Did Billy Mays reincarnate into Obama's body? Listening to Obama last night had the feel of an infomercial . . . every good thing anyone could want at an UNBELIEVABLY low price! In fact, he went further by basically telling us that if we do not support this plan that we are immoral, cold, greedy and heartless people, trying to guilt us into supporting it. And we better act fast too! THIS IS A LIMITED TIME OFFER! Well, I'm hear to tell you that Oxi-Clean and the Slap-Chop are much better deals than what Obama is selling, despite his claims that they will cost more than his plan.
Like Rep Boustany (who gave the GOP response to Obama) I'm a physician from Louisiana. I live/work/breath healthcare everyday as a vitreoretinal surgeon. I'm informed and aware of the issues at hand and I and my patients are worried to death that Obama's plan will kill our healthcare system if it is passed.
There are major portions of this bill that are great. The health-insurance "exchange" is a very good idea. Making insurance portable as people change/lose jobs is also a must. Providing more accountability/liability to insurance companies who drop people when they get sick needs to happen. I'm even for a "mandate" that all people get some type of catastrophic care coverage . . . this is only because there is already a "mandate" on ERs/Hospitals to treat the uninsured; the resulting costs are already being paid by all of us in the form of higher taxes and higher insurance premiums.
It is no coincidence that all of these laudable points above find their roots in the Mass plan that ROMNEY helped develop under the watchful care and advice of the HERITAGE FOUNDATION think tank. Sure, the Democratic legislature and current Gov in MA have expanded that plan, and it was never perfect, but IT'S A SCARY THING WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO PASS A HEALTHCARE BILL THAT IS MORE LIBERAL AND EXPANSIVE THAN THE RECENLTY PASSED PLAN IN OUR MOST LIBERAL STATE!!
Obama's deceptions were manifold:
1) The bottom line for this plan and last night's infomercial is that it doesn't pass "the smell test." How in the world is it going to offer care to 30 million more Americans, improve Medicare coverage, and force insurance compainies to enroll/keep the sickest people on their rolls AND BE CHEAPER AT THE SAME TIME?!?!?! That's what Obama is promising folks, and he's lying through his teeth. He says that the savings will be found in current Medicare/Medicaid waste/fraud, eh? Well prove to us over the next few years that you can glean this money back out of the system and put it in a trust fund to help pay for any future plan. Essentially Obama admitted that he has been derelict in his duty up until now in allowing this fraud and waste to take place . . . that he'll only go after it if we pass his plan. Can you say "SMOKE AND MIRRORS?"
2) He said that Abortions won't be covered in the new plan . . . I'll believe that when I see it. That flies in the face of what he's said in the past as he's promised that "woman's health" and "reproductive" services would be central and covered in any public option plan. If he's really changing his tune on that then I'm excited . . . but none of the current bills have a "Hyde Amendment" equivalent that will be necessary to ensure that the courts don't find a "fundamental right" to abortion in the public plan after it is passed. America, don't fall for any bill that does not have a Hyde Amendment equivalent to gaurnatee no tax-payer funded abortions.
3) Tort Reform: I loved it when the GOP section cheered for about a minute when he brought up this issue. NONE OF THE BILLS currently have any mention of tort reform. The direct costs of malpractice to the current system are only 2-3% of the current healthcare total . . . but the indirect costs are estimated to be upwards of 20% through the practice of "defensive medicine." As a physician I can truly attest that physicians are now trained and conditioned to "treat the chart" more than we "treat the patient." But Obama just paid "lip service" to Tort Reform by saying he was having his HHS secretary look into pilot programs for tort reform. WHAT A COP OUT! Like I'm supposed to trust a trial lawyer/politician like Obama to go against the trial lawyer lobby and make tort reform happen . . . Did you know that trial lawyers political donations go 99% to Democrats? Hmm . . . IF IT'S NOT IN THE BILL THEN IT WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!VOW TO NOT SUPPORT ANY HEALTHCARE BILL THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE VITALLY NEEDED TORT REFORM.
4) Insurance Industry Mandates: Maybe laws do need to be written that insurance companies have to do all the things he mentioned last night, but don't think for one second that your premiums won't shoot up in cost as a result. How can they 1) not deny people for pre-existing conditions, 2) not charge women more than men, 2) not drop sick people, and 4) have to offer all the preventative care imaginable and NOT have to pass those increased costs/risks/liabilities on to the rest of the consumers? It is well known that women use healthcare dollars at a higher rate than men (more likely to seek out a doctor, more likely to ask a physician for medication/tests, reproductive issues, etc . . .). I know I pay more for auto insurance because of my sex and I'm fine with that since males do drain auto insurance dollars with more risky driving behavior. Why doesn't the same common sense apply to healthcare? I actually could be talked into not allowing one's gender to alter healthcare premiums, as long as this "ignoring of gender" applied to all realms of insurance as well . And I'm still not sure how to process a company not "Denying someone with a pre-existing condition" . . . that's like calling to get fire insurance as you stand outside watching your home burn down. It's a horrible situation to be sure, but to make insurance compainies bail out irresponsible people doesn't sit well either. I've got a solution to this below!
The biggest problem with all the plans offered so far is that there is NO plan to reduce healthcare costs . . . it's all focused at expanding coverage and is abhorrently fiscally irresponsible. Also, the plan(s) completely ignores the laws of economics. With a public option available, it has been shown that many physicians will take and early retirement or switch careers. Even if none did, there would be 15% more insured people to take care of. The principles of supply and demand don't figure well with those statistics and fears of "rationing of care" and "wait lists" are well-founded.
Also, although one must admit that Obama is a good "salesman" and an effective communicator, his tone was dissappointing. He spent soooo much time attacking critics of his plan dishing out terms like "obstructionist, Un-American, liars, Fear-mongering, riled-up," and many more. This tone made it a highly partisan attack on his detractors and wasn't Presidential at all IMO.
The Fuller Fix to Healthcare:
1) Set up an insurance exchange which will allow interstate selling of insurance policiesand will allow for all types of insurance plans to be offered (including catastrophic care plans, expanded health-savings accounts, etc . . . ) State legilsatures have run-amok with mandates on insurance providers requiring all policies to their citizens offer services like accupucture, sex-changes, substance abuse recovery programs, mental health coverage, fertility treatments, etc . . . These things have been pushed through for decades with pressure coming from these specific lobbies and from union/labor special interests. While most of these services may have their place in the system, to require they be covered for everyone in the state is just absurd. And we wonder why insurance premiums and healthcare costs are rising . . . geez!
2) Tort reform . . . do it! See the practice patterns change as we're able to focus more on patient care and worry less about getting sued frivilously.
3) Allow physicians to deduct the free healthcare they provide in their offices from their personal income tax filings. Do this and there will be much less of a strain on the ERs and the total healthcare costs will be much less in office-based care than in ER-based care. This would also allow much greater access and care to those with "pre-existing conditions" as mentioned above. Obviously, this system would have to be monitored for potential fraud and abuses on both sides (those receiving the free care and the physicians), but it would solve the problem of "the uninsured" withough creating a huge new government plan and beaurocracy.
4) Allow more "co-op" options for healthcare, where people who maintain a certain level of healthy behavior can buy into plans with large communities and/or large companies at reduced costs. This would encourage more healthy behavior and would be a great long-term cost-saver.
5) Don't allow any expansion of government-provided healthcare . . . and if possible, reduce it. Medicare/Medicaid are already too large and have severely hampered the insurance industry from following free-market trends. Any new "public option" is absolutely going to be a Trojan-horse as publically admitted by nearly every proponent of a single-payer system. Don't give them that chance to absolutely destroy our system that allows for the highest quality care anywhere in the world.
Romney got healthcare reform in the most liberal state without a new "public option" . . . why would the nation as a whole accept a plan that has it?
First, some background on the poll. It was a survey of 1,011 adults . . . not likely voters (which usually makes polls trend more liberal) and was conducted July 24-27.
Respondents Political Identification:
Independent 41%
Democrat 30%
Republican 22%
Political Views:
Conservative 37%
Moderate 35%
Liberal 23%
Would you like to see Mitt Romney as president some day, or not?
Would like to see 24%
Would not like to see 50%
Sounds Bad, right? I mean 50% don't want to see him as POTUS . . . but look by comparison at Palin's numbers:
Would you like to see Sarah Palin as president some day, or not?
Would like to see 21%
Would not like to see 67%
Mitt obviously has much less of a hill to climb right now that Palin.
But for the real important point, let's start by looking at the approval ratings for political figures AND political parties:
Approval Ratings: Positive / Negative [Net]
Hillary Clinton: 53% / 31% [+22%]
Barack Obama: 55% / 34% [+21%]
Mitt Romney: 28% / 20% [+8%]
Democratic Party: 42% / 37% [+5%]
Sonia Sotomayor: 31% / 27% [+4%]
Joe Biden: 38% / 36% [+2%]
Sarah Palin: 32% / 43% [-11%]
Republican Party: 28% / 41% [-13%]
Nancy Pelosi: 25% / 44% [-19%]
Now let’s look at these numbers in a different way that may take some of the sampling bias out (like if they polled too many Dems/libs . . . which it seems like). By comparing each persons approval rating adusted for their political party. I’ll take their net approval/disapproval rating and subtract their parties net rating (Dem. at +5%, GOP at -13% . . . a whopping 18% gap when most generic 2010 congressional ballots are dead even . . . which is proof this poll oversampled Dems/libs). This was not in the poll, but was my own idea to break down the data.
Difference between politician's net approval rating and the approval rating of their party:
Mitt +21%
Hillary +17%
Barack +16%
Palin +2%
Sotomayor -1%
Biden -3%
Pelosi -24%
In other words, Mitt’s net approval is a full 21% better than his party. This,, while even Pres Obama is only 16% better than his party, and Palin is only 2% better than her party. To have accomplished this, Mitt must be bringing in moderate Dems and indys to like him. That's a good good sign for him as a general election candidate. He's obviously got a lot of work to do to get all those "no opinion" folks to view him favorably, but Mitt's showing an ability to transcend negative opinions of the GOP. Something we desperately need in our next cadidate.
The crosstabs show some interesting points as well . . .
Regardless of who you would vote for, which candidate would you least like to see win the Republican nomination in 2012? Sarah Palin 21%, Haley Barbour 21%, Newt Gingrich 15%, Tim Pawlenty 15%, Mike Huckabee 10%, Mitt Romney 9%
In the 2012 election, how likely is it that a Republican candidate will defeat Barack Obama? Very likely 41%, Somewhat likely 34%, Not very likely 14%, Not at all likely 4%
Does Sarah Palin’s resignation help or hurt her chances of winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012? Help 24%, Hurt 40%, No impact 28% (Note the similarity of the 24% Palin get's in the total vote and the 24% here who say her resignation doesn't hurt her . . . her supporters are VERY loyal to her IMO)
Favorables/Unfavorables Among Likely Voters who Rarely or Never Attend Church(Very favorable/unfavorable): Palin 75/24 (41/12), Romney 71/22 (39/10), Huckabee 71/24 (30/9), Newt 62/34 (40/16), Cheney 59/38 (32/21), Pawlenty 41/41 (10/16), Barbour 36/46 (10/22)
SUMMING IT ALL UP:
Romney's sitting in a very good position. He's in a statistical tie for the lead among GOP voters. However, Palin and Huckabee have done VERY poorly among independents/moderates/Democrats in other polling whereas Romney has been very strong in these groups (see recent Pew Research Poll).
This Rasmussen poll, once again, shows that Romney still has trouble with what could be called the more devout Evangelical Christians (those that go to church more than once a week, who apparently view Romney on par with Dick "Vader" Cheney while they think Huckabee walks on water). However, Romney is very strong among more mature and more educated voters . . . and this bodes well for actual GOP turnout (not to mention it being a good sign that older, wiser, and more educated people see that Romney is the best man for the job . . . hopefully that sentiment will flow into other age and educational groups over the coming months/years.
BOTTOM LINE:
IF THE ECONOMY, HEALTHCARE, AND/OR FOREIGN POLICY ARE THE ISSUES OF THE DAY IN 2010/2011, ROMNEY WILL BLOW HIS MAJOR CURRENT COMPETITION AWAY IN THE GOP PRIMARY . . . AND EVEN THE MEDIA BIAS FOR OBAMA WON'T BE A MATCH FOR AN ANGRY NATION WANTING THE REAL, COMPETENT, AND STRONG LEADERSHIP THAT ROMNEY EMBODIES.
Those who read my posts right as Mitt was getting out of the race may remember that I wasn't all that upset that it looked like McCain was going to take the nomination.
I was rooting for McCain back in 2000 versus George W. Bush. I would have been on the McCain team this time around if it were not for the fact that I fit squarely into the right demographics that get excited about someone like Romney. Articulate, brave, and able to look at all sides of an issue and come up with a solution that makes most of the stakeholders comfortable.The signature achievement that fits that description is the Massachusetts health care plan. It couldn't have taken place without support of the democrats in his state. But it wouldn't have happened if someone else was leading the effort. Romney took what is typically known as a democratic project, and worked on it so that Republicans saw it as something they could support too.
And I'm glad that McCain picked Palin as VP. I think Romney would have been a good pick, but there is a significant block of voters who do not agree with me, who would actually turn away from McCain if he chose Romney as VP. I don't think the GOP can risk it right now.
I'm sure I'm not the only Romney supporter who thinks McCain/Palin do a fantastic job speaking to ordinary non-elitist Americans. I think they've got something good going, and I'm pretty happy about it.
I support you McCain. You've got my vote. You've got my vote for two reasons. The supreme court, and nuclear power.
Supreme court first. I need the republicans to nominate and confirm at least 3 more supreme court justices. The supreme court was the one and only reason I voted for George W. Bush in 2004. As much as I am not crazy about him, Huckabee would have had my vote in a general election specifically so we don't have a democrat nominating / appointing judges.
Nuclear power second. Note to McCain and Palin: You guys hit all the right notes with me on energy policy. Keep talking like you've been talking, then govern like you're campaigning and you will have nothing but my profound thanks on this issue.
You've got my support. But you know what would make me happy? Once you're in office, put Mitt Romney somewhere where he can audit the federal budget. Put him on some task force where he can come up with creative solutions to getting Americans insured.
You've got my vote either way... But if you let everyone know what you're going to use Mitt Romney for in the McCain administration... I'll donate money to your campaign, and I'll actively campaign in your behalf.
One note on Huckabee. I've had some time to cool off.
I still don't appreciate the fact that he piggybacked on the Romney infrastructure to come in 2nd at the Ames Straw poll.
I still haven't forgotten the mean, dishonest and unfair tactics used by the Huckabee supporters to tear Romney apart (pastors4huckabee, all you people posting on the Huckabee for prez website comments sections, I'm thinking of you guys here).
I have noticed recent pot shots, Monday morning quarterbacking by Huckster on certain actions taken by Gov Romney in Mass on the issue of Gay Marriage. And I still don't appreciate it. I realize that all republicans don't see this issue the same way, nor do all republicans agree on what to do about it. But don't you guys realize that without someone handling the situation EXACTLY like Gov Romney handled it, Gay marriage would be legal throughout the entire country?
All the same. Huckabee can be a valuable ally in the Republican party. I saw Huckabee on the Daily Show the other day. He handled it really well. I think I'd be scared for Romney to go on a show like that. Maybe he'd handle it with finesse like almost everything else he does, but I'm not so sure.
Huckabee does a really really good job connecting with small town America. Okay Romney supporters here's a question. Who would do better going down to Louisiana to show support, and provide relief to flood victims? How about connecting with families who are worried about home foreclosure? Huckabee is much better suited for stuff like that. I still tend to think that a Romney Huckabee ticket could have been a good thing. But America isn't there yet. Mormons and Evangelical Christians are too much like oil and water. Unfortunately. One day I hope that changes, I really do.
Back to McCain... I'll be curious to know how you're going to put to use all of the talent of your primary competitors. Rudy Giuliani really has some chops, as do the rest of the GOP primary drop outs.
Congratulations to you, and again, you've got my support.
Mitt Romney had his first public interview since suspending his campaign after super tuesday. He spoke if what I have been predicting : A V.P. nod from McCain. Romney would definitiely be able to draw the conservative republicans to McCain's campaign. Plus he would make an exceleent VP.
Discussions on Fox News are saying that this makes Romney a favorite for VP (helps with unifying the right and talk-radio folks, helps in Michigan and the west, helps with potenially drawing upon Romney's money).
Also speculation that Romney's delagate going to McCain get him close to the magic 1191 that will be when Huckabee drops out . . . so this could be the move that makes Huck get out of the race . . . ah, sweet justice.
What an amazing camaign that Mitt Romney put together! He went from a widely-unknown candidate in January 2007 to a frontrunner! He also became the one candidate that the conservative republican base rallied to. In a way, I feel that it is partially their fault that McCain is leading at this point. The conservative media and pundits have had Mitt Romney in front of them for over a year now, and they kept hoping for something "better" to come along before they endorsed. Suddenly McCain was leading and they all feared a liberal rebublican nominee, and rallied to Mitt's side. Unfortunately it was too late. But not for us here in Iowa. We have been supporting him here in Iowa since the Iowa Republican Convention in 2006 where he gave the breakfast meeting speech, and rallied Iowa Republuicans to stand for strong military, strong economy and strong families. He essentially re-aligned conservatives with true conservative principals. We supported him at the Straw poll where he recieved a higher percentage of votes that any previous candidate. We supported him at the caucus, where he won many of the highest population counties, including the one I live in.
Way to go Mitt, way to go.
We look forward to following your lead in the future!
I still stand by my last post about the Republican Dream Team Strategy. I've heard the rhetoric of the last week or so, and I still say that I am not a McCain hater. I think Mitt is a better candidate, I think Mitt is more competent in every way to lead this country. But I don't hate John McCain. I'm not one of those republicans that would rather have Hillary Clinton lead this country rather than what I consider to be a less worthy republican than Mitt.
I still think Mitt should stay in either until McCain gets enough delegates to win the nomination, or until the convention.
Obviously, as a Mitt Romney supporter, I am quite demoralized at this stage of the game. I am specifically disappointed by the rejection of Romney the Mormon in rural America. I was glad for those voters when it was Dubya versus John Kerry, so I guess I'll take the good with the bad when it's Huckster versus Mitt Romney.
I do intend to remind rural America that they brought what is coming on themselves by rejecting Mitt Romney.
Rural Iowa, there is one reason why gay marriage isn't legal in your state the same way abortion is legal in your state. That reason is Mitt Romney. The guy rural Iowa voters rejected in favor of Huckster.
Do rural voters care about the future of Social Security?
How about the Supreme Court?
Do rural voters care about the trade deficit? Do they even know what that means?
Do rural voters care about American jobs?
Do rural voters care about health care?
Do rural voters care about the declining dollar?
These are things that will have a huge impact on rural America. Between Mitt, Hillary, Barack, Mike and John, only Mitt can take on all of these challenges at the same time.
I'm not very hopeful about the Mitt Romney campaign moving forward to victory in 2008. And I'm not very optimistic about a republican surge to victory in 2008 either. It's looking like it's gonna be 1996 all over again.
Mitt - I have friends and acquaintances in Virginia, and some in Maryland. They're all ready to vote for you in a couple of weeks. Don't drop out.
We'll be here in 2012, and hopefully by then rural America will be tired of illegal immigration, the declining dollar, recession, social security fubar, and won't care if a Mormon fixes it. I'll be in a better position to donate more money to your campaign, and do fundraising for you.
Meanwhile, rural America can reassure themselves with vapid self help books by Mike Huckster like:
12 Pointless Actions to Prepare for the Coming Recession! or Yes! You CAN Stimulate The Economy! or Don't Worry About Health Insurance! Solve The Problem Through Diet and Exercise!
This message is going out along the Christian News Wire. Hope it makes it far and wide QUICKLY!!
The Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK), in his capacity as a private citizen, today released this statement regarding tomorrow's primary votes:
"I have spent the last 33 years as an active evangelical Christian. I am an ordained evangelical minister. I graduated from an evangelical Bible college and an evangelical seminary. I serve on the board of America's oldest association of evangelical church leaders, and I head one of the most active evangelical ministries in Washington, DC.
"I have thought long and hard about the upcoming elections. I have prayed earnestly about them, and I have met many of the candidates and their top campaign people and I have studied their platforms and policy proposals.
"After careful and prayerful consideration, I have concluded that an evangelical vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain, and a vote for John McCain will be a disaster for this country.
"Let me explain. It's clear to me and many others that Mike Huckabee is not broadening his appeal enough to win the primary. Therefore, his only contribution is to siphon off votes, giving McCain a clear path to victory. It's very possible Huckabee is being positioned to be John McCain's pick for vice president. In order to win, McCain needs Mike Huckabee and the evangelical votes he brings with him. The specter of a McCain-Huckabee ticket is bad for evangelicals.
. . .
"Evangelicals must consider both the stakes and the realities in this election. Mike Huckabee's continuation only helps John McCain. The consequences are just too great to take this risk. A McCain victory will hurt this country because of the long-term damage of the wrong judges and justices. Worse, McCain's court legacy will continue to hurt our children and our grandchildren, perhaps even our great grandchildren.
"Evangelicals must choose wisely from among candidates other than Mike Huckabee and John McCain as they vote tomorrow, February 5."
For identification purposes only, the Reverend Rob Schenck (pronounced SHANK) is president of Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, chairman of the Committee on Church and Society for the Evangelical Church Alliance and co-founder of the annual National Memorial for the Pre-born and their Mothers and Fathers, the only pro-life worship service held inside the U.S. Capitol complex in Washington, DC.
Strong words there, and from someone who hasn't endorsed Romney . . . just a pragmatic leader who sees how horrible McCain would be as both a nominee and/or President.
I'm getting a sense of way too much "resignation" among some online Mitt supporters. In the last few days Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rick Santorum have all endorsed Romney and said that they would be voting for him. Although I wish these endorsements came earlier, it's clear that Romney is the conservative alternative to McCain (despite McCain's ads recently that call him "The True Conservative" . . . I spit out my milk when I heard that line).
I will also go on the record (again) that, should he become the nominee, I will not vote for McCain and will not encourage anyone else to vote for him either (probably not even if Romney is his VP). There are several reasons for this:
2) McCain has made quite a practice of "poking his finger in the eye" of conservatives. I'm guessing that he's man enough to realize and understand that many/most of us feel like returning the favor.
3) If McCain is the nominee, it's clear that, regardless which party wins, our country will have a President to the left of Bush. I don't want the GOP (and, by extension, conservatism) blamed for the ensuing mess of taking our country more to the left. Let the Democrats take the full blame of getting what they're asking for. That could be the best thing in the long run for the GOP and for conservatism.
Granted, I still am fighting and working to make sure that Romney is our nominee and not McCain. I would LOVE to be able to vote for the GOP nominee. We must all Rally to Romney!! He'll be the best President of anyone still in the game. His competence and leadership are unrivaled. People just need to wake up and realize it.
UPDATE: Okay Huckster supporters reading this blog. I said some unflattering words about Huckster down this post and things have gotten a little hot in the comments section. I've got some strong opinions against Mike Huckabee. I don't like him and I really feel that he ran a horribly divisive campaign in Iowa, used below the belt, knife in the back attacks etc... Here's what I'm getting at. I think Mitt supporters should still support Mitt until the convention, but lets be open to the possibility that McCain could unite the Republicans. With the right words, and statesman like behavior/attitude, McCain could smooth over the differences between the varying camps. (Romney could do the same thing if he gets the nomination. That's my opinion)
UPDATE 2: I watched the debate last night, and... So far it isn't looking like a dream team is coming together. I am just crossing my fingers at this point.
I was really really hoping that Mitt Romney would win last night.
Seriously.
I wanted to see Mitt gain a head of steam and take it all the way to victory.
Mitt is still my candidate. I'll support him until the convention. But I do want to put some of my current thoughts out there about McCain.
First - I supported McCain in 2000. I like McCain. I may disagree with him sometimes, but I'll take McCain any day. It's easy to get caught up in a primary election and be overzealous toward your candidates' opponents. If Rudy, or Fred had ran away with the nomination I would not have been upset and would gladly have voted for them. It looks to me like John McCain has the most reasonable trajectory toward the nomination at this moment and I'm not freaking out about it.
I support Mitt still because I think he's better than McCain, Rudy, Fred, and the rest of the crowd. But it was never a question for me of whether or not I would vote for these guys. If Rudy had gotten the nomination, I wouldn't be one of those voters pushing for a 3rd party candiate. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and 2004 specifically because I trust him to pick supreme court justices more than I trusted Al Gore, or John Kerry. I trust GWB with my tax dollars more than I trust them with John Kerry. My opinion: Mitt Romney is the best choice for America. But the other guys would have been okay too.
Let's assume McCain gets the nomination and Mitt tapers off in the next few weeks.
McCain still will have trouble competingfinancially with Billary Clobama in the general election. Remember both of those candidates have raised over 100 million dollars each.
McCain still needs to reach out to all aspects of the republican coalition.
McCain needs a competent VP pick who has the energy and capacity and competence to take over if McCain keels over and dies in office.
McCain needs an organization with infrastructure that can counter the Clinton Machine.
McCain needs a narrative that can unite the Republicans, and compete with the Democratic narrative that has been shaping up within the mainstream media.
McCain needs to realize that the media support he has enjoyed up to this point will end the moment he receives the nomination, if that happens.
McCain needs to put together a 'Dream Team'
If McCain gets the nod, Romney should be the VP.
He's got the infrastructure
He's got the fundraising capacity
He's got the rhetorical skills to counter the Bill Clintons, and the Barack Obamas.
He's got the executive skills, to be President, but he's also got the consultant skills that can be unleashed behind the scenes to re-reinvent government.
Any point Clinton or Obama could make in a debate in a general election, with Mitt as VP could be countered with... 'Healthcare? My VP has more healthcare experience than all of us in this room put together. We have a team. We're not going to change this country alone, we're going to unite and solve our problems as one America.' 'Budget balancing? We've got more fiscal hawk experience on my team than all the democrats put together.' Etc...
What about the other candidates?
Rudy - Has shown class in the way he has run his campaign. His personal life may not be totally perfect, but he should rightly be proud of what he accomplished in NYC. His talents should be brought to bear in a 2008-2012 republican administration. Rudy should be the Secretary of State.
Fred Thompson - He should be on the ticket somewhere, but I'm not sure where.
Huckster - he needs to be put to use somehow. He has shown an uncanny ability to turn out small town, squirrel eating, narrow minded, uneducated voters in droves. We're going to need all the votes we can get in the general election. Huckster and Romney have reason not to like each other, and in my opinion it has everything to do with Huckster playing the religion card during the primaries, and the fact that Huckster is a big idiot. McCain could very well be the best person to convince Romney and Huckster, and their supporters (like me) to bury the hatchet. Also Romney could easily hook Huckster up with some legitimate way to pay his mortgage without accepting bribes.
With a dream team put together, the republicans can counter the democrats. What I don't want to see is personal vendettas that tear apart the republican party. I've read several places that McCain 'hates' Mitt Romney. I don't want the democrats picking our judges for the next decade. I don't want the democrats dealing with health care, or social security or anything else. PLEASE? Can't we all just get along?
Mitt. In my opinion, you should just run your organization for the next 14 days. Get all the delegates you can. Don't blow a lot of money on advertising. Everybody knows you've got plenty. You're the obvious choice for President. You're also the obvious VP pick. You and McCain could unite the party.
Mitt, you've had my vote this whole time. You're my guy. Play this right please?
McCain. You and I are cool with each other. Please play this right? Please do this in such a way that if you get the nomination you can unite the repubicans.
Romney placed second in Florida, and gave a great speech. By contract, McCain gave a mediocre politicized speech. Let's compare! Feel free to watch both, and notice the following:
1. Romney did not use a teleprompter, McCain did, and looked as if he'd never used one before. He can't remember more than 3 words at a time. He's nothing but a Washington-insider puppet that the Democrats are happily supporting so that he can divide the republican party. Could anyone list all the people McCain owes favors to on a single legal pad of paper? Probably not. OK, back to the comparisons... 2. Romney talked about all core conservative values, McCain talked about national security since thats his only conservative edge. 3. Romney talked about his plan for America, McCain didn't. 4. Romney talked about the road ahead, McCain bragged about his endorsements. 5. Romney took the time to offer his respect for "W" in his speech, McCain continues to slam "W" in order to gain popularity. McCain is such a hypocrite. I saw him just 4 years ago in Madison, WI speaking on behalf of George W. Bush as a surrogate, touting what a brilliant man "W" is, and now he is trashing him to gain popularity. And when I saw him, the war in Iraq had already started, and he was praising the operation back then. 7. Romney had his family surrounding him, McCain had his wife and daughter, and some more off stage, but what I thought was weird was the random woman that ran up to him after his speech and hugged him before his wife could even get to him. (huh?)
Let's face it, McCain represents all those in Washington, dems and republicans, who are scared stiff to think that Romney could win the election to become President. They all know he will cut spending, and bring down all of their corruption. Run little rabbits, run!
(Apologies to the film Network for borrowing the headline above . . . YouTube here--a great moment in cinematic history and worth the 4 minutes)
Much has been said on Romney blogs and elsewhere expressing outrage at McCain's desperate tactic to dishonestly smear Gov. Romney's stance on "timetables" and the Iraq war. It's blatantly apparent that McCain only did this to bring the issue of "Iraq" back into the race. McCain knows (and has repeatedly admitted) that "the Economy" is not his strong point, and that he'll lose to Romney in a head to head fight when that is the #1 issue. So, McCain's solution is to invent a controversial position for his main rival that plays to his own strength. Pitiful politics at its worst.
I've heard this false "timetables" accusation once before (good old Huck), so I was initially willing to believe that McCain was maybe just going off of bad information--that he would correct the situation once he realized the context. But when Romney's recommendation for a McCain apology was met with a "Romney should apologize to the troops for being willing to abandon them" (paraphrased) rebuttal I started getting downright angry.
When I realized that yesterday McCain said "My friends, I was there — he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal" my anger turned to OUTRAGE!
Then on Meet the Press this morning, Tim Russert went softball on McCain on this issue with no follow-up, allowing McCain to repeat his position unchallenged with the follow-up of "please read on Senator" when Romney says that he would, like President Bush, veto any legislation setting timetables for Iraq. That's either biased or shoddy journalism folks.
McCain is LYING! He's inventing this pseudo-smear to bring back his preferred issue into the limelight . . . Iraq. Then I find out that, last year, McCain recommended a similar strategy (and his would have been PUBLIC . . . in contrast to Romney's) of benchmarks that, if not met by a certain date, would lead to pulling out of Iraq before success was achieved!! This took my OUTRAGE to the next level . . . the "I'M MAD AS HELL! AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!" level.
Who's with me here?
I'm sure every Romney supporter is at least outraged. Most may be outraged enough to make it harder for McCain to count on any significant support from Romney's base if he were to get the nomination. I can tell you that I'm mad enough that I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO INFLUENCE OTHERS TO WITHHOLD THEIR SUPPORT AND VOTES FROM HIM AS WELL. Romney has always supported the troops and the war, even while governing liberal Mass. For McCain to imply otherwise is sickening (McCain went further and actually implied that Romney's position was the same as Hillary Clinton's on timetables!).
Beyond Romney's supporters "McCain Disdain" should be felt by every conservative and pro-Military American, who should view him with much less respect for dragging the American soldiers into this contrived controversy. Utterly shameless Senator McCain.
I know a lot of conservatives with influence see how dishonest McCain is being. But even the liberal MSM is calling this "scuffle" for Romney. This isn't just a nuanced misunderstanding, this is dirty politics full of tricks and lies, and it's pretty easy to see where the facts stand.
The evidence:
I've documented before how slanted the AP has been in their pro-McCain/anti-Romney bias.
So when the AP sides with Romney over McCain, you KNOW it's iron clad and there's no way for ANYONE to honestly see things from McCain's point of view.
The Arizona senator stood before a crowd in Sun City, Fla., and said he was quoting Romney as favoring a ''timetable for withdrawal.'' However, quotes circulated by McCain's campaign didn't show Romney making that comment. . . . By raising Iraq, McCain sought to shift the campaign in Florida back to his strength, national security, and away from Romney's, the economy. . . . During the campaign stop later in Sun City, McCain clipped three words from a quotation of Romney's last April, saying the former Massachusetts believed the country should set a ''timetable for withdrawal.''
In an interview with ABC News last April, Romney never uttered those words . . . Romney aides labeled McCain's charge ''stunningly false'' in an e-mail to campaign reporters.
Other liberal sources that see McCain's misleading dishonesty include the New York Times (yep, the same paper that just endorsed McCain again . . . and yes, McCain sought out that endorsement), and Time Magazine (yep, the same magazine that just ran an incredibly positive cover and story about McCain being the "Phoenix Rising" in the race).
JEFF TOOBIN: Speaking of straight talk, no American politician has gotten more adoring press coverage than John McCain. But let's be clear about what John McCain is doing about Mitt Romney. He's lying. He's lying about Mitt Romney's position, no question about it. And you know I think that — this idea that Mitt Romney supports timetables, in fact most Americans support timetables to get out of Iraq, Mitt Romney doesn't happen to be one of them. That's really outrageous what McCain is doing bringing up this ancient interview and distorting it at the last minute so he doesn't have to talk about the economy.
Among conservatives there's plenty of displeasure with McCain's tactic as well:
Brit Hume flat out said that "McCain was dishonest" on this issue on Fox News Sunday this morning. Hume said it TWICE! He was even exasperated that Chris Wallace was trying to present McCain's side of it by rebutting (paraphrased) "Chris, as journalists we have a duty to try to present things accurately . . ." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 1/27/08)
Sean Hannity was railing on McCain for this tactic last night on a special Saturday edition of Hannity and Colmes. Expect more of it from Sean on his Radio and TV shows tomorrow (not to mention what Rush will have to say tomorrow!!)
"The Great One" Mark Levin, has seemed to make somewhat of a personal crusade out of this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here.
Center-Right influential blogger Ed Morrissey has plenty to say about the whole affair, but even his title "The Low Blow" pretty much sums it up. (BTW, he just endorsed Romney over at Captain's Quarters)
Katherine Jean Lopez of the National Review has chimed in too.
Bill Bennett (a strong McCain apologist and friend) said on CNN(CNN's "Newsroom," 1/26/08) that McCain's Iraq hit on Romney [was] "Way Below The Belt.":
"But the blow he took at Romney was way below the belt." . . .
"He's a maverick candidate. He should apologize for it." . . .
"He Twisted That Entirely Out Of Context." . . .
"He's always criticizing people doing that to him and he absolutely should not have done it.". . .
"It just wasn't fair and honor is his watch word and he -- I think it would be great if he said I got that one wrong. And that would be a rare thing."
Andy McCarthy also chimes in with a little sarcasm directed McCain's way (saying he should follow his own Campaign Finance Reform guidelines and not drop baseless bombshells within 30 days of an election)
By contrast, Huckabee (on Fox News Sunday) said that McCain has NEVER been dishonest, and sided with the Senator's opinion that Romney really did support a timetable for withdrawl. Big surprise there, eh?
If Romney survives this tag-team from his two main GOP rivals in addition to the nearly incessant negative media coverage (present topic excluded) he'll really be "The Resilient One"--a nominee we can put up against the Dems and their MSM machine with no fear of whether he can survive such a media/DNC onslaught.
Update: Adding to the sources above, Kyle Hampton's post adds some more confirmatory evidence of McCain's lie.
Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.
Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.
Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq. (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)
David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.
Update #2 (2/3/08) Yet more evidence of McCain's blatant dishonesty:
In last night’s debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
"I have never, ever supported a specific timetable" for withdrawing troops, Romney said, adding that McCain's accusation on the eve of Tuesday's primary "sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."
What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders "have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about" in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.
Despite the evidence, McCain charged that "of course he said he wanted a timetable" for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.
McCain must think conservatives are dumb . . .
Thomas Sowell (who rarely ventures deeply into "horserace" politics) penned a piece entitled "McCain's Straight Lies":
The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker. There are short, blunt lies — and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. . . .
Confronted with his lie on Wednesday night's debate, McCain blustered and filibustered in a manner reminiscent of Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny," when he was caught in a lie during a navy inquiry.
When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.
Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.
Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.
Talking vaguely about "timetables and milestones" is not the same thing as setting "a date for withdrawal," from Iraq, as Senator McCain has tried to argue. And while Romney has talked about secret understandings with the Iraqi government, that is very different from promises by Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates to remove most U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2009.
A day earlier, McCain accused Romney of backing a set withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Iraq, a distortion of Romney's record that he angrily denied.
This was a garden-variety dishonesty, the manufacture of which does not cause a Clinton in midseason form to break a sweat. And it was no worse than -- actually, not as gross as -- St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.
But that dreary scenario need not come to pass. Romney seems to have found his voice as attention turns to the economy, a subject concerning which McCain seems neither conversant nor eager to become so.
Now, this was totally dishonest. This attack by Senator McCain just wasn't true. Romney has never advocated timetables. The New York Times labeled this as untrue. The AP leveled it as untrue. Senator McCain had to change the subject because I think they got some bad polling data to indicate that they had to change the subject. But this really roiled a lot of people over the weekend. This was just blatant, this was just an out-and-out lie, and many people thought that the McCain camp thought they would get away with it because of their love and slavish devotion of the Drive-By Media. But it didn't work. He didn't get away with it. It remains to be seen what impact it will have on primary voters in Florida tomorrow. My friend Andrew McCarthy had the funniest take on this. I so wanted to steal this as my own, but I have ethics, and I think when people come up with great stuff, they deserve the credit for it. Andrew McCarthy, on Saturday afternoon in the midst of all of this, said, "I'm starting to think Senator McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary."
He levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it they'd be in violation of McCain's reform of campaign finance regulations. What a racket McCain is running. Is that not brilliant? And it's absolutely right. McCain comes out with this lie about Romney in the middle of the afternoon on Saturday, and there's no way a Romney camp or group can run an ad on television here in Florida refuting it because you can't do that 30 days before a primary under McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech, but the candidates can go out there and say what they want. So Romney had to do the replying himself. He put a video up, and they were quick getting it out, but McCarthy's point is right on the money. It's hilarious. Hey, Senator McCain, you can't say anything about any candidate within 30 days before the election. McCain-Feingold ought to extend to the candidates, too, don't you think?
And even more from liberal networks that I'm pasting in from a Romney Campaign Press Release:
CNN's John King: "Governor Romney Did Not Say That." "He did not say the president should go to Iraq and give Al-Maliki a timeline for withdrawal in private. Governor Romney did not say that." (CNN's "Newsroom," 1/26/08)
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "He's Desperately Trying To Change The Topic From The Economy..." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)
· Scarborough: "He Did Lie About, Everybody Knows That He Lied About Mitt Romney." "If John McCain did lie and he did lie about it, everybody knows that he lied about Mitt Romney, everybody knows he lied when he said that he wanted to put a timeline on it and get us out of there." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/30/08)
· Scarborough: "I Haven't Met Anybody In The Media That Hasn't Said John McCain Lied About Mitt Romney." "I haven't met anybody in the media that hasn't said John McCain lied about Mitt Romney and it threw Romney off for two days. What's wrong with saying that?" (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/30/08)
MSNBC's David Shuster: "John McCain Is Being Misleading." "Actually, Mitt Romney is on the money with this one, and John McCain is being misleading." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)
· Shuster: McCain's Attack Was "Not Right." "But the fact of the matter is, when John McCain says that Mitt Romney was for public timetables, in other words, letting the Iraqis know when U.S. troops are leaving and that therefore Mitt Romney should apologize to the troops, as John McCain said, that's not right." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 1/28/08)
On Hannity and Colmes lastFriday night (Feb 1st) Newt Gingrich was giving his opinion on the GOP race and distinctly mentioned that McCain was "wrong" and "dishonest" in this attack.
(Chart courtesy of SeattlePI.com blog)
