Posted on 01/26/2008 6:06:51 PM PST by Delacon
Apparently not. I say apparently not, because a very brief AP report on McCain's charge and Romney's emphatic denial ends with this paragraph:
While he has never set public date for withdrawal, Romney has said that President Bush and Iraqi leaders should have private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress on the war and determine troop levels. He has said publicly that he agrees with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that U.S. troops could move to more of an oversight role in 2008. It is possible that the AP missed something very obvious in Romney's public record here, but I seriously doubt it. It's just as possible that the New England Patriots overlooked some game tape on Eli Manning. The AP, as anyone following this race knows, has been so anti-Romney as to defy parody. If this is the best they can come up with to put a hint of plausibility on McCain's attack, then McCain's case must be very weak indeed. Calling for private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress, etc.. is a world away from McCain's charge. In fact, it is a highly reasonable posture for even the most aggressive proponent of victory. Ah, how far we have come from the heady days of Cindy Sheehan's ascendancy, when everyone assumed that the retreat from Iraq couldn't happen fast enough, and the last politician to deny responsibility for the war would have to turn out the lights. Give the military and the president credit for ignoring the pundits and senile elder statesmen who tried to talk them into retreat.
But McCain's straight talk express swerved into the mud on this one, and the fact that he chose to do so suggests some desperation. He will only get away with it if the MSM who have invested so heavily in his success cover for him.
For his part, Mitt should have the resources to counter this sleight of hand from the straight talker. And the fact that he does illustrates, again, the danger of suppressing free speech as embodied in McCain-Feingold. When the MSM conspires with a candidate to promote a lie and suppress its counter, someone needs to be able to do the end run.
It reminds me of an essay written by Lynn Nofziger years ago during the OJ trial. Nofziger had been falsely indicted for corruption during the Reagan years and fought the rap and won. He pointed out that any time a state or federal decides it wants to take someone out, the resources it brings to the table dwarf anyones capacity to counter them. We shouldn't fault those -- like the Duke lacrosse players who have the resources and fight back. We should applaud them.
Likewise with the candidate who has the resources to counter an MSM that shoots at him on sight but slavishly panders to his opponent.
Welcome Newbie 1/10/2008! Exactly what is your position on McCain’s staff or do you work directly for Hilary?
The difference between you and I appears to be that I don’t realistically expect a 100% perfect conservative to be nominated every four years. Not even Reagan lives up to some of the demands on FR.
It will be really a comfort to you to have bazooka in your trailer house when the neighborhood is over run with the gangbangers.
January 26, 2008 6:16
McCain’s Conversation Changer: A Misleading Low Blow
Posted by Michael Scherer
To review: In the course of a few hours, McCain said that Romney once wanted to set a date to withdraw from Iraq, accused him of working on the same side as Hillary Clinton in the Iraq debate, and accused him of disrespecting American servicemen and women. Is any of this true? Not that much.
——excerpt——
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_conversation_changer_a.html
Who are Independents? Most of them are single women. They will vote Dem. And many conservatives will not vote for the presidency with McCain. He will be soundly defeated.
I live in a trailer house? That is news to me. I just don’t want Mitt infringing on my constitutional rights.
McCain’s bill was flawed, but a lot of that had to do with the fact that it was coauthored by democrats and had to pass the senate. The bill should have focused only on securing the border rather than on what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. McCain has admitted this.
Mitt hires companies that employ illegal immigrants himself, so he is at least as bad as McCain on the issue.
Plus Mitt wanted to surrender in Iraq.
Great point. The NYT obviously knows how influential the paper is among conservatives. And I am sure Clinton really thinks that Republicans will vote for McCain because he complemented him.
The NYT and Clinton are obviously trying to sabotage McCain’s campaign because he is the only candidate polling well ahead of Clinton.
I disagree with McCain about a few things, but I feel he is the best choice. I like Hunter and Thompson, but they obviously never gained a lot of support.
I am somewhat confused by Mitt supporters who are pretending he is a conservative. There are no true conservatives in the race, and Mitt has proven that he will change his mind if he is pressured. That is not what we need when we go up against China nad Russia.
Mitt lowered taxes when he was governor, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, Mitt vetoed instate tuition for illegals, has a strong illegal alien plan, McCain is for amnesty, even for gang members. Mitt has only changed his mind on abortion and that is a change in the right direction. McCain is a tool of the open border lobby and a dim bulb to boot. So if you want more illegals vote for McCain or Hillary and you will get your wish.
BOSTON - Mitt Romney's Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney's efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million as part of a multifaceted plan to eliminate a state budget deficit estimated from $2.5 billion to $3 billion.
Yep.
My dad I am a small shadow of the real deal. My dad was extraordinary. --Mitt Romney
George Romney was a leftist POS notorious for his smears against America's military.
~”The media would tar and feather him over his flip flopping.”~
The media will tar and feather any of our candidates. I’m no fan, but the only candidate who can’t be credibly called out for changing his positions is Giuliani.
~”Romney has had some success in the primaries because of shear money compared to the other candidates (it buys election workers, media, etc.).”~
He does have a big war chest. But he has -raised- more than any other candidate. Not contributed from his own wealth - raised. If he knows how to do it as a primary candidate, he’ll know how to do it in the general election.
~”Id rather be front stabbed by Hillary than back stabbed by McCain.”~
‘Bout sums it up, doesn’t it?
~”McCain will lose the general election if he is the nominee.”~
Limbaugh agrees with you, FWIW; and we know how often he’s wrong.
~”If he did, he is cooked. Thats a dimocrat line.”~
He didn’t, so no problem.
Could also fit Gingrich, instead of Romney, in this sentence - identically.
“I want us out of the middle east as well, tomorrow would be fine. Then, blow the friggen place into ice.”
Actually with all that sand, it would end up being shiny glass beads.
Me either, the fact is that privately - within a small circle in government - there has got to be a timetable, bench marks, etc. - for McCain to use this is unforgivable - and - I’m sick of hearing about his hero status - separate that fact - if it is a true fact - from the McCain that we all know - I don’t even like him, primarily for what he’s done in the past few decades. Plus, the hero thing is getting old and used way to much.
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.