Free Republic

Love to hear your thoughts on this . . .

The POTUS can have a HUGE influence on the economy. Mitt understands the economy and how government should get out of the way of it in nearly all circumstances. McCain, I’m not so sure about.

So "The Economy" constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.

Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).

In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.

So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn't think so. His new economic plan isn't impressing many. And let's not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain's economic record (Their main points are that "John McCain is No Supply-Sider" and that he has a "Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative")

Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?

Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:

SALEM, N.H. -- John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn't know much about economics . . .

Later in the piece:

McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign's alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he's weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.

Yet further:

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

Sorry John, but if you haven't gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you're not ever going to "get it" . . . even if Greenspan's book is really good.

If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.

So is this my “15 minutes of fame”?

Thanks for the kudos . . .

Kavon Nikrad is an ardent Rudy guy and runs Race 4 2008. He’s a class act and knows a class act when he sees one.

His support for another candidate makes his comment below even more solid:

“And not to get too sappy here-but it is obvious to everyone in whatever room they entered this weekend the depth of affection they have for one another. It is simply written all over their faces. Although this isn’t exactly a substantive analysis of the state of the Romney campaign or this weekend’s events; it is, however, the kind of observation that a blogger is allowed to indulge him or herself in that say, a CNN reporter cannot.”

Great analysis.

Rudy doesn’t have a shot at winning anything in Iowa . . . not the Ames Straw Poll, not the GOP caucus, and not the general election.

He has many strikes against him, namely his stances on social issues and his “big city guy” persona. Doens’t play well in the heartland.

Fred would be interesting. I think he stands out as a “should come in a strong second” candidate for the Ames Straw Poll. Nobody would expect him to beat Romney . . . and he won’t (barring some major gaffes by Romney or some major home-runs by Thompson.)

Tommy T. will make a solid showing.

Sam Brownback and Huckabee could make a good showing . . . but if Fred gets in then their support may get diluted. It will be interesting to see.

Great to hear from you CGG! It’s been a while.

I’m glad you’re glad that Mitt’s got Rudy and John “on the ropes”. Despite what people say about the advanced primary, Iowa continues to be the most important state in shaping the field and course of the election.

He was proudly pro-choice when he was trying to beat Kennedy for a Senate seat. How come he never said "I'm a pro-choice politician" then . . . he never took upon himself the "pro-choice" label/mantle though he made several statements supporting the law as it stood. In contrast, he has taken upon himself the "pro-life" label/mantle. That says something to me.

I heard someone saying this, but it wasn’t a campaign person and may be an exagerration/myth. I can’t ammend post above to take it out, but that is not confirmable. I’m a part-time blogger, not a journalist (obviously).

PING

Romney wasn't ever "a liberal" not in 1994, 2002, or now. Get over it. See below (pasted in from Iowans For 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".) From a Newsweek article:

Referring to Romney's stance, McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."

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. From Newsweek recently regarding the varmint comment:

To which John Weaver, a top McCain aide replied: “It was a joke and, by the way, Mitt Romney should be mocked! There isn’t a single issue in politics he hasn’t flip-flopped on."

From a Mother Jones article another top McCain aid said:

"Mitt Romney has been consistent in one regard: that nearly every position he holds now is opposite of what it was when he was governor of Massachusetts."

That same article also had the following zinger:

He [Romney] previously held all of the same positions as Giuliani -- he's just trying to lie about them while Giuliani is standing for what he believes in.

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

Foremost is the charge that he's a campaign convert to conservatism after running as a more moderate or liberal candidate in Massachusetts.

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

Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.

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! Help spread around this message that debunks the "Romney was a liberal" or "He's flip flopped on every position" memes.

Keep digging EV . . . this is getting pretty entertaining.

You’ve also previously said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754669/posts?page=67#67
“Romney didn’t take any stand against the court’s ruling on same sex marriage.”

To which I responded with this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754669/posts?page=105#105
(and you didn’t respond back . . . I wonder why)

If you’re willing to spread this many lies and contorted logic this blatantly and frequently then your credibility (if you have any left) is lost.

Romney passed “HillaryCARE” in MA?

You’re either completely delusional or incredibly mis-informed.

Check this out!

http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/05/massachusetts-health-care-law-launches.html

Gary Glenn,

Never did I say in my entry that Romney had only one position shift in his entire political career. I was speaking of the positions articulated in the flyer. That you read into it more than is there is your miscalculation.

Basically, I’m trying to debunk the claims that Romney has switched positions on everything imaginable and that he used to be a full fledged liberal. I think that the flyer helps debunk those claims.

Also, the veiled mistruths in your accusations of Romney position shifts are also enlightening. You say that I’m purposely trying to mislead . . . looks like you’re already a pro at that.

Just picking a few that you mention:

*Gays in Military: Originally (1994) didn’t support “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, but now all the military leaders say that it’s working so he supports it now. Flip flop or learning from experience of over a decade of military experience with a specific policy?

*Romney never said that Gay Marriage “should” be a state issue . . . he stated that it IS/WAS a state regulated issue. More on that one here http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/12/boston-globes-deception-romney-has-not.html

*NRA—His positions haven’t switched on guns . . . period. Still for a AWB and has a recent B grade from the NRA. “Lifetime member” is the level of membership sign up that he chose. Would you have preferred that he sign up for just one year?

Look, some people seem to think the #1 qualification for becoming our president should be how long you can stay entrenched in your incorrect and failing positions. Romney has learned and “evolved” in a few areas (some of them key areas, most of them very peripheral issues, but all of them show political growth and maturity). But there is far more “amplification” of these issues than is really there. And I think you not only know it Gary . . . you’re complicit in it.

THanks for spreading the PING.

PING (anyone with a more complete Romney PING list is welcome to pass it along)

Check out the full post at http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/05/desperate-times-call-for-desperate.html

Check out his campaign flyers from '94 . . . Front and Back Below is a portion of the flyer with some of the specific issue stances: Looks like he ran a pretty conservative campaign back then to me! I like to divide conservative credentials into three distinct areas: 1) Fiscal Conservatism 2) Social Conservatism 3) "Toughness" Conservatism (i.e. militarily or "tough on crime") Romney has had a consistant and flawless record as a "Fiscal Conservative" AND as a "Thoughness Conservative." Those points are solid and there has been no "movement" by Romney in those areas. Romney did not run in Mass as a "social conservative" but saying that he was a "social liberal" is not really correct either. His social stances put him as a solid "moderate" in this senatorial bid as Kennedy was to his left as the real and bonafide liberal in the race. So, to sum up . . . Romney was never close to being a "liberal." To even say that he was a "moderate" is missing two huge pieces of the conservative pie. Romney may have run as a "social moderate" but that's as far as the allegations should go. In reality, Romney's "move to the right" hasn't really been all that far.

Plus he's not the "liberal turned conservative flip-flopper" that the MSM keeps playing up. Check out his campaign flyers from '94 . . . Front and Back Below is a portion of the flyer with some of the specific issue stances: Looks like he ran a pretty conservative campaign back then to me! (obvious exception of abortion . . . which he's cleared the air on and has an actual pro-life record to point to as governor).