Posted on 07/16/2008 3:29:43 PM PDT by Plutarch
On Monday night, at a fund-raiser in New Mexico, John McCain said this about his former mortal enemy, Mitt Romney: “I’m appreciative every time I see Mitt on television on my behalf. He does a better job for me than he did for himself as a matter of fact.” This may not have been a joke.
Yesterday, Romney sat down for an interview with CBS News. It is a striking interview, in part because Romney seems to be making the McCain argument better than McCain, or McCain's campaign. There is a clarity to the soundbites that McCain has mostly lacked, a clear line of attack against Obama's experience and McCain's plans. Add to that whatever fundraising burst Romney could provide as a VP candidate, as well as Romney's strength in key swing states like Michigan and Nevada, and it's not hard to see why McCain may end up with a running mate whose hand he didn't shake in the primaries.
[See video at link]
EXCEPT: Mitt says in the interview that McCain distinguishes himself from Obama on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. This is wrong, according to the latest McCain statements. Both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in ANWR.
(Excerpt) Read more at time-blog.com ...
It’s bad enough that I believed long ago that he was worthy of my assistance in helping to elect him and that I devoted ANY time to his candidacy. I still have to live with that shame of being fooled by that liberal fraud. Fortunately, that’s why I unapologetically continue to openly expose this flim-flam man after I recognized the TRUTH about Slick Willard. :-)
Still no answer. You can’t answer, can you? If you’re so concerned about truth, shouldn’t you engage in it as well or is truth a standard that you only hold others to?
You have consistently attempted to make the argument about me. This is not about me, despite you and your compatriots coordinated “swarm” attacks against myself and others that dare speak the truth. I find it curious your obsession with finding out the number of days/weeks/months when I was in Massachusetts in 1994, as if it has any bearing on your idol’s record in office, which didn’t begin until over 8 years after the fact, and you continue to demonstrate a singular disinterest and lack of concern about the true subject at hand. You know full well my time in MA is a red herring.
Fact is, this is about your liberal idol, Slick Willard *omney, and nobody else. You have to attack those that shine the light of truth on him and his record because your idol hasn’t a leg to stand on in the credibility department with respect to either a “Conservative” record, “finding” Conservatism or accomplishments and leadership AS an elected official. Even more galling to you, not a single charge I’ve made against him is a false one (worse than that, there are things I have not even touched upon yet that add to the overall mountain of evidence to his glaring unsuitability (to use a polite phrase) for any office down to the level of dogcatcher).
1. Limbaugh, Coulter, Bork etc. are liberals in disquise.
2. Limbaugh, Coulter, Bork etc. may be Conservatives after all but, they were bought off by the Romney campaign.
3. A source's credibility is irrelevant and its mean and unfair to ask about it.
Thanks for your co-operation. You were very helpful.
Fair enough, but which VP pick will be better than Romney then?
Some of the conservatives that I might like such as Mike Pence will equally add ‘zilch’ in electability. So what of it?
Got any better ideas?
Portman of Ohio?
“Obfuscating, ignoring and misdirected responses to Mitt’s real record,”
The anti-Mitt posters here have distorted the Romney record on a repeated basis and just repeat the nonsense, using the ol’ ‘big lie’ strategy, when challenged. One the lies blames him for gay marriage when it was Mass SC decision that he didnt author and which he opposed from the get-go that made it happen. The cycle goes around on it.
“So what’s your point?” What’s their point in lying about Romney is my point. Why slander a good man just for the crime of being insufficiently conservative? it’s destructive. Just say you wish Romney had a more conservative record and leave it at that. The slanders suck.
I understand he is a point of expediency at a time when there is a dearth of Conservatives out there on the national stage, and that the public face needs a name and a champion, hence his "popularity" with Conservative luminaries, but here among peers I refuse to pretend he is "all that" for serious Conservatives. For right now, with few exceptions, as far as conservative positions and ideals, he is not much more than a website of positions, backed by prayerful hopes that he is serious about keeping true to those ideals.
The fact that doses of that reality have to be splashed on the "Mitt is king Conservative" crowd here on the most conservative of websites, a place where we can "let our hair down" so to speak, a place where we can be honest, is a bit disappointing.
Or perhaps it is most telling about his supporters.
“Since I never slander the man, that is easy enough to stop.”
Sorry for the confusion, I was not accussing you, but others on the thread. Its clear who I’ve tangled with.
“However I will meet you half way, you guys quite selling him as the second coming of Reagan” I really never have, although half in jest I said Romney was the next “Reagan”.
Really, we wont get another Reagan, not the iconic perfect Reagan of our dreams... BUT, we dont need that. We just need someone who is a reliable conservative who can articulate the conservative vision well. Romney is articulate, and has been articulating the conservative themes.
“I understand he is a point of expediency at a time when there is a dearth of Conservatives out there on the national stage, and that the public face needs a name and a champion, hence his “popularity” with Conservative luminaries, but here among peers I refuse to pretend he is “all that” for serious Conservatives.”
Then maybe we are in violent agreement. There was a time that I thought he was our best candidate vs Huck, McCain and Rudy. I still think that he would make a better President than McCain. Or Obama or Hillary of course. but perfect or ideal for conservatives? No.
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.