Skip to comments.Rally for Romney: Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
Posted on 01/31/2008 10:37:41 AM PST by Delacon
I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldnt win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasnt even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagans name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.
Of course, Reagan lost the nomination to Ford by the narrowest of margins. Ford went on to lose to a little-known ex-governor from Georgia, Jimmy Carter. But the Reagan Revolution became stronger, not weaker, as a result. And the rest is history.
I dont pretend to speak for President Reagan or all conservatives. I speak for myself. But I watched the Republican debate last night, which was held at the Reagan library, and I have to say that I fear a McCain candidacy. He would be an exceedingly poor choice as the Republican nominee for president.
Lets get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. As I watched him last night, I could see his personal contempt for Mitt Romney roiling under the surface. And why? Because Romney ran campaign ads that challenged McCains record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidates record? Thats par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romneys ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain's cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCains comments about Romney.
Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks. McCain now has a habit of describing Romney as a manager for profit and someone who has laid-off people, implying that Romney is both unpatriotic and uncaring. Moreover, he complains that Romney is using his millions or fortune to underwrite his campaign. This is a crass appeal to class warfare. McCain is extremely wealthy through marriage. Romney has never denigrated McCain for his wealth or the manner in which he acquired it. Evidently Romneys character doesnt let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCains does. And what of managing for profit? When did free enterprise become evil? This is liberal pablum which, once again, could have been uttered by Hillary Clinton.
And there is the open secret of McCain losing control of his temper and behaving in a highly inappropriate fashion with prominent Republicans, including Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Strom Thurmond, Donald Rumsfeld, Bradley Smith, and a list of others. Does anyone honestly believe that the Clintons or the Democrat party would give McCain a pass on this kind of behavior?
As for McCain the straight-talker, how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says hes gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that its a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. Theres nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the medias favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they werent accompanied by spending cuts. Thats simply not correct.
Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romneys position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And its also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romneys statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isnt open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.
Of course, its one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCains case, adherence is the exception to the rule McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?
But what about his national security record? Its a mixed bag. McCain is rightly credited with being an early voice for changing tactics in Iraq. He was a vocal supporter of the surge, even when many were not. But he does not have a record of being a vocal advocate for defense spending when Bill Clinton was slashing it. And he has been on the wrong side of the debate on homeland security. He supports closing Guantanamo Bay, which would result in granting an array of constitutional protections to al-Qaeda detainees, and limiting legitimate interrogation techniques that have, in fact, saved American lives. Combined with his (past) de-emphasis on border-security, I think its fair to say that McCains positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.
Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives dont act now to stop McCain, he will become the Republican nominee and he will lose the general election. He is simply flawed on too many levels. He is a Republican Hillary Clinton in many ways. Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin.
But wouldnt the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasnt enough to motivate the base to vote in November 2006 to stop Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker or the Democrats from taking Congress. My sense is it wont be enough to carry McCain to victory, either. And McCain has done more to build animus among the people whose votes he will need than Denny Hastert or Bill Frist. And there wont be enough Democrats voting for McCain to offset the electorate McCain has alienated (and is likely to continue to alienate, as best as I can tell).
McCain has not won overwhelming pluralities, let alone majorities, in any of the primaries. A thirty-six-percent win in Florida doesnt make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCains bandwagon the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed Californias Republican party.
Lets face it, none of the candidates are perfect. They never are. But McCain is the least perfect of the viable candidates. The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney. I say this as someone who has not been an active Romney supporter. If conservatives dont unite behind Romney at this stage, and become vocal in their support for him, then they will get McCain as their Republican nominee and probably a Democrat president. And in either case, we will have a deeply flawed president.
Mark Levin, a former senior Reagan Justice Department official, is a nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
Tell me how many more democrats we’ll have when McCain grants amnesty by executive order.
That's McCain. It's on his web site, it's in votes he's taken the last 5 years. Restrict speech, global warming, amnesty, close Gitmo, restrict questioning of terrorists. Close the "gun show loophole". Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Support filibustering of judicial and political nominees. Work for "bipartisanship" with the democrats.
He says Clinton would be a good president, Bill and Hillary have "respect" for him. Leiberman (8% ACU) endorses him.
As to illegal immigration, Tom Tancredo's ONE goal in running was to get HIS policies implemented. Tom Tancredo has personally met with Romney, and has spoken to him about this very issue. And Tom Tancredo endorsed Mitt Romney.
I think I trust Tom Tancredo's opinion on what Romney will do more than I trust your opinion, based as it is on some generalization you have that "all businessmen" oppose following the law on illegal immigration.
You hope... given McCain's, Hillary's and Obama's track record on the 1A and other related Fairness Doctrine issues, who knows what will happen....
I trust Mark Levin’s opinion more than yours, but if you want to refute something Mark said in his article with some facts, I’d like to see the debate.
I totally agree.
He is arrogant and self-righteous. His sarcasm about Romney being in business for “profit” whereas he sacrificed for “patriotism” (yeah - and what about Keating 5 Mr. McCain?) is sickening. His repeated attacks that Romney wanted to withdraw the troops - total lies - is now beyond contempt. And I’m tired of “my friend” this and “my friends” that - which is just fake Senate-speak.
I’ve had it with him. I can’t vote for this man, under any circumstances.
Totally unwilling to fight for basic principles of religious freedom and conscience, private enterprise, and free association. That's a conservative record?
Look up his similar record on religion, free association, and adoption policy. The man doesn't actually stand for anything.
My hope is he really stabs with some of the ads. Ronald Reagan lost two primaries. Perhaps Mitt will be back to haunt you again and this time folks will know who he is.
There isn't anyone who could make the ticket work. It is McCain who the MSM and Clinton machine is going to destroy. People don't vote for VP's.
With all due respect. I have suspicion that Iowa voters, or Florida voters, don’t listen much to Hugh, Rush, and don’t read NRO for sure. Somehow Huckabee made himself separate from the bottom group and became a major candidate. Fred did not. (just to make sure where I stand: Hunter-then Fred-Romney-Rudy-Mac-Huck). Huckabee gets no traction now, but if Fred did the same, he would have. I like NRO, Hugh, Rush, Prager, Bennet and many others, but am not going to jump if they say so. I suspect Iowa and Florida would even less. I think you overestimate their influence.
Charles, trying to play this off as if I support a man I’ll never vote for isn’t going to get you any points.
Don’t beleive those lying eyes of yours.
“Levin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter
What more will it take?”
Shouldn’t take anything more! We all knew what McCain was even before we heard Rush,Mark,Sean,or Ann voice the truth about McCain. If McCain wins the nomination my only conclusion will be that the Republican Party is infested with liberals! Right now, I don’t want to believe that and have hope that folks will do the right thing on Tuesday and vote for the most conservative candidate, Mitt Romney!
This conservative won’t rally for RINOs.
Aren’t you special.
The trouble is that too many people already know who the Bishop Romney really is.
“There wont be much rallying for Romney because many of see him as little, if any, better than McCain.”
How can they?
McCain is for amnesty and open borders, Romney is not.
McCain is for closing Guantanamo, Romney is not.
McCain is not trusted on taxes, Romney is a tax cutter.
McCain is for McCain/Feingold, Romney is not.
McCain is for McCain/Kennedy, Romney is not.
McCain is for McCain/Liberman, Romney is not.
McCain is endorsed by the New York Times, Romney is not.
There is more, but I am tired! Certainly folks can see the facts and realize Mitt Romney is the best choice!
Posted before your post saying no one is addressing the questions.
You’ve had time to read it, have you refuted all the points made in that post?
It was posted an hour ago and it has not been addressed
Ping me when you do.
Tell me which of those items you think are NOT conservative, are NOT republican?
Usually we call someone a RINO when they claim they are a "republican", but they say they will do things that go against our philosophy.
In this case, you are claiming that Romney is not a republican, but can point to NOTHING in his platform that suggests he is anything BUT a solid conservative republican.
Of course, it's a lot easier to say "RINO" then to actually make an argument.
I happen to not use that term. But McCain, who will be our nominee if we don't get behind the solid conservative platform above, has taken positions on a multitude of issues that are at odds with our party. HE has voted against our party on procedural issues as well. He has spoken out against conservatives, while praising democrats. He has used false attacks against our conservative candidates, while apologizing for a QUESTIONER who used the b-word about Hillary.
If Romney was running on a non-conservative platform, I'd understand. But all you have to go on is your own (in my opinion very distorted) view of his past record. Which is fine if there was another candidate running who have a conservative platform, but now you are rejecting a man who is bleeding his own money pushing OUR platform, and you reject him.
A vote for Romney would not be a vote for a RINO. The platform is clear. Those who have spoken to Romney and had to put their own reputation on the line have said they believe him. People I trust have spoken to Romney and say he's the real deal. I've watched his speeches, read the transcripts, and he's selling the conservative position, even when doing different would win him more votes. He's LOSING primaries in NH and Florida because his conservative message opens the middle for McCain.
And he's doing so even though some conservatives are viciously attacking him.
I just love it when Team Willard presents the Good German defense.
Bain Capital bought Clear Channel years after Mitt left the firm, if I remember correctly.
Kind of like the Haliburton tag that gets hung around Cheney’s neck.
Romney is untruthful. He is for higher taxes (fees, wink wink)
Romney is for illegal aliens flooding America (until this year for now).
Romney is against citizens voting.
Did he let them vote for HIS installation of gay marriage? no.
Did he let them vote for HIS installation of HIllaryCARE? no.
Would you care to provide some facts to support your slander?
Charles, what the hell is so hard to understand about...
I changed my stances to run, but I really really really really promise I won’t change them again.
If Hillary suddenly proposed that platform would believe her too? Evidently so...
“Have you looked at Romneys record on nominees for the MA court?”
Yes, I have seen everything there is to see about the various arguments against Romney.
Romney may not be the absolute best, but he IS BETTER THAN THE REST.
This is a quick break down for me.
Paul has some interesting arguments, but he’s nuts.
Huckabee is a slimy religious zealot that could NEVER handle the job.
McCain is a democrat...He’s a traitor to the party, and he’s a very dangerous nut.
Obama-Clinton....clearly traitors and I hate their guts.
Lets see...who do that leave to lead my country protect my grandchildren’s dreams of the future? I am convinced that although Romney will not be perfect, he will work 24/7 a day, each and every day for our country. He will be a Good president. I would be one of the first to turn on him if he wasn’t.
Look, I know that I would never be able to convince you to vote for Romney and I am fine with that. You need to know that you won’t be able to change my mind, either.
Disclaimer: I am not a Mormon.
Romney cannot be trusted for anything you state.
He mutates with a time constant of years.
One year of him as a pseudo-conservative has ALREADY passed.
Romney will mutate again.
“Psychotic!” - she said, angrily, with eyes bulging, and veins sticking out. Just like her hero ...
What? Romney was in charge of the Olympics approx. 2 years before they were to take place. They were in Feb. 2002.
A lady called into Lars Larson and said that someone called her and claimed that Romney is supporting McCain!
More dirty tricks by McCain.
And Lars said Romney has to win, so you can add him to the list.
We’re not electing a special Olympic manager.
MSM, discussing the ongoing 2008 election: "We have the dumb pliable suckers in the unenviable position
of rooting for someone they hate or don't trust to beat
someone else they neither like nor trust. We win. WE WIN."
In temperment he is much better.
We saw McCain's arrogrance starting to come out in the debates now that he thinks he has this nomination locked up.
A President McCain will take no advice from anyone, particulary conservatives, who he loathes.
Romney has to at least consider a second term (which McCain doesn't) and will be flexible to conservative concerns.
Given McCain's inflexible nature, it is also likely he will explode sometime during the national election, handing the election to the Democrats.
You don’t get it do you?
The problem with Romney is that at one time or other, he agreed with McCain on most everything you just listed.
Where did I assert that I can refute his points?
Is that not a credible starting point, though, in terms of deciding whether or not you can support Romney?
I guess I need to draw lines of distinction between things. So I rap off the pros and cons and go with the choice where my pros are maximum and my cons are minimum.
I don't believe that an honest Conservative can conduct that kind of head-to-head comparison between Romney and McCain, and come out supporting McCain. And that's not a visceral "I hate McCain" thing, it's a matter of plain facts.
I see sufficient distinction between Romney and McCain that I can better mesh my Conservative principles with Romney than with McCain.
How wrong you are. Romney is getting a little upset with that lying nut. Watch the fireworks, NcNut is stupid compared to the intelligence of Romney. The main difference is Romney uses the truth, NcNut is the worst lier I have ever seen.
Well you guys go and rally for Romney.
Don’t be surprised come Wed. morning that Romney has dropped out.
Hey I held a rally for Fred in my front yard and he still quit!
Do you really believe he is silent in a Company he created and founded? Sheesh!
I cant believe Rush could be bought, but it appears to be so. Maybe its extortion.....drug charges anyone?
This shows so clearlt how off your thoughts are CC, if you were to listen to the whole show you would know tha Rush left today show neutral and would not committ and knows his endorsement could greatly help Mitt Rush if off Monday...
Rush left Romney out there to dangle among the other two.
“Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum”
Thanks for that link. Looks like McCain is still trying to kiss and make up for Campaign Finance Reform.
He’ll be doing that for the rest of his life, just not in the White House.
Well its a little late for Romney to only be getting a little upset with McCain.
Not at all alike. Bain bought Clear Channel in Dec 2007. Seems timely don't you think?
My father-in-law founded the company I work for. He has since retired and would be considered a "silent" partner. I have to tell you, if he wants upon a company decision, it happens just the way he wants. :-)
We are not electing a POW either.
Nancy Reagan just endorsed McCrazy and today Gallup has McCrazy up by 15 points over Mutt.
If you want to stop McCrazy you better rally around Huck or Paul real quick!
He is carrying McCain's water to get the VP slot.
We ain’t picking a preacher, either.
Going as far as you do, I understand your reasoning. The problem for me is that I cannot support McCain. And where you and I part ways, is that I can not support Romney either.
I will be writing in this fall.
Sorry folks, I urged people to use some sound jugement before we came to this place, but here we are anyway.
I may not get to vote to decide the nominee, but if I am presented with these choices, I do at least have the choice to opt out.
He made a whole lot of sense.
He said anyone is better than Hillary and all this bashing that he and others have been doing is helping her.
I have decided I will listen to him instead of Beck.
I lost a lot of support for Glenn when he started calling Mike Huckabee “Mullah Huckabee.”
I voted for Fred and will again in Nov.
I could care less about McCrazy.
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.