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.
The MSM wants Romney to win? You’re flat out nuts. They’ve been dumping on Romney since he entered the race. They repeat the McCain-Huckabee talking points about Romney as if they’re the gospel truth. They’re constantly suggesting that the American public won’t vote for a Mormon. They’re constantly slamming Romney for using his own money to fund his campaign. The MSM wants Romney to lose and they’re doing everything they can to see it happen. Clean the wax out of your ears and listen to just one MSM “news” broadcast.
No he was in the house.
I think there are four groups of people who have antipathy toward Romney, with some overlap.
1. Sincere opponents who are very concerned about his softness on issues/policies/principles of great importance to them.
2. People who don't want a Mormon in the White House giving credence to what they consider to be an evil cult. And simple anti-Mormons bigots.
3. Jealousy. He is too goody-goody. He is too handsome, too rich, too tall, has too good-looking a wife and family. Is too smart (which feels like condescension to them). They don't like that guy in high school who got all the honors and married the Homecoming queen. He makes them feel inadequate.
4. Guys who don't think he's regular enough, masculine enough, territorial enough, to be counted on when the going gets tough.
This is the opposition Romney will have to overcome if he is to get the nomination and go on to win the general election.
Your Romney talking points contain yet another historical inaccuracy.
“On leaving the service, he was elected to Congress from his California district. In 1950, he won a Senate seat. Two years later, General Eisenhower selected Nixon, age 39, to be his running mate.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rn37.html
No Romney has ever worn the uniform, or ever served for the United States. Ever. Not since, at least , the 1830's. Other than that, they are a bunch of heroes.
That's mind boggling.
I just cannot believe the level of this McCain hysteria. You would put Hillary freaking Rodham Clinton in charge of the War on Terror? Hillary picks judges? That may be the dumbest logic I have ever heard.
I was not for McCain, and he pissed me off. But the man is Pro Life, Pro Gun, Pro Military and wants to kill the bad guys. He is generally a Reagan economic devotee, but has made some of the VERY SAME mistakes that Ronald Reagan did. Is he Reagan? Of course not. And I would rather Thompson be the nominee.
But the idea that McCain is not only worse than Romney, who no one has a freaking clue what he really believes, but HILLARY?
What are some of you smoking? Just send the freaking country to the hell of Hillary?
Immigration is a big issue, no doubt, but when it comes to the War and judges, McCain is a BILLION times better than Hillary. He very well might cut spending and cut taxes, but if he DOESN’T the GOP can oppose the opposite just as easily as they can if its HRC.
Unbelievable.
I stand corrected on Nixon only. He was a senator at one time but wasn’t when he won the presidency. I should have said sitting senator running for the presidency.
Well, there's no question but that the president and Prime Minister Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."(ABC's "Good Morning America," 4/3/07)
Romney's not a sitting governor. Why the double standard?
Nice piece of research. I'm impressed.
What you should be asking yourself is why the best business man, the most presidential looking, the best funded, one of the best debaters, one of the most qualified people in terms of experience along with all of the backing of talk radio, the new media and religious right leaders can't seem to break out of the pack and become the front runner. I think that if McCain, Huckabee, Hunter or Thompson had the money and support from talk radio that Romney has, they would have wrapped things up by now. Its a moot point because non of those guys have the money or the support but it should make you wonder about this guy's electability.
Blatant double standard. Nixon was a former Senator, Romney's a former governor.
Where did you get your phoney Kennedy talking point, if you don't mind me asking?
What exactly don't you people understand about Romney specifically stating he would veto a timetable for a withdrawal?
Mitt Romney has repeatedly expressed his support for the war, the surge and his commitment to staying as long as it takes to get the job done.
Some examples:
Governor Romney Would Not Deny Our Military Leaders And Troops The Resources And Time Needed To Succeed In Iraq. "Today, the nation's attention is focused on Iraq. All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world....There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed, but the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity to succeed." (Governor Mitt Romney, "Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)
Governor Romney Is Committed To Success In Iraq And Afghanistan. "At a minimum, success means not leaving behind a safe haven in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, from which they can finance, train and launch devastating attacks on America, Israel, and the world. In Iraq, the Surge's success has been vital to ensuring that Al Qaeda is denied a safe haven from which to launch attacks." (Romney For President, "Strategy For A Stronger America: Defeating The Jihadist Threat," Press Release, 10/17/2007)
- Governor Romney: "Well, a President Romney is not going to set a specific timeline that would suggest that we don't care whether al Qaeda is playing a major role in that country or not. It is critically important to America and the world that al Qaeda not have a safe haven in the nation of Iraq. And, so, to set an artificial deadline which ignores whether or not al Qaeda is being successful is, in my view, a position which would – which should disqualify someone as a potential president -- president of the country." (Fox News' "Your World," 9/12/2007)
This is just McCain's shameless, desperate and lame attempt to shift the focus away from his economic illiteracy using lies, distortions and political dirty tricks. He knows he made a FOOL of himself here and he had to change the subject (don't look, it will be painful for you).
Really don't know any issue that he has not tried to be on all sides of at once.
I think I see some desperation also in the fact that Sen Martinez was talked into endorsing McCain after he had said he would remain neutral. Then out of the blue Gov Crist comes along and endorses McCain. I think and hope this indicates their internal polls are showing Mitt is doing well in Fl. The Republican establishment obviously wants McCain.
Oh, and former Senator Nixon spanked Romney’s daddy in 1968 while winning the Presidential nomination.
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.