold your attention, because of course all a conservative had to do was announce and America would rally to him, because it was a GOOD thing the dems won in '06, strategy, you know...
Do I sound bitter? You're damned right I am. THIS is what you get when you have these "strategic" wins--you set the "moderates" and lefties up for more wins.
Mona Charen does an excellent job showing the contrast between Romney and McCain.
Romney: “ever the gentleman.”
McCain: “snarky and obnoxious,” “flip-flops,” “hypocrite,” “unattractive love of self.”
McCain really is the male version of Hillary.
So what do you propose for a basis for the US economy? A 5 year Economic Plan from the Stalinistas?
That is the best growth we have in our economy. Planners planing plans. They, and it, are everywhere.
They say that McCain harbors a particular dislike for Romney. And why would that be?
One reason might be that Romney earned his millions while McCain married his.
“He was asked, would you vote for the bill if it came to the floor? “No, it [the bill] would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first.”
He was asked on Meet the Press last week if he would sign this exact bill as President. He said YES.
Listen, vote for Mitt next week if you want. But if mccain is the nomineee, you need to vote for him in nov!
A problem with capitalism? McLame is drinking at the liberal fountain, dining at the left’s trough. He sees no problems with capitalism that can’t be fixed with just a bit more government intervention...a little tweaking here and there.
He still doesn’t give heed to the wishes of the people on border security and shamnesty, despite his public rhetoric. I don’t believe he fully appreciates the gravity of the global situation with Islamic Jihad, and Islamofascists in general.
This guy ought to be running on the DhimmiRat ticket. And, I’m sick to death of hearing about his POW status. Gawd, it’s sickening. It was 40+ years ago. Sure, it was awful and ugly. It shaped him in many ways, no doubt. But, he survived it. Many others didn’t, and we hear precious little about their heroism, their guts, their sacrifice.
And, no. We don’t need this temperament in the White House.
No. His personality and temperament are a bigger WORRIES than his "conservative credentials" (or lack thereof). Add his age to the mix and the choice of running mate becomes critically important to whether I could hold my nose and vote for McCain in November.
The only way McCain can win is for Democrats to cross party lines. I will not vote for him.
That could happen. The Dems like him...he is one of them, ya know.
yitbos
I’m afraid so.
McCain dislikes Romney because he is everything McCain isn’t: polite,smart, succesful by virtue of his own hard work, faithful and loyal to a beautiful family and broadly capable.
That's alright. We're a patient lot. The Pubbies just need some more learning. The "Sore Winner" and his backers will be singing a different tune in August as the panic sets in, as they realize their vain attempt will have been for naught. And come November, finally, the Conservatives will have had their say (*crickets*).
Too bad really, but a foregone conclusion.
I've been hearing this fantasy since Bill Clinton won the first time. I guess "we" are just biding our time, huh?
Yeah, suuuuuuuuuuuure.
If we keep "winning" like this we won't have a party at all. How anyone can look at the state of this party and country and say "Oh, anytime, now, the Republican party will come around" I don't know. The party will become MORE liberal, not less.
Those who've been telling me for years about these "strategic" wins are whistling past the graveyard. They keep saying "Anytime, now..." but the world isn't waiting like they are. New generations are being taught that the government is there to run your life for you. You can play the cool game, but the world is racing past you in race cars while you're sitting there in a go-cart not understanding that the wheels came off a ways back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.