Desperate Times--Desperate Measures: McCain Campaign Regurgitates MSM & DNC Lies About Romney

McCain's deeply flawed immigration bill has been a recent "flash point" for criticism. McCain has obviously taken the attacks on this horrible legislation a little too personally and has wrongly punched back on the personal level (similar to his personal attack on Romney's conviction during the 2nd debate that he switches positions "during even numbered years".)

Then followed his "varmint" comment which was an obviously planned line fed to him from someone in the campaign.

So, what's so desperate about attacking a cheif rival? The attacks, on the surface, speak of an general unease in the McCain camp about their own failings and Romney's continued successes. But it's not just the attacks, but the substance of the attacks and the actual accusations being leveled. McCain's campaign aides are sensing the fear of a Rising Romney and have resorted to DNC-like charges at Mitt's apparent lack of core convictions.

This is a segue into the deeper theme they are trying to lay. A smattering of recent quotes is enlightening:

Even some conservative commentators like Deroy Murdock (a big-time Rudy supporter), get in on the game from time to time.

Bill Maher recently said "If Mitt Romney were a movie, it would be "Say Anything." (I'm sure he wouldn't apply that same critical humor to his buddy Bill Clinton, eh?)

The overall image being portrayed of Romney (and don't ever think these lines of attack aren't driven by the media moguls of the MSM) is that he's a man with no convictions, who will say or do anything if it is politically expedient. However, their only other "dig" against Romney is not just his religious affiliation, but that he's unabashedly a devout and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--somehow implying that he's TOO dedicated and true to his core convictions, namely his faith and his family. It would be in their best interest to decide on one line of attack. If they keep pounding both of these drums even the average American voter will realize they are being sold a false bill of goods. We won't be buying it guys!

I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. He was actually far more of a conservative than even a moderate. Below I'll put in the image again of one of his 1994 campaign flyers and let you judge. Aside from the well documented, AND WELCOMED, shift on abortion he's been rock solid as a conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan)

I'd like to see McCain, his aides, and the DNC explain their position that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" when he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer. They're busy enough spinning their own problems, so I probably shouldn't "pile on" right now!

Here's an article from the Boston Herald from 1994:

Abortion-rights group rips Romney
Boston Herald
By ANDREW MIGA
10 September 1994

The leading abortion-rights group in Massachusetts yesterday accused GOP Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney of exaggerating his pro-choice views.

"He is not pro-choice," said Joyce Cunha, executive director of Mass Choice. "He's trying to have it both ways. He's anti-choice at heart. Massachusetts voters deserve to know the truth."

The Romney camp sharply denied the charge.

"The fact is that Mitt does support a woman's right to choose, and we hope Joyce and other members of Mass Choice meet with Mitt and listen to what he has to say," said Romney spokeswoman Ann Murphy.

Cunha cited a recent mailing by Massachusetts Citizens for Life urging its members to vote for Romney, who accepted the group's informal endorsement.

"Mr. Romney cannot credibly call himself pro-choice while accepting the endorsement of the state's largest anti-choice lobby," Cunha said.

Romney has said he would support the Freedom of Choice Act with two qualifications: as long as it did not go beyond codifying Roe v. Wade and as long as it leaves it to states to decide on using federal funds for abortion.

Romney has been criticized for some for not taking a clearer stand on abortion. One of his former GOP rivals, Janet Jeghelian, yesterday assailed Romney for waffling on abortion rights.

"I feel as though he's been ambivalent, ambigious," said Jeghelian, who said abortion rights were a critical issue to her.

She charged that Romney was opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act earlier this summer before the state party's convention and that Romney also said he opposed federal funding for abortion.

"To hear he's moderated some of these positions bothers me," she said. "We have to find more clarity in his message. He will be pilloried by Ted Kennedy this fall if he doesn't."

Cunha said her group would work hard this fall to get Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) re-elected.

"We will be highlighting the importance of Ted Kennedy's leadership on abortion and work to get out as many anti-Romney voters as possible," Cunha said.

______

Here's another from 1994:

Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid

Boston Herald
By Ed Hayward

08 September 1994

U.S. Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney has tried to mold himself in the image of a Republican abortion rights advocate, but that didn't stop a Massachusetts anti-abortion group from endorsing him as the "logical vote for those who value human life."

The September issue of Massachusetts Citizens For Life News calls incumbent U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy "perhaps the worst person in the U.S. Senate from a prolife point of view."

Spokesmen for John Lakian, Romney's GOP primary opponent, and Kennedy said the endorsement showed Romney has tried to work both sides of the abortion divide to win votes.

"Mitt Romney is not pro-choice," said Rick Gureghian, Kennedy's campaign spokesman. "The endorsement unequivocally proves that Mitt Romney doesn't support a woman's right to choose and never will support a woman's right to choose."

Romney's "said he's privately pro-life, but as far as a public pronouncements he's attempted to mouth the pro-choice stand," said Lakian campaign manager John Alvis. "I think . . . the women of Massachusetts will see through that," Alvis said.

The antiabortion group dismissed Lakian because of his recurring credibility problems.

Lakian "is neither electable nor, unfortunately, able to tell it like it is," the group said. "With respect to the abortion issue, he'll say whatever fits the moment."

Alvis denied his candidate had flip-flopped on the abortion issue and accused Romney of courting the anti-abortion vote at the Republican convention and privately opposing abortion.

MCFL's endorsement of Romney is hardly ringing.

"Mitt Romney is electable and the MCFL Federal PAC believes that he is light years better on the prolife issues than the incumbent, and although we would prefer a 100 percent prolife candidate, in the real world we don't have one."

But Romney's camp welcomed any endorsement in the weeks prior the Sept. 20 faceoff with Lakian, though a spokesman said Romney didn't meet with the MCFL's representatives.

"We're happy to have any group endorse Mitt, especialy when you look at what they have to say about his Republican opponent," said Charles Manning, a Romney adviser who added that Romney has been "pro-choice" since 1970.

However, the group got several of Romney's positions on abortion legislation wrong, Manning said.

As opposed to the endorsement, Romney supports a federal health care plan option that includes abortion services, would vote for a law codifying the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion and backs federal funding for abortions as long as states can decide if they want the money, Manning said.

_______

So, we have pro-abortion types saying that Mitt is not pro-choice and a pro-life organization (the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who have endorsed him in 08) saying that he is acceptably pro-life.(And this was before his "conversion" in 2004.) So one has to wonder, if, as has been charged, Mitt Romney is a "far-left, judicial supremacist", why would the Boston Globe be so adamant about outing one of their own? And why would the MCFL have given Mitt their endorsement, not once but twice, if he were in fact a flaming liberal? If liberals thought, as do some that call themselves conservative here on this forum, that Romney will be the death of the Republican party, wouldn't they strive to keep their mouths shut rather than rip him at every opportunity? Something to think about for those who are willing to give Mitt a look.

I don’t think — at least I hope — that Jeff Fuller doesn’t knowingly make false statements.

But since his ridiculously laughable claim that abortion is the only issue on which Romney has flipped his positions has been so thoroughly and documentably discredited over the last year, Jeff’s painting me toward the corner of havng to believe that he’s intentionally trying to mislead people.

Let’s see...just off the top of my head, Romney:

* Supported abortion on demand, now says he opposes it.

* Supported Roe v Wade, now says he opposes it.

* Endorsed gays in the military, now says he doesn’t favor it “right now”...”during a time of war”...”at this time.”

* Endorsed Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” legislation, now says it’s not necessary.

* Said Catholic hospitals shouldn’t have to offer the morning-after pill, then later in the same week said they should.

* In 2002, opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state’s constitution. Now postures himself a champion of the same.

* Said defining marriage should be a state issue. Now says the federal Constitution should be amended to define marriage.

* Said his views don’t line up with the NRA. Now brags about being a “life member” of the NRA (since last August).

* Served on the board of directors of one of the nation’s largest white-collar distributors of pornographic videos (the Marriott Corporation). Now says pornography in movies helped motivate the Va Tech shootings.

* Dissed Ronald Reagan. Now claims to be Ronald Reagan.

I’m getting tired...

McCain’s amendment 1190 seems to be misleading. It says “Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that....”

To me, this looks like more lipstick on a pig. They have to make an “agreement for payment” to pay back taxes only if they want to apply for a green card (”status is adjusted”). If they just want to stay and work here, payment not required. Watch for their talking points to include the claim that illegals have to pay back taxes.

SA 1190. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BURR, and Mr. SPECTER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 1150 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. SPECTER)) to the bill S. 1348, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 292 redesignate paragraphs (3) as (4) and (4) as (5).

On page 292, between lines 33 and 34, insert the following:

``(3) PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES.—

``(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that—

``(i) no such tax liability exists;

``(ii) all outstanding liabilities have been paid; or

``(iii) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service.

``(B) APPLICABLE FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY.—For purposes of clause (i), the term `applicable Federal tax liability’ means liability for Federal taxes, including penalties and interest, owed for any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i) for which the statutory period for assessment of any deficiency for such taxes has not expired.

``(C) IRS COOPERATION.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish rules and procedures under which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall provide documentation to an alien upon request to establish the payment of all taxes required by this subparagraph.

``(D) IN GENERAL.—The alien may satisfy such requirement by establishing that—

``(i) no such tax liability exists;

``(ii) all outstanding liabilities have been met; or

``(iii) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service and with the department of revenue of each State to which taxes are owed.

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.