Posted on 01/26/2008 6:06:51 PM PST by Delacon
Apparently not. I say apparently not, because a very brief AP report on McCain's charge and Romney's emphatic denial ends with this paragraph:
While he has never set public date for withdrawal, Romney has said that President Bush and Iraqi leaders should have private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress on the war and determine troop levels. He has said publicly that he agrees with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that U.S. troops could move to more of an oversight role in 2008. It is possible that the AP missed something very obvious in Romney's public record here, but I seriously doubt it. It's just as possible that the New England Patriots overlooked some game tape on Eli Manning. The AP, as anyone following this race knows, has been so anti-Romney as to defy parody. If this is the best they can come up with to put a hint of plausibility on McCain's attack, then McCain's case must be very weak indeed. Calling for private timetables and benchmarks with which to gauge progress, etc.. is a world away from McCain's charge. In fact, it is a highly reasonable posture for even the most aggressive proponent of victory. Ah, how far we have come from the heady days of Cindy Sheehan's ascendancy, when everyone assumed that the retreat from Iraq couldn't happen fast enough, and the last politician to deny responsibility for the war would have to turn out the lights. Give the military and the president credit for ignoring the pundits and senile elder statesmen who tried to talk them into retreat.
But McCain's straight talk express swerved into the mud on this one, and the fact that he chose to do so suggests some desperation. He will only get away with it if the MSM who have invested so heavily in his success cover for him.
For his part, Mitt should have the resources to counter this sleight of hand from the straight talker. And the fact that he does illustrates, again, the danger of suppressing free speech as embodied in McCain-Feingold. When the MSM conspires with a candidate to promote a lie and suppress its counter, someone needs to be able to do the end run.
It reminds me of an essay written by Lynn Nofziger years ago during the OJ trial. Nofziger had been falsely indicted for corruption during the Reagan years and fought the rap and won. He pointed out that any time a state or federal decides it wants to take someone out, the resources it brings to the table dwarf anyones capacity to counter them. We shouldn't fault those -- like the Duke lacrosse players who have the resources and fight back. We should applaud them.
Likewise with the candidate who has the resources to counter an MSM that shoots at him on sight but slavishly panders to his opponent.
impressive targeting. my beach front properity will be good in 10 years.
actually good shipping lanes as well.
Google Romney and Iraq. All you get is the MSM airing the McCain attack with almost no analysis. Yep, they like McCain until after the primaries.
I am sure that you must be a liberal republican. There is no way I will ever vote for mccain. If he is the nominee and it looks close I WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA OR HILARY.
McCain’s comments are a desperation ploy. He’s just an old bitter man seeing his chances of becoming President going down the drain. As a conservative, I would never vote for him. I’d rather be front stabbed by Hillary than back stabbed by McCain.
Go Mitt!
Dirty pool by McCain. He is lower than dirt as a candidate.
What these anti-Mitt posters are doing is very sophomoric. McQueeg lied in the last debates and is lying now.
Romney is easiest candidate for Hillary”
Exactly, but these Pro-MITT guys on here are just living in a dream world. They “see” Mitt marching down Penn Ave, the same way Mitt saw MLK.
_______________________________________________________
Really??? With the economic problems facing the country, along with the illegal immigrant problems, I really have a hard time thinking that McBlame will be able to hold his own on these topics. On the economy, McBlame is clueless, and he is just dead wrong on illegals. He won’t win with, “I’m going to consult with Jack Kemp and Phil Graham and come up with answers for the economy”. Come on guys, if the best John McCain can come up with is that he is a war hero its back to the drawing board. Mitt has his own problems, but the guy can debate with her thighness on issues she has no clue about.
Smells like fear.
On August 31, 1967, George Romney, the voluble, vigorous three-term governor of Michigan and former automotive executive, walked into a Detroit TV station to be interviewed by a local broadcaster with a lousy hairpiece. For more than a year, Romney had been talked about as the Republicans’ best chance for winning the White House in 1968. But the national campaign trail, at first welcoming, had become bumpy. Reporters pressed Romney repeatedly to explain his ever-evolving and often confusing position on military involvement in Vietnam, which he had strongly supported after a visit to South Vietnam in 1965 but later declared a tragic mistake. Polls showed his lead fading.
So, during that August interview, when he was asked to explain his inconsistent position on the war, Romney replied, “Well, you know, when I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get.”
There, he said it. One word, brainwashing, and his presidential campaign would never recover. Worse, that one politically charged word became not just the shorthand for his aborted White House run, but the bumper sticker for his entire life’s work. Forget the poor boy who rose, Horatio Alger-style, to national acclaim. Forget the visionary of Detroit, who successfully championed the compact car over what he termed “gas-guzzling dinosaurs.” Forget the straight-talking politician who steered Michigan government from financial ruin and pushed through a new state constitution. In the four decades since that interview, there has been a Pavlovian response to the American political trivia question, “Who was George Romney?” Answer: The brainwashed guy.
There’s no taking it back.
Mitt Romney is a governor, doesn’t really matter what he said, he was no ones representative.
What did the Congresscritters from MA say?
Mitt is a staunch, reliable conservative?
People should realize that there are no pure conservatives in the race, and Mitt is more liberal than any of them, with the possible exception of Guiliani. Some think Guiliani may just be more up front in his liberal beliefs than Mitt.
Mitt said he supports an AWB in the debate the other night. McCain may be wrong on open borders and the tax cut, but he never voted for an AWB. He ran to the left of Kennedy on social issues, and did not publicly state any conservative positions until he decided to run for office.
He stated there should be a withdrawl date set. He can either defend his position or say he was wrong. He is pretending he didn’t say something that is in the public record.
People are free to support any candidate they want, but Mitt supporters should stop pretending like he is the clear conservative and everybody who doesn’t support him is some liberal. That is absurd. Mitt is not conservative. Any person who doubts this should ask one question, are the majority of voters in a state that votes for Kennedy conservative.
Good post. Add to that Romney is going to be the only one with any money left over after the primary. I sure as hell wont open my wallet to McCain if he wins the primary.
In May 2006, Governor Romney Traveled To Iraq To Meet With The Troops. “Traveling under tight security, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday wrapped up an unannounced, one-day trip to Iraq to visit troops from Massachusetts, and warned against a ‘cut and run’ pullout from the war-torn country.” (Frank Phillips, “Romney Makes Surprise Stop In Baghdad,” The Boston Globe, 5/25/2006) http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#wot
It seems McCain and his supporters can't tell the difference between a timetable for withdrawal and timetables for milestones and objectives to be met, just like the liberal author of this article about the Bush timetable:
Bush Drafting Iraq Timetable
James Joyner | Sunday, October 22, 2006
After two years of villifying anyone who suggested a timetable was needed in Iraq, the Bush administration is reportedly now drafting a timetable for Iraq.
The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said. Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country. Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops.....http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/10/bush_drafting_iraq_timetable_/
4
Are you saying that because he's a Mormon that he's calculating? or are you, as Mormon, noticing that particular fault in Romney?
Nixon served in the Senate.
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.