Mitt Romney needs to get a grip on his supporters pretty darn quick and how. Especially, and none too soon, he has to reprimand any of his backers who are spouting the line about not voting for John McCain if he wins the Republican nomination.
The Massachusetts governor also needs to cut this bunk being peddled about illegal activity committed during Mike Huckabee's victory in West Virginia. It was a caucus. Deals are cut. It has happened during every close caucus in history where a second vote was necessary. What happened in the Mountain State illustrates, at least among West Virginia caucus-goers, that McCain and Huckabee voters rate Romney as their third preference.
Not exactly world shaking.
So when Sean Hannity (who endorsed the Massachusetts governor) spouts off on national television last night about shady conspiracy theories, it makes his candidate look ridiculous and hurts the GOP. Certain prominent conservative are losing tons of credibility when they behave like this.
Right or wrong, buzzards are circling Romney's head with political observers speculating that he will give a salutatorian address at CPAC this Thursday before bowing out. That might be an appropriate time to give a good line or few about unity while reminding supporters, donors and certain talk show hosts that the Republican Party is a big tent party. And to grow up.
Obviously his supporters are free to vote - or not vote - according to their conscience. It is a free country.
Romney doesn't get that luxury. He is a Republican presidential candidate. What that means is when you finally cry "no mas" you pick up pom-poms and become the biggest cheerleader for the eventual nominee. McCain did it for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Reagan did it for Gerald Ford in 1976.
It is what Romney would expect from McCain or Huckabee if he got the nod.
You know what? If Romney had been more proactive slapping down the Ann Coulters of the world after they spew drivel about voting for Hillary over McCain, the man would probably have garnered more respect and support on Super Tuesday.
Extra: Another thing that needs to be addressed is this twaddle that Huckabee is acting the spoiler by splitting the conservative vote and throwing the election for McCain. (How can a liberal, socialist, Democrat like Huckabee split the conservative vote by the way?)
At any rate, it's a nice talking point. Just not true.
McCain not only won on Super Tuesday, he did it straight-up by outpolling Romney and Huckabee combined. Consider the "Big Mac" states where Romney placed second.
Arizona Primary: McCain 48% vs. Romney 34%, Huckabee 9%
Connecticut Primary: McCain 52% vs. Romney 33%, Huckabee 7%
Illinois Primary: McCain 47% vs. Romney 29%, Huckabee 17%
New Jersey Primary: McCain 55% vs. Romney 28%, Huckabee 8 %
New York Primary: McCain 51% vs. Romney 28%, Huckabee 11%
Deleware Primary: McCain 45% (Giuliani 3%) vs. Romney 33%, Huckabee 15%
California Primary: McCain 42% (Giuliani 6%) vs. Romney 33% Huckabee 12%
(I include Giuliani as a McCain vote in Delaware and California because of the New York mayor's endorsement)
In fact it can be argued that Romney is the one who is drawing votes away from Huckabee. At least that's what happened in Missouri and Oklahoma and states in the South.
Primary vs. Caucus: Even more devastating for Romney is that his popularity comes solely from a minority of GOP activists and not the general populace or the party on the whole. Of the Romney states; North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Colorado and Alaska only Massachusetts and Utah held primaries. The rest were caucuses.
Gee. It sure looks like Romney is the one who is really the establishment candidate and McCain is the fella who happens to be the man of the people. Rush and the conservative media are wrong - again - with that bit of propaganda.
McCain haters can gripe about the nomination being stolen or that "real" Republicans don't want a ticket aboard the Straight Talk Express. The numbers say otherwise. Democrats are too busy fighting the internecine Clinton-Obama battle to really care what happens among Republicans. And in the Michigan primary it was Romney who was the beneficiary of DailyKos-types gaming the system.
So ends those myths.
Update: I don't know if I have to whack people over the head with a two-ba-four but it is quite obvious that folks on the comments don't know how to read. Or their passion over hating McCain is such that they just can't use logic.
Guess what? I'm not supporting McCain yet. I don't have to. My guy is still in the race. I'm still working under the delusion that the last real conservative candidate running can pull this one off come convention time.
You can hate McCain all you want as private citizens. I don't like his stand on a lot of issues myself.
That still doesn't negate the main point of this post that it is Romney (Romney, Romney, Romney for those who need the clue) that has to get on the ball and start healing the rift that is dividing Republicans. Because it is many of his supporters who are the main culprits.
McCain needs to step up to the plate too but that's a different subject...
Contrary to what Eric said in post #5 yes it is the job of a candidate to control the message being put out by his supporters. When Ed Rollins and Chuck Norris made some negative comments on the campaign trail, the Huckabee team cracked down fast. Why? Because it made Huck look bad having Chuck crack-wise about McCain's age or Rollins wanting to knock out someone's teeth.
Romney can pick up the phone at any minute during the day and talk to Rush, or Hannity, or Coulter or whomever and say "Look, you're doing me, and the Republican Party, no favor talking like this..."
Instead we have his campaign lauding "McCain Derangement Syndrome" by promoting Dr. James Dobson's "choice of conscience" to not vote for the Arizona senator in November.
This is irresponsible behavior for a GOP presidential candidate.
But no. It's not Romney's fault. It never his. Someone else must always be to blame.
There is a bit of a chicken or egg problem with the ranting...are folks saying they won't vote for McCain because they're die-hard Romney voters, or are they Romney voters because they can't stand McCain. There's a difference, and you can't blame Romney for the behavior/words of the later.
And for all the venting about Romney's alleged damage to the Republican party for not singing Kumbaya soon enough for your personal taste, where's the outrage over McCain's looonnnnggggggg history of attacking fellow Republicans for his personal political/media gain...your example of his making nice with W after 2000 is fair, but there's a long list of other misdeeds.
Posted by: Whiskey Dick on February 6, 2008 06:29 AMYou really should think before you post sir.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 06:29 AMYou know as well as I that there is a big difference between controlling messages out of your own campaign and controlling the words of people who support you (especially those that have their own access to a microphone). Sure, he can disavow certain things. But holding Romney responsible for the likes of Ann Coulter or even Sean Hannity is more than a bit much.
Setting aside much of the "Romney sucks" theme of your post, I generally agree on the need for Romney to bow out with grace. I entirely expect he will, particularly after McCain's attempt at rapprochement last night in his victory speech.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 06:51 AMSorry, Mr. Ward, it just doesn't cut it. Guys like you and Dole and Kemp demanding that typical Republicans have to get behind McCain because . . ., well,er because isn't winning anyone over.
I was a Romney supporter and a Giuliani supporter.
And I started out as a supporter of Huckabee, Hunter, McCain also. The campaigns of Huck and McCain have turned me off. Simple as that. No hard feelings but those two are not my cup of tea.
And you are good at posting links, but I was curious why you didn't post a link stating why Romney said it was "illegal" (your words" activity. The quote I heard was it was a backroom deal. If backroom deals are by definition bad, you, my friend, are backing the backroom "wheeler-dealer" of this century.
Take a look at your statements and look at your candidate. It is one thing to be passionate but be passionate for the right reasons.
DW- Ummm, Swatter, because it was Sean Hannity that said it on FoxNews (before Newt Gingrich slapped him down) and his supporters parroting the message on talk radio. Which is exactly what I wrote.
It's Romney's job to disavow those statements when made in his name.
Posted by: swatter on February 6, 2008 06:52 AMYou guys just kill me.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 06:53 AMI have to wonder when Obama's FBI file shows up in Hillary's office.
Ahhhh Yes, we all remember them days.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 07:03 AMThe part that makes me worry. McCain could become our own Nightmare and follow the lib path, as he has done far to many times.
Can any of you tell me for sure that he will govern as a LIB or a REP.
(try not to trip over yourselfs)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 07:17 AMCPAC 2008 To Feature All Four Remaining GOP Presidential Candidates
Huckabee, McCain, Paul and Romney to seek conservative support at nation's largest annual gathering of activists, students and policymakers
ALEXANDRIA, VA -- Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Chairman David A. Keene announced that in addition to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, CPAC 2008 will feature all four remaining Republican candidates for President.
The candidates will appear at the following times over the course of the three-day conference to be held from February 7-9, 2008 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C.:
Thursday, February 7
Vice President Dick Cheney - 11:00 AM [8:00 AM PST]
Governor Mitt Romney - 12:30 PM [9:30 AM PST]
Senator John McCain - 3:00 PM [12:00 PM PST]
Congressman Ron Paul - 4:30 PM [1:30 PM PST]
Friday, February 8
President George W. Bush - 10:20 AM [7:20 AM PST]
Saturday, February 9
Governor Mike Huckabee - 9:00 AM [6:00 AM PST]
"One of CPAC's goals is to provide students and grassroots activists the opportunity to further educate themselves on candidates' positions on the various social, defense, free market and foreign policy issues important to them," said Keene.
"That being said, hosting both the current President and Vice President and the four frontrunners for the GOP nomination reflect the fact that for more than 30 years CPAC has been -- and will continue to be -- the must-attend event for candidates seeking conservative support," concluded Keene.
Posted by: Steve Beren on February 6, 2008 07:25 AMJohn Paul Stevens is 87, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74 and has a history of cancer, even Antonin Scalia is in his 70's!
Who among you wants a Presdent Clinton or Obama appointing to the court some 50-year old flaming liberal who will sit for the next 35-years?
The rest of the domestic agenda pales in comparison. You've got this and Iraq and the War on Terror, the only two things that will ultimately matter.
Any who contend they're willing to cede the next four years to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama out of spite for the past sins - and there have been many - of John McCain is acting and thinking petty.
To those who contend that it was just such a strategy that got us Ronald Reagan (allowing Jimmy Carter to fubar America and the world for four-years), I would respond that Ronald Reagan was inevitable; America was fated to experience his greatness.
But who is so crazy as to want to risk our future and that of our children and grandchildren to HRC or BHO? At a minimum, we'll get stuck with a $1.3 (or whatever) trillion sucky government controlled medical plan and massively higher taxes.
So totally not worth it!
Time to shelve the bruised egos, forgive past grievances, grit your teeth, screw your courage to the sticking place, and support the party's nominee. Period!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on February 6, 2008 08:55 AMI used to think "well, my candidate didn't get it so I'm taking my ball home and not voting" as well. This is flawed thinking. I'm the last one to jump on the McCain boat and I do so kicking and screaming (despite Michael Medved's Front runner fetishist attitude), but it's better than sulking along the roadside. Turn your anger on the leadership of the Republican party who've created this debacle and start cleaning house from the ground up.
The SCOTUS appointments/decisions made during this next 8 years will change the course of this country for good or for bad in the next 35-50 years. Vote your conscience, Vote your spleen or don't vote at all and let others decide the direction for you in the foreseeable future.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 6, 2008 09:03 AMPlease tell me. What proof do you or anyone else have that McCain will pick them.
As I have said so many times. He say's one thing then does another.
His history of sticking our party in the eye is just to much to let it pass by on his so called words he will follow the party.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 09:28 AMIt clearly does not follow that because "GOP activists" favor him that therefore he is "the establishment candidate," for many reasons, the most obvious being that GOP activists are the ones most likely to be angry at establishment Republicans like McCain! I know personally dozens of Romney supporters who have not been involved much with the party for years (including a county chair from the 70s), who came back to be PCOs and activists now because they are angry about where the party has led us. To say they represent "the establishment" is nonsense.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/28/open-borders-campaign-finance-hypocrisy-eco-radicalism-mccains-billionaire-national-finance-co-chair-jerry-perenchio/
Posted by: PC on February 6, 2008 09:36 AMI still have a primary to come (Texas) and I think we will tend towards Romney.
Posted by: Jeffrey on February 6, 2008 09:37 AMThe border means zip to you. Just like McCain.
And the Dem's want these people so bad, because it means votes for ever.
Thanks doug. Another Rep-lite.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 10:08 AMI don't want to be a compromise Democratlite party. You other folks shouldn't surrender your beliefs either. It is time we stop being ---- sandwich eating Republicans and clean house within our own party. I won't eat --- no longer. If McCain gets the nod, count me out in 2008.
Posted by: AP on February 6, 2008 10:22 AMIt's not just a talk radio hate phenomenon. I never really was for any candidate. I sort of liked Fred, sort of liked Mitt, sort of like Giuliani, and even agree with many of the small government ideas of Ron Paul, although not his isolationist foreign policy.
But I never liked McCain to begin with, long before the Limbaughs and Hannitys ever spoke. Go read Rand Simberg for an excellent analysis on McCain and his principles.
McCain appeals to people who are willing to take the simplistic angle of a "soldier's word." It's nice that McCain has conviction. But conviction without a principled guiding philosophy means nothing. And that's the trouble with McCain. His lack of principle leads to a scattershot adherance to conservativism.
On the one hand, he's pro-life and allegedly will appoint strict constitutionalist judges, but on the other hand, he's pro Global Warming, and doesn't want to drill in ANWR. He puts our economy and energy policy at risk on dubious science. That's not conservative, and it's actually far more dangerous than a blanket Marxist like Hillary or Obama that can be easily categorized as such.
And I could care less about the immigration issue in terms of McCain. There's a big myth that illegal immigrants mean less jobs for Americans, but then how does that explain the explosion of our economy and employment rate, even whilst millions of illegals have been making there way here over the last 20 years. I do agree that we need to get a better handle on the influx or people, reject criminals and terrorists, and fine and tax the hell out of those arriving as we do our own citizens. But immigration is an MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome) distraction.
The real problem with McCain is that he is effectively a conservative Progressive in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing that will do far more damage to conservativism. Not by his own actions, so much as by eliminating the placeholder that has existed for all of us small government fiscal conservatives in the Republican ranks.
If McCain is elected, then small government conservatives wander the Progressive desert as diaspora, looking for a party they can call home.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2008 10:27 AMI understand and agree. I first started voting back in Nixon days. It's been so hard to watch this once great party make a left turn and keep heading that direction.
Big Government will bring this great country nothing but trouble.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 6, 2008 10:28 AMRep-lite? Do I have to explain to you again what the exit polling of Republican voters say? It's very simple: Those who voted in the Republican race who believe that a staunch immigration stance is the most important issue of the day is 10-13% of the voters. Yes, the other 87-90% of the Republican voters are REP-LITE in your world, and Malkin's world.
Less than half of the Republican voters believe that deportation is a must - this is slightly more than Democratic voters. The 10-13% number is slightly more than what you would find in Democratic circles.
The point is that no matter how much the talk show pundits and news media wants to portray it, there is little difference across party lines on the issue of illegal immigration.
Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee....what more do you want? It doesn't matter, does it? No matter which Republican nominee is in the White House, the issue will be dealt with the same way. Neither Mitt nor Thompson would have made any difference over Huckabee, Rudy, or McCain on this matter.
I'm willing to accept McCain's warts for his economic/fiscal policy, his stance on Iraq and judicial appointments (he voted to confirm Alito, Roberts and Pryor).
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2008 10:44 AMThis is something I hadn't heard said that is absolutely true. Kudos for realizing it.
Posted by: cliff on February 6, 2008 10:48 AMAs it now stands, not matter who is elected, this nation is in for some tough times. None of the presumed front runners wants to secure our border. MCCain has even called Americans lazy fat asses when he stood up on the senate floor and told us we are too lazy to "pick lettuce in the hot sun for $50/hr".
Nope. Not gonna do it. I will not vote for McCain just becaus he is a Republican! He will implement the same bad policy that Hill or Barack would. And the bonus for liberals is that when those policies prove disaterous, they can claim it was all the Republicans fault. When Republicans try to out liberal the liberals, they are no longer Republicans.
Better that history record the demise of the US happened at the hand of the other party. No sir, I will not sign on as an accomplice to the destruction of my beloved nation.
Posted by: pbj on February 6, 2008 10:49 AMI was 18 in 1994. The was the first time and last time I was really excited to be a Republican. Since then the party has drifted away from me and many other younger folks sick of crony, bloated, ineffective government.
I am sitting out the 2008 election, though I may vote Obama as a protest vote against the Democratlite cancers killing the Republican party.
Posted by: AP on February 6, 2008 10:54 AMBaloney. RINOs who voted against Bush tax cuts:
Chafee, Snowe, McCain
All you conservatives and classic liberals out there, go to the caucuses and vote in the primary for Romney! There is some hope left!
Posted by: AP on February 6, 2008 10:58 AMLet me try and help you understand.
For the past 8 years we have had a president that has been a disappointment to us. He has had his moments where he shined, however, he also showed us he is for big government as much as any big government Democrat. For the party that holds the Gipper in such high esteem, as I do, it is surprising that he doesn't recognize why "government is the problem". There are things he has done to try and appease the Democrats that offended the base of the Republican party. Now we are being offered John McCain, a guy who has an even worse record of 'so called' reaching across the aisle to Democrats. It is extremely offensive and disheartening to see that the GOP is going to continue to do business as usual. I fully came on board when Newt Gingrich presented us with the contract with America. I have had many a disappointment since.
No, I will not be voting for McCain, if he wins in November it will be without my vote. Then don't be surprised when he starts smooching Democrat booty right away.
I just don't see how my agenda, and the agenda of many of my fellow Republicans can be advanced by voting for a fellow like John McCain. I see the left agenda advancing though.
I'm very weary of holding my nose at the polls. I wish that Republicans would vote their concience instead of who they think can beat the Democrat challenger. In the end you really can't be so sure that Romney or Huckabee couldn't win. It's just your paranoia ruling you.
Posted by: REBEL on February 6, 2008 11:03 AMI challenge any one of you to show me wrong.
The MOST important issue facing us over the next four years is the War on Terror. Unlike the economy, abortion, healthcare and even to some extent immigration, this is not something that we can take the wrong path on, live four years of hell, and then correct ourselves four years later (as we did from 77-81). If we screw this one up and Hillary becomes president the terrorists will be emboldened and you'll start seeing buildings falling once again. Please, tell me that's worth it. It's not a foregone conclusion but really, are you willing to risk another 9/11 just because McCain rubs you the wrong way?! (And that's not to mention the above points about SCOTUS appointments.)
No way will I grit my teeth and vote McCain as requested.
Posted by: Mike on February 6, 2008 11:20 AMThat doesn't mean he opposes tax cuts, just those ones. He also knew those tax cuts would not have been accompanied by spending cuts, so he voted his conscience. I'm fine with that.
He's been a consistent spending hawk in the Senate, something his fellow "conservatives" have failed miserably at. If you read the link I posted, he states his positions on tax cuts AND spending cuts. That's REAL fiscal conservatism that doesn't produce the huge budget deficits we'll be facing for the next several years.
Since when did being prudent with tax cuts and insisting that they are accompanied by spending cuts mean you're a RINO? Balanced budgets *are* conservative. It's about time we had one.
Posted by: Palouse on February 6, 2008 11:23 AMThe terorrists know to look for our weak spot. 911 proved that for anyone with a brain. And the border is THE weak spot bar none. The issue isn't so much about Wan Valdez coming to pick apples as it is about Osama Bin Laden coming in with a WMD to take out Pheonix.
Who here thinks AQ wouldn't get an orgasm is they were able to take out a US city with a WMD attack? Think it can't happen? Yeah, and planes could never be hijacked, crashed into buildings causing them to collapse either. WAKE UP! We are sleep walking like it's 9/10 in a post 911 world!
I refuse to be an accomplice to the next terorrist attack perpetrated by invaders crossing our open border.
Posted by: pbj on February 6, 2008 11:29 AMThe most effective decline in non-Military government growth came during the Clinton years, but not due to Clinton. The major factors shaping it was Al Gore's personal invovlement in the Reinventing Government initiative that was given the sharp stick to get busy due to Newt's take over of the House. Newt and cohorts hard line in government spending could not effect the change by itself. It took Gore's effort to come up with new ways of performing government functions (and deciding what functions needed to perform). On the reverse, I doubt Gore would have been effective at motivating entrenched agencies to get busy w/o the sledgehammer of budget cuts/holds that Newt and gang were implementing.
Posted by: tc on February 6, 2008 11:54 AMDid I ever say de-port them all (NO)
Just to get it right with you. I come from San Diego and worked as a medic there. Buddy I've birthed more babies from Mexico on HWY 5 & 805 then you have fingers & toes.
So don't even tell me people are pissed about it.
For example, how would you Romney supporters defend against the following analysis:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004209.html
Posted by: tc on February 6, 2008 12:20 PMRepublican voters, being asked to be more loyal to the Republican party than John McCain has been?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You hit it right on the head. I love the fact the he has told us to CALM DOWN. Yeah keep it up John, that will help you make it to the W/H.
Instead, maybe it's those who blindly support the party who could mature just a bit.
Posted by: jimg on February 6, 2008 12:32 PMROMNEY caused the rift? Oh Mental Ward, that is really rich.
Pleas tell us, where was Romney when McCain Fiengold was passed restricting our free speech? GO over to KVI and talk to Kirby Wilbur about that one. The pro-tax government goons used it (illegally it turns out) to silence Carlson and Wilbur prior to the vote on I-920. You remember that one don't you? That was the increase in gas tax that was going to fix the viaduct. Has it been fixed yet? HA HA HA !
And please tell us what was in that McCain Kennedy pro-illegal shamnesty plan. You can't? Perhaps that is because it was a back room deal in the shady places of DC!
The rift with McCain was there LONG BEFORE Romney even entered politics. To think somehow that this is a recent thing shows inherent or willful ignorance on your part.
Posted by: pbj on February 6, 2008 12:49 PM'And please tell us what was in that McCain Kennedy pro-illegal shamnesty plan. You can't? Perhaps that is because it was a back room deal in the shady places of DC!'
WOW, you're complaining about the McCain Kennedy bill but you don't know what was in it?
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 12:58 PMI wrote that he has to start "healing" the rift. Difference? You think that you would have gotten that since you 1) read my words then 2) copied the words and then 3) tried to rewrite the words yourself but failed.
Don't try to label me as a McCainiac either. Am not nor have I ever been. Take your bile and go elsewhere.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 6, 2008 01:01 PMYou keep saying this, Duffman. But I don't get it.
You have to sign-up with a campaign to receive these emails. And even then, just hit the "block" or "spam" button and it's over.
Alternative: you wanted to receive these emails to bitch about something.
Posted by: piquoine on February 6, 2008 01:08 PMI think I can speak for the people here (however, I am voting for the best candidate in November), McCain has to show reconciliation toward others. He can't be going around calling us racists, foolish, to 'grow up' (to quote a poster here).
I still say that CPAC is going to be a very important day for the McCainiacs.
Posted by: swatter on February 6, 2008 01:16 PMAhem. Since we're quoting everyone's 3rd favorite SP poster...
"Obviously his supporters are free to vote - or not vote - according to their conscience. It is a free country."
I understand the reason why people hate McCain. I'm not supporting him myself at the moment.
Romney doesn't get the luxury of "swatter" in Washington state. Romney has to put on his biggest, phoney used car salesman smile and ask conservative Republicans (and his supporters) to opt for the extended warranty on The Straighttalk Express (when the time comes).
That's what Republican candidates are supposed to do and that is EXACTLY what I wrote above.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 6, 2008 01:35 PMThe idea that Don is encouraging ANYONE to rally behind McCain in his post is just silly. READ the whole post, and not just the posts that inflame your intense hatred of McCain before you comment.
Goodness...
Posted by: Cydney on February 6, 2008 01:59 PMYou wrote:
"I didn't write that Romney "caused" the rift now did I?"
No, you wrote that it was his supporters as shown below:
"Because it is many of his supporters who are the main culprits."
For the record - I don't support Romney. But I am well aware of this McCain rift and it hasn't just come about during this election as you are falsely portraying.
Before there even was a Romney for president, and thus before there were even Romney for president supporters, this rift with McCain has exisited. It has always been McCain himself that created and perpetuates the rift. And now he comes rolling in on the sweettalk express and we are supposed to take his word?
I don't think so.
The rift is a fundamental flaw in the McCain character that has absolutely nothing to do with Romney. Scapegoating Romney isn't going to make it go away.
Posted by: pbj on February 6, 2008 02:19 PMCydney, there is a big difference between encouraging and inviting conservatives into the tent. There is also a difference between encouraging and demanding/insulting.
I don't see McCain doing it. I also laugh at how in the world is Obama going to blow in this new wave of unity and peace and love. The only way that will happen is if he uses his police power against the citizens of the US or he does what the Rs want and fools the Ds.
Posted by: swatter on February 6, 2008 02:36 PMWhat's wrong with you people? Do you want Billary in office?
Posted by: Neo-Con on February 6, 2008 03:43 PMSwift Boating your own nominee, indeed.
Yeah 4 years of Hillary/Obama and the blood of a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi children on your hands. "But at least it was the Democrats!" You disgust me. Scoring cheap political points at the expense of human life? Take that and stick it in your pro-life pipe and smoke it. You know as soon as we show weakness the enemy will rise in numbers and force. If you saw that tape on CNN today or any of the Hamas kid shows you know that they are preparing their children for a future of war and terror and here you are undermining possibly the only man with the nuts and will to win it just because you have penis envy or he isn't puritanical enough for you.
UN FRACKING BELIEVABLE.
Grow up aren't the right words. You better be prepared for horrific attacks increasing in number and frequency if you think abandoning Iraq to its fate so you can claim some sort of moral uppityism is a wise policy decision. You think Billary or Obama are going to clamp down on the border? Ridiculous. You think they will appoint strict constitutionalist judges? Laughable. You think they will win in the War On Terror? They refuse to even call it that, and can't wait to pack it up and SURRENDER.
I'm 27. Quit trying to frack over my generation so you can feel good about yourselves. God damn Boomers are responsible for Capitulating Carter and this Islamic Radical nonsense and our shipping all sorts of money/weapons (during the REAGAN YEARS) into the very hands of people who use them against us. You could at least clean up the mess you started. Or at least let us finish it for you, since it's guys my age and younger that are over there sticking it to them.
And by the way, Romney is a weasel wording Waffling Waffler. He answered that damn timetable question using language that was weaselable from either side of the equation so he could never be held accountable for it instead of sticking it out and saying HELL YEAH WE SHOULD WIN.
Posted by: Aaron on February 6, 2008 06:35 PMI will not commit suicide for Hillary.
We will get a liberal in the White House, but I'd rather one that agrees with some of my ideas and values than one who scorns all of them.
Adults know they can't always get everything or exactly what they want and adults know sometimes you just have to use imagination and effort to make a gourmet dinner out of yesterdays leftovers, that it CAN be done.
As I said in the other post, Those of you who feel soiled by focusing on what the world is today, and operating within it to reach an objective, will eschew this advice. To these people, it's more important to get the ideology down pat in all its permutations and modifications, then find a candidate who embodies the totality of that philosophy, and then achieve power. Meanwhile, the counter-philosophy will be doing everything it can to solidify grip on the power you seek, so that when the ideology is correct and your white knight arrives, the exercise will be pointless.
It ain't pretty, but it's true.
We're going to lose the election in November. We're not going to be defeated by Liberalism and their Democrat enablers. We're going to cut our own throats and revel in the bloody mess as either a woman with the highest negatives of any candidate in U.S. electoral history, or the most vacuous, platitudinous-driven man to ever run for national office, is swept into power. And once in power, unlike the "it will get so bad the country will revolt" fantasy that drives this Conservative/Republican suicidal impulse, these guys will remain in power for another generation implementing all the programs that we, allegedly, so despise that we opted out of the electoral process in 2008 to allow them to come into existence.
I absolutely despise Ron Paul and his loopy Paulbearers because they snottily refuse to commit to support whomever is the GOP candidate. I despise him because I believe he is an absolute liar in calling himself a conservative. I despise him because it's a "my way or I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude.
I am absolutely shocked to learn I may have to despise my fellow conservatives for doing the very same thing, and as a result subjecting all of us to Whorrabillary.
I agree with Hugh. We have to unite behind the nominee if we have any chance of beating the Democrats this year. However, there are many conservative voters who refuse to support a McCain candidacy and have become so anti-McCain that they're willing to lose the election instead of vote for him.
The GOP, the new Rachel Corrie party.
Anyone remember Rachel Corrie?
Well all you "I won't vote McCain" conservatives are our very own Rachel Corries: lying down and refusing to see the steamroller coming at you.
You DO happen to remember she literally bit the dust by ignoring that steamroller, don't you?
Rest in peace.
NO! I take that back.
Rest in the TOTAL AND COMPLETE MISERY that you will have created.
We won't need Whorribillary to tear the GOP assunder, we are capably doing it to ourselves.
What a damned shame.
I get your general point and believe the conduct of his own campaign in the coming weeks and when eventually bowing out will speak to the "healing" you emphasize.
However, I still think you're analogy is flawed. Ed Rollins is Huckabee's campaign chair and/or chief strategist. Chuck Norris is his near constant traveling companion. If any similar such person in Romney's orbit were saying what you lament you'd have a better point. Instead you're expecting Romney to insert the same control over movement conservatives not affiliated with his campaign who have their own platforms for communicating with the public. That's not a reasonable comparison.
Besides, at this point I think you've spent more time complaining about what people sympathetic to Romney were saying than the time they actually spent saying it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 09:19 PMYep. A fantasy just like your's that these so-called conservatives McCain/Bush/etc won't implement the same kind of programs we so despise if we give THEM another generation.
If you die from an accumulation of paper cuts, you're just as dead as from a single massive wound.
I, for one, have had enough.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on February 6, 2008 09:33 PMWith these actions comes blowback and that is the firestorm that McCain is now experiencing from the conservative base. This blowback was something he created with his "maverick" approach to politics, and it angers me that he is the last man standing in this important time in American history. Nonetheless, I realize my only choice lies with a 3rd rate conservative like McCain or with a 5th and 6th rate Democratic candidate field of Clinton and Obama.
I don't necessarily blame McCain as much as I blame the RNC leadership that seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel in terms of grooming someone for this election...what's next? Keith Richards/Mick Jagger in 2012?
The same Cookie cutter candidates that keep emerging on the GOP side will not work in this new media age competing with unqualified, but charismatic lefties like B.O. The "Viagra Twins" Dole/McCain running on the "little blue pill ticket" is not the future of politics, but the political death of a once great Grand Ole Party.
Let's try to do the right thing in this election and pick the lesser of two evils...the choices are : the devil we don't know or devil we do know (at least 65% of the time).
Posted by: Rick D. on February 6, 2008 09:49 PMIt is a perfectly reasonable comparison. I can't find major McCain or Huckabee backers who are out there saying "If Romney wins the nomination, I'm sitting out or I'm voting for Hillary."
Point them out. Please. I've looked and tried to find some. Who are the major McCain or Huckabee endorsements that are voting for Hillary if Romney gets the nomination?
You have Huckabee backers out there who, like myself, will vote for McCain over Romney because the latter is "a phoney". You might have McCainiacs who'll vote for Romney over Huckabee because they don't like those kooky evangelicals. But at the end of the day most McCainiacs and Huckabites are going to vote for the eventual GOP nominee.
It's only from the Romney camp that I'm hearing the Dante ultimatum. Yes I know the hatred of McCain is older than Romney but it is in his court now.
Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, and much of the conservative media establishment are Romney supporters. Granted a lot of these people might be recent converts or Fredhead expatriates. But they're Romney backers now.
Any time during the day Romney can get on the phone and talk to these people and get time on the air.
It is up to Romney right now to stop Hillary-over-McCain madness before things spiral out of control.
Guess what? If Romney began deflating some of these windbags he'd probably get a lot more support, respect and street cred.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 6, 2008 09:50 PMBelieve what you'd like, but your comparison still doesn't work. Candidates are not responsible for talk radio hosts and expecting them to exert the same control over those personalities as they do over their own campaign advisers doesn't make sense. Candidly, I expected a bit more from you given the experience I know you have with campaigns.
Moreover, I keep a pretty close eye on the Romney campaign's message and other than alerting people to Dobson's comments I have yet to see any such talk from the Romney campaign itself. Romney even said at the last debate that McCain is a "good Republican" while offering some other generally kind words, even as they were going at it pretty strongly.
I think you're projecting onto a candidate based on what you're hearing from what you yourself describe as the "conservative media establishment." As you allude to, may of them are really people that gravitated to Romney after having a crush on Fred.
Why Romney is responsible for their long-time anti-McCain feelings is beyond me. Given the passion involved, I don't think anything Romney could say is going to change their feelings or their advocacy.
Lastly, just because there isn't a prominent Huckabee backer saying the same thing over the airwaves doesn't mean there aren't some rank-and-file Huckabee supporters who will have qualms about McCain too. That gap speaks more to Huckabee's inability to draw support from movement conservative leaders than anything else.
In the end, I don't like the depth of the "Hillary over McCain" thinking any more than you do, but if there's one thing I've learned both interacting with folks in the base and from this blog is that people's feelings about McCain are very deeply held. Precious little beyond concessions and appeals from McCain himself will do much to change that.
That's why I think you're barking up the wrong tree with expecting Romney to take the lead in fixing the mess McCain started making for himself years ago.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 10:09 PM(I know that wasn't the perfect analogy but I'm a local boy.)
Back on to the bigger topic. Romney isn't living in a vacuum. He has to know that there is this massive anti-McCain movement out there (not as large as we'd think I'd hazard but large enough). He knows the Limbaughs and the Dobsons of the world are saying the things they're saying.
For political gamesmanship this is theoretically good for the Romney camp. But as a GOP presidential candidate who at the end of the day will have to support the nominee Romney can't in good faith sit around while the party implodes around him.
(Yes, I know McCain has some 'splainin to do.)
As an honest broker Romney has to do something on his part. Weaseling out, once again, is not an option.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 6, 2008 10:32 PMI think a good example is when Chuck Norris said that John McCain was too old to lead. Sure, there's plenty reason to agree with the statement, but Huckabee has come out time and time again and disagreed with his guy. Moreover, Romney seems to get many of his talking points from the talkers supporting him; in short, he perpetuates the same nonsense they're spewing. This is damaging to his fellow party members.
While you're right that Romney does not need to dispell rumors, I agree with Don that he would appear to many to be a more honorable man if he were he to come out against them and lift up his adversaries rather than tear them down.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 6, 2008 10:38 PMI don't disagree with that. I think given that the race is still active (even if it's already decided) the best time for Romney to say what you're advocating for, with the greatest effect, is as he departs the race. In the meantime, I expect his own differences with McCain will be stated rather respectfully.
Lynnwood Evangelical -
I agree with your example, as and I said to Don, if it was someone close to Romney's camp (such as Norris is to Huckabee) I believe he would take such a step. And as I just said to Don above, I suspect he will take that step for a number of reasons...and especially if McCain can keep being as gracious as he was in his "victory speech" last night.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 10:50 PMI fully agree that both should bow out and unite behind McCain. Although I've also pointed out that McCain has some very serious flaws, that will hurt him and his chances at electability. And what he's not willing to do to bring the party together is much more damaging than anything that any of us out here in voter land can do by ourselves.
If McCain wants to get serious about uniting the GOP, he should renounce his Global Warming support and focus on a serious energy policy that will help this country grow.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 6, 2008 11:10 PMI'm slaving over my Comprehensive Strategy To Carry the GOP And Prevent A McCain Nomination at the moment (that the working title). Sadly I've run out of Captain Morgan and am now resorting to gin-and-tonic to complete the master piece. Could take time.
So no back sass.
If Romney wants to continue to dump millions of his kids' inheritance to get second place then fine. If not, Romney needs to drop out. Political arithmetic. Simple. Much.
Posted by: Don Ward on February 6, 2008 11:42 PMHe also hates Mormons just for being Mormons. I assume those same prejudices were nurtured the same as his growing up in the South and the prejudices against blacks.
Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 07:31 AMHe was honored to meet me!
And I agree with swatter ... Huckabee is very nasty. Dunno if he hates Mormons, but he sure tries to look like he does. This is reminiscent of the "Southern strategy" as applied to religion ...
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 08:11 AM"One of CPAC's goals is to provide students and grassroots activists the opportunity to further educate themselves on candidates' positions on the various social, defense, free market and foreign policy issues important to them," said Keene.
"That being said, hosting both the current President and Vice President and the four frontrunners for the GOP nomination reflect the fact that for more than 30 years CPAC has been -- and will continue to be -- the must-attend event for candidates seeking conservative support," concluded Keene.
Steve, is that why John McCain chose not to attend last year's CPAC? Was it because last year he was not a 'candidate' or is the reason simply because McCain was not, is not and will not be a Conservative?
REBEL: wait a minute ... so we should not be so brain-dead as to care what Limbuagh or Hannity say, but we SHOULD be so brain-dead as to care what YOU say?
Interesting.
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 08:45 AMWhy should I show more loyalty to the Republican Party than McCain?
Posted by: pbj on February 7, 2008 08:49 AMComprehend what you're reading. I said you ought to know on your own. You know such as in seeing McCains history.
Posted by: REBEL on February 7, 2008 09:23 AMI don't remember saying he wasn't. But if you want to call him a hypocrite: Christ himself was pretty "nasty" to the other religious leaders because of their actions. Sometimes even a good person needs to be "nasty" to get a point across.
I don't care when Huckabee said what and whether the guy was in the room; what matters is that he defended McCain when it mattered. Romney has shown that he'll defend only Romney when it matters.
Regarding the Mormonism thing: Swatter, do you really thing he hates Mormons? Of course not. The comment was made during an interview that got sidetracked to talking about different religions. It's not talk for a presidential election, and so he apologized for it. But, the fact is Mormons do believe what he said they believe. I can only see it being a problem for people if they're ashamed that they believe it.
I'm not denying that many Evangelicals are skeptical of Mormonism and some may "hate" them; but I don't think Huckabee does.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 7, 2008 09:30 AMThere were a couple of gotcha moments on the Mormon religion that Huckabee fell prey to, not just one.
And, I still can't figure out the hatred of Romney. I am not in the backroom making the deals so I don't have the best information.
Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2008 09:53 AMNo Doug, Lieberman will not be voting for a Republican this year. He will be voting for a liberal Democrat who has successfully fooled enough people with the help of the MSM.
Posted by: pbj on February 7, 2008 10:31 AMNow that Romney is out, I guess it is all you Huckabee supporters that are dividing the party huh?
Posted by: pbj on February 7, 2008 11:32 AM" Also if McCain is 'our' nominee, we are probably looking at president Obama. "
If Barack Obama is the Democrat nominee we will be looking at President Obama as the campaign strategy of John McCain and the Liberal leadership of the Republican Party is to confront the base of the Republican Party, the grassroots and the Conservatives, with the refrain "You don't want Hillary president, do you?".
Without Clinton for McCain to point at and say " If you don't vote for me you will get her! ", McCain has nothing to offer the grassroots and Conservatives and he will need to rely on his base of moderates, independents and single issue Democrats, who would be split with the Democrats.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on February 7, 2008 01:13 PMRight, so why are you telling us what you think about it, when we should know on our own?
Posted by: pudge on February 7, 2008 03:08 PM" 88. Doug@84,
No Doug, Lieberman will not be voting for a Republican this year. He will be voting for a liberal Democrat who has successfully fooled enough people with the help of the MSM. "
pjb:
I partially agree with you.
Yes, Lieberman will not be voting for a Republican this year, he will be voting for a Liberal, with Liberals the party label is irrelevant. Which Liberal he will actually vote for we probably will not know but we do know which Liberal Lieberman is supporting. John McCain.
Not only does Liberal Democrat Lieberman share John McCain's Liberal ideology, as evidenced by the McCain / Lieberman 'Global Warming' legislation, as a Socialist Lieberman shares John McCain's anti-capitalism, capitalism being one of the basic planks from which the Republican Party was built, as McCain displayed in his attack on Mitt Romney's success in business at the last 'Republican' debate.