Posted on 01/30/2008 6:57:35 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Former governor Mitt Romney Wednesday endorsed President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq, breaking his public silence on the troop ``surge’’ by arguing that a stable Iraq is only possible if US forces can provide security to Iraqi civilians.
Hours before Bush spoke Wednesday night, Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province -- precisely the plan for as many as 21,500 new troops that was outlined by the Bush administration before the president’s speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Of course he did, McCain lied.
Good post. Romney is my guy now. McPain will be the death of the GOP.
I can not stand someone who is dishonest, and McCain kept up the act, that he was correct, just like Dan Rather with that damn fake Memo.
Eat dirt, McQueeq, you lying bastard.
We need, now more than ever, to make sure that the Left does not define us as an ideology, that they don’t marginalize us, and that they don’t read our eulogy while we are still alive and fighting.
And now more than ever, we cannot let them pick our nominee for them.
McCain is THEIR nominee, not ours.
But wait.. Romney waited TEN WHOLE DAYS into 2007 before he endorsed the surge. CLEARLY, he was waiting to see the outcome of the surge before he took a position... </s>
WHY? oh WHY?? Is it so hard for people to see what a fraud McCain is?
our nominee for them
should be:
not let them pick our nominee for us.
Exactly - he has the facts wrong (Romney actually endorsed the surge even BEFORE it was announced).
Bye, Johnny, I hope.
Yes. He endorsed the surge AFTER the President announced it, and after having taken his own time in doing so.
McCain’s point is key, and missing it requires a deliberate lapse in memory. The key point during this phase of the debate was in November and December 2006, when it seemed like the Democratic Congress might really try and force a retreat.
Romney was silent then.
Well, I’m making a contribution to Romney’s campaign.
Don’t care what the polls say about McCain being able to beat Hillary, not much difference between those two, as far as I’m concerned.
There was no democratic congress in November and December of 2006. The Democrats did not take over until January.
In November/December, we were confirming Petreaus, and Putting together the Surge strategy, and digesting the ISG report.
“WHY? oh WHY?? Is it so hard for people to see what a fraud McCain is?”
For one thing, the very people who should be backing Romney are railing against him. You have a guy who called for the wire-tapping of mosques if need be back in 2005, and I hear people over and over again believing this nonsense McCain blurped onto the political stage.
Romney was surging, rising in the polls, and all McCain had to do was lie. Somehow he has more credibility on this issue than Romney when he wants to close Gitmo (because the world doesn’t like it) and ban waterboarding.
He’s hiding behind his uniform to get away with things that would absolutely murder Romney, Thompson, or any other guy in the race. Can you imagine the explosion that would occur if Romney were to take McCain’s stances on Gitmo, for instance?
Actually, at the time, the Boston Globe considered Romney and McCain to be of one mind with the President:
“[Romney’s] position aligns him not only with Bush but also with Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of Romney’s leading rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. McCain has called for sending more troops to Iraq for more than three years, and has pronounced himself supportive of the president’s decision for a ``surge’’ in the troop level. For both Romney and McCain, casting their lot with the president on Iraq is a gamble that carries political peril. Unlike the other potential GOP candidates — who have remained mum on how they’d handle Iraq — they are now on record in supporting a controversial move that critics argue will likely worsen the situation in Iraq.”
McCain IS the establishment candidate - he’s not ours. As long as Huckabee is in the race he will take votes away from Romney and help McCain, because Huckabee has NO CHANCE to get the nomination - and never did.
He is only staying in the race to stop Romney. I have no doubt he cut a deal with McCain a loooong time ago.
He is as phony as they come.
December 17, 2007 The Huckabee Hustle By Selwyn Duke
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/the_huckabee_hustle.html
Pete Wehner at NRO took issue with the first two paragraphs of a Huckabee essay in Foreign Affairs magazine, particularly the claim by Huckabee that we’re too mean around the world; we’re trying to dominate the world, and we need to be more like a top high school student, modest about our abilities and achievements, generous, and then we will be loved. If we keep dominating people, we’ll be despised, and “the Bush administration’s arrogant and bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad.”
National Review Online http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjgzMzYzY2Y1ZjAxNTg5YzAzNzY2MjMwOWYxNWM0ZTc=
Romney jumped on a chance at the debate tonight to set the record straight with McCain. He and they actually started both looking pretty foolish. In one of Ron Paul’s rare moments of lucidity he jumped them both over wasting time on semantics - they both looked bad after Paul’s comments.
Before that while they were in a cat fight. Romney did make a point about last minute attacks, but McCain scored on pointing about Romney wouldn’t comment because “he was a governor” before then became a presidential candidate shortly after. McCain was caught in a political trick but Romney was clearly using his “governor” status to avoid taking a stand before he tested the wind. It was a zero gain for each. McCain came across as snide, but Romney came across as fustered and as someone who can’t make his point and shut up. It got tiring listening to him say the same thing over and over. He would have done better to just say it the first time then drop it. The cat fight made him look as bad as McCain who had done something sneaky.
“Romney issued a statement calling for five additional combat brigades in Baghdad and two Marine regiments in Al-Anbar province”
Romney knows zilch about the military, he was just repeating what someone told him to say. McCain may be obnoxious, but there is no denying he owns that issue on understanding the military and how it works.
It is a losing strategy for Romney to play armchair general. He doesn’t have the gravitas for that.
I think Huckabee clearly won the debate. He sounded more like Fred and Reagan than John Edwards this time.
What point.
Romney had not announced at that point and was still seriously considering whether to run. He had had no intelligence briefings like McCain had.
Once he made a decision to run and could receive a briefing he had the information to make an informed statement and did so the same day announced by Bush.
What should have he done read the NY Times or Boston Globe. That would be informative. . . NOT
McCain seems to be saying Romney should have made a decision with no facts and gone off half cocked. After all only Senators are valid Presidential Candiates. Must be why we have elected so many as President.
None in the last 30 years if your counting.
I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. ... I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.
...
We really do need to make sure we stabilize the nation to the extent humanly possible so that Iraq cannot be torn apart by its neighbors and so that a sectarian disaster does not ensue.
In the next two weeks he decided to run and also swore support for the Surge, hours before the President announced it.
This totally supports Romney fully supporting the Surge and NOT supporting at any time pulling out.
You would have to be a Democrat to twist this to such an extent that merely mentioning conclusions of the Iraq Study group means you support their idiotic conclusions. He clearly said he didn't.
I posted what I posted. I’m just very skeptical of every position Romney says he’s for. Not because I think he’s a liberal. He’s not going to say he wants to cut and run to if he wants the GOP nomination. I think Romney is an equivocator who always gives the “safe” answer
also see
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2VkYTI5NDhkZDhjN2U5MmFlMGQ2YzczMTRmMDY3MWQ=
“Yet he is unique among the serious Republican presidential contenders because he has never said he would do it all over again, and they all have. Asked in a June 7 debate whether it had been a mistake to invade Iraq “knowing everything you know right now,” he refused twice to answer. He called the question an “unreasonable hypothetical” and said that the issue was a “non-sequitur” and a “null set” (he meant to say “moot point”) because we’re already in Iraq. “
-
I want to look up that debate but...it sounds like such a familiar pattern for everything else he says.
I would much prefer someone who has expressed a position, then after learning more about the subject adapted that position to bring it into line with what was most effective.
I am not saying you should support, or even like Mitt, but evolving positions on matters of public debate are not in and of themselves evidence of bad faith or a character defect. People in public life frequently must make a statement or take a stand on the spur of the moment and then later have to adjust that stand based on new information or being convinced the stand or statement was simply not the right.
Points well taken. Thank you for the detailed response.
They don’t give us much of a choice, do they?
I agree. It’s easy to get sucked into the moment, dwell on things that are going wrong and then buy into the ‘sky is falling’. Truth is, this is exactly how the system is designed to work and its unsightliness is a large part of the secret of its success. When all is said and done we’ll come out the other end of the process with a nominee, and even more important to remember whoever it ends up being they will be better for America and our party than the alternative.
We’ve simply waited too long in this cycle to make our importance to the process weigh heavily on the powers that be in the GOP. If we are going to use their dependence on the conservative wing of the party as a bargaining tool then we’ll have to start the day after this election. We’ve got to find a way to make ourselves a thorn in their flesh on a daily basis, not a few months every four years.
Look at how little we did the last 10 plus years to make our unhappiness with their hijacking of the conservative name and cause. We gave them what they said they need, Congress and the White House, and then we went back to making a living and doing the things that make us conservatives. Meanwhile the spending went wild, etc.
I say let’s get through this one and then we can turn our attention to making sure they know we’re around for the next four years, and that we’re watching!
McCain said the immigration bill would not come to him as President. Refused to answer if he would sign it at least four times than mumbled he wouldn’t.
Now that is unbelievable. He has stated numerous times before he would sign it. He sponsored it. He has never listened to real republicans before. Now to win he says he wouldn’t sign it. Sorry he is lying. First day in office he would have a meeting on how to gut the fence and get a real amnesty bill. Second he would repeal the tax cuts and raise taxes.
Now I do believe he would strengthen the Military to go to war in Iran and Syria. I might vote for him to do this. Our military has been gutted since Regan. Iran will blow Israel away the day it gets it’s first nuclear weapon it knows will work. They will deliver it through Hezbola or another front.
all the liberal things that Mitt supported in the past were defended with the same sense of conviction and passion that he uses to advocate the conservative positions that he claims to support today.
He makes you believe that he really believes in what he says. That’s what really bothers me.
Refused to answer if he would sign it at least four times than mumbled he wouldn’t.
-
that’s EXACTLY the difference between mccain and romney. Romney has no shame when he lies with a straight face. Would Reagan endorse him? “Absolutely!” What a prick...
With mccain you can tell when he has trouble with one of his positions. He doesn’t lie very well. I don’t agree with everything he has done but at least I can respect him. Same for Huckabee and Ron Paul. They are real men. I don’t want to see Romney at all. He is the republican John Edwards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.