Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rally for Romney: Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.
National Review Online ^ | January 31, 2008 | Mark R. Levin

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 couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t 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 Reagan’s 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 don’t 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.

Let’s 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 McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s 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 McCain’s 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 Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s 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 he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s 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 media’s 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 weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

 

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s 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 it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s 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 isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

 

Of course, it’s 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 McCain’s 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? It’s 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 it’s fair to say that McCain’s positions are more in line with the ACLU than most conservatives.

 

Why recite this record? Well, if conservatives don’t 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 wouldn’t the prospect of a Clinton or Obama presidency drive enough of the grassroots to the polls for McCain? It wasn’t 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 won’t 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 won’t 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 doesn’t make a juggernaut. But the liberal media are promoting him now as the presumptive nominee. More and more establishment Republican officials are jumping on McCain’s bandwagon — the latest being Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has all but destroyed California’s Republican party.

Let’s 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 don’t 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.



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2008; elections; hillarylite; marklevin; mccain; primaries; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-526 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT
You are so lucky. I would love to meet him.

I am very grateful for the opportunity. I have been meeting politicians my entire life because my parents were GOP activists and I have never met any more sincere and accessible than Romney.

401 posted on 01/31/2008 2:56:36 PM PST by Zevonismymuse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
I think I am in love with this Mark Levin guy.
402 posted on 01/31/2008 2:58:32 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sandude

You’re right. VP’s typically don’t matter, but McCain is 71 and will be 72 when he takes office and has a history of skin cancer. It wouldn’t surprise me too much to see him bow out early second term, or see his VP take on considerably more responsibility.

If he were to pick someone like Thompson, or even Jeb Bush, (long shot, I realize) I do think it would excite some conservatives on the right.

I’ll be surprises to see the media destroy him as easily as you are making it out to be....maybe, but I’d still be surprised.


403 posted on 01/31/2008 3:00:39 PM PST by Mister Politics (www.misterpolitics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

Mitt’s father was the head of the war auto production effort, improving our capacity to supply the necessary equipment to win World War 2.

I don’t know how many males there have been in the Romney family in their less-than-200-year history of being Americans, nor do I know how you can be certain that none of those males ever joined up for the military.

I don’t know how common it is for a particular family tree to not include people who served. I don’t know whether there were ANY boys of military age during the 1st or 2nd world war.

I do know that the point has nothing to do with whether a particular man is qualified to be President.


404 posted on 01/31/2008 3:01:46 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Actually, it is unlikely, based on the evidence — the evidence being the projections of three different sources of what is likely.


405 posted on 01/31/2008 3:02:33 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Hattie

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Romney would make a bad president, but I he is a flip-flopper anyway you cut it. He has all the right positions now, just didn’t have any of them 4 years ago.

I don’t know how we can effectively defend Romney when we all tore Kerry apart for flip-flopping.


406 posted on 01/31/2008 3:03:24 PM PST by Mister Politics (www.misterpolitics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
I think I am in love with this Mark Levin guy.
 
Your lower brain is in good form.  Mark is the smartest guy in talk radio, and he does have the most beautiful voice -- he really does!
 

407 posted on 01/31/2008 3:04:11 PM PST by littlehouse36 (Why be Europe?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Honestly, I would be surprised if he got much of the black vote at all. The GOP typically gets between 7%-10% of the black vote? I don’t think he will much appeal to African Americans and would be shocked if he could break the 10% mark going against Hillary or Barack.


408 posted on 01/31/2008 3:06:00 PM PST by Mister Politics (www.misterpolitics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

The article doesn’t mention NAMBLA. However, his record on sexual orientation issues is decidedly slimy.


409 posted on 01/31/2008 3:06:09 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Go see Cloverfield. It's good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: All
If Mitt wants to pull this out he needs to name a Conservative VP candidate now.
410 posted on 01/31/2008 3:06:53 PM PST by bitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Minn. 4 Bush

Haha. Maybe you’re right, but the poll reflects the fact that McCain has a proven track record of scoring well with “independents” and moderates.

The real problem with polls showing a candidate losing to Hillary Clinton is that she is such a defined, well known candidate. People have had over a decade to learn not to like to her and her negatives remain alarmingly high to the general public.

For Romney (or any candidate for that matter) to being running as far behind her as he is means something in even in Feb.


411 posted on 01/31/2008 3:11:03 PM PST by Mister Politics (www.misterpolitics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Hear, hear.


412 posted on 01/31/2008 3:14:13 PM PST by Mister Politics (www.misterpolitics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Gosh could it be he is not a politician, he has been very successful in a field that they couldn’t begin to compete in, he is better looking, and smarter. The are all politicians, they have made their living off the tax payers all their lives and are jealous of someone who has forgotten more about the real world than they will ever know.

A couple of more things. I have had the honor of knowing many WWII and Vietnam veterans in my life and two things that are true across the board with all of them is they don’t spend their life talking about their service or consider themselves heroes. They to a man will tell you that the ones who never came home are the heroes. I respect McCain’s service to his country, but he is starting to sound a lot like John Kerry with the look at me I am a war hero stuff. And lastly he continually tells all us that he is a leader, it has been my experience that real leaders don’t need to keep telling us about it.


413 posted on 01/31/2008 3:14:27 PM PST by redangus (are)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: manapua

In Massachusetts, the Attorney General is the only one with standing to represent the government before the courts.

Romney could scream about wanting to do so, but he could not actually do so. If the AG wouldn’t go fight it, Romney could do nothing about it.

As to what people were “surprised” at, there was a hard fight waged to get the religious exception INTO the new law. It was only when that FAILED that the Romney administration came up with the novel legal argument that the old law had not actually been superceded. If that were the case, nobody would have been fighting to get it into the existing law.

Eventually, reality caught up, and Romney was required by law to issue regulations based on the new law.

BTW, unlike the gay marriage case, there are actual real legal scholars who disagree with Romney on this, so my discussion is based on the preponderance of the legal views, not all of them. In fact, there was a lawsuit filed to overturn this ruling. So far, the ruling stands, and so far as I can tell the lawsuit will fail — which would indicate that the legal position taken by the AG was sadly correct.

BTW, I don’t support a blanket religious exception for religions which run public facilities as part of a care system where people don’t have a choice of what facility they are taken to.

To use an extreme example, I’d be rather upset if I needed an emergency blood transfusion but was transported to a hospital run by a religious organization that wouldn’t give me blood because of their “religious beliefs”. Of course, we would all agree about that, because we all think a religious objection to blood transfusions sound silly.

The constitution’s protection allowing you to freely exercise your religion does not give you blanket ability to force those views on others. The legislature could have kpet the exemption, but I don’t believe the constitution required it, and so I don’t believe a suit on that aspect would be successful either.

Given that a significant part of the pro-life community isn’t in agreement about plan b to begin with, I find this particular incident rather minor in the grand scheme of things.

I do wish he had been able to, or would have, fought that more than he did, but it just doesn’t get me worked up like it gets some people.

Plan B at worst only sometimes prevents the implantation of an already fertilized egg. It also prevents pregnancy. Of course, the Catholic church is opposed to birth control, but many pro-lifers are not. For them, if you could prevent a woman from getting pregnant as a result of rape, they would support that, especially if the alternative is the woman has an abortion 4 weeks later.

BTW, many of our “pro-life” candidates support abortion for rape, so for them the plan-b action would likely stir no opposition — if you are for aborting a baby in the case of rape, you certainly won’t oppose giving a pill that might prevent a rape pregnancy.


414 posted on 01/31/2008 3:18:22 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The article doesn’t mention NAMBLA. However, his record on sexual orientation issues is decidedly slimy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=63#63

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=67#67

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=78#78

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=81#81

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=91#91

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949574/posts?page=101#101

Decidely slimy? Hardly.

415 posted on 01/31/2008 3:19:52 PM PST by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I’m not saying you support a particular candidate, and I apologize for my post’s inference that you did.

But the topic of the thread is Romney vs McCain, and in that context I felt it important to point out that, rather than your suggestion that Romney fit your description, it was in fact McCain that fit that description.


416 posted on 01/31/2008 3:20:49 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Before that, he didn’t have a web site with a platform on it, so he couldn’t “support” that platform. Frankly, I haven’t seen any indication that ANYTHING he’s said or done while running for President has shown any degree of wavering on his support for conservative principles.

I hardly see how that is risable. Huckabee in contrast makes statements every week where a few days later he has to correct, amend, or contradict them. McCain is more consistant, but his consistancy is about opposing conservative values.


417 posted on 01/31/2008 3:24:12 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

I already replied before I got to this post.


418 posted on 01/31/2008 3:25:49 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Antoninus
In fact, I simply wanted to explain to the poster that so long as he simply voiced an opinion with no factual basis, I would be trusting Mark Levin’s opinion rather than his opinion.

I know people will oppose Romney, and don’t expect to change their minds, but for those who are still looking to make a rational decision, I feel it is helpful to note the comparative worth of the opinions being offered.

Perhaps the opinion offered has as much WORTH as others....I didn't know we had a "worthiness" standard on FR, nor just WHO was to judge it, nor a standard as to what should be allowed in a post outside of the usual FR posting rules.

In fact, I simply wanted to explain to the poster that so long as he simply voiced an opinion with no factual basis, I would be trusting Mark Levin’s opinion rather than his opinion.

Then why not simply say so instead of I trust Mark’s opinion much more than yours, “Antoninus”. Mark Levin is a real person who puts his real reputation on the line and has concluded that Romney is to be trusted enough to see him as better than McCain.

John McCain went to bat against the Fairness Doctrine, but I haven't heard any of these radio hosts give him credit for that. Has Mark?

McCain introduces talk radio legislation

"Arizona Sen. John McCain has introduced federal legislation to protect talk radio shows from the reinstatement of past rules that required dissenting voices be given equal time on their shows."

One has to wonder what influences Clear Channel/Premier Radio Networks exercise since the purchase by Bain Capital. And regardless that Mitt is no longer an OWNER of Bain, the "good old boy network" is a factor in business.

419 posted on 01/31/2008 3:26:11 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (Salvation is NOT a value-added enterprise by making you pay for it. Christ gives it away free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Whereas it makes me sad when I see conservatives taking the “to h*ll with the law, be a dictator” line of reasoning.


420 posted on 01/31/2008 3:26:36 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Jawohl.


421 posted on 01/31/2008 3:28:53 PM PST by Petronski (I didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I’m sorry, you didn’t.


422 posted on 01/31/2008 3:29:01 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
The problem with Romney is that at one time or other, he agreed with McCain on most everything you just listed.

At one time or another, I would have agreed with McCain on just about everything listed. Since then, I've learned better. Romney acknowledges past mistakes, something I don't think McCain ever does.

423 posted on 01/31/2008 3:31:07 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Funniest thing of all is watching the Romney Sleaze Machine trying to slither to the moral high ground.

Hoist by your own petard, and I'm loving it.

424 posted on 01/31/2008 3:31:54 PM PST by Petronski (I didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

She did not. Someone who talked to her claims she “fully supports” him IN HER PRIVATE LIFE. And also that she does NOT want to say anything publicly.


425 posted on 01/31/2008 3:34:36 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Pity Fred Thompson dallied.

Thompson Effect [tomp-son ef-fect] –noun: 1. Syn: Aesop’s fable concerning the tortoise and the hare, q.v., with Thompson being the tortoise. 2. An unwise political strategy involving dilly-dallying on deciding to run while your opponents are out shaking the hands of voters and running commercials. 3. –verb: To do something stupid, in a political sense, involving an unwise strategy involving the delay of execution of a political strategic plan. Candidate Ritter delayed announcing his candidacy too long, and pulled a Thompson when his voters all went for his opponent.

426 posted on 01/31/2008 3:38:37 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scarchin; Rb ver. 2.0; Bird Jenkins; Y Ceratotherium; WOSG; jschner; patriciaruth; ...

ping


427 posted on 01/31/2008 3:39:04 PM PST by Checkers (I'd say John McCain is a Dick Nixon, but Nixon didn't hate Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“I do know that the point has nothing to do with whether a particular man is qualified to be President.”

The “I will crush the chances of anyone but my candidate, even if it destroys the republican party and the conservative movement in the process, people” are busy throwing spagetti against the wall.


428 posted on 01/31/2008 3:40:42 PM PST by Delacon (Don't Immanentize the Eschaton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Last Clear Chance.
Vote for Mitt.

Stop McCain.

Stop Amnesty.
Or you get what you deserve.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/


429 posted on 01/31/2008 3:42:57 PM PST by sweetiepiezer (GO MITT........GO MITT..........GO MITT...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
“I will crush the chances of anyone but my candidate, even if it destroys the republican party and the conservative movement in the process...

That's been the modus operandi of the Romney Sleaze Machine since day one.

Hoist by your own petard.


430 posted on 01/31/2008 3:44:25 PM PST by Petronski (I didn't leave the GOP. The GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Checkers; LucyT

Thanks for the ping.


431 posted on 01/31/2008 3:46:03 PM PST by sweetiepiezer (GO MITT........GO MITT..........GO MITT...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

No she didn’t, you, like McCain, have a problem with accuracy.


432 posted on 01/31/2008 3:52:17 PM PST by enough_idiocy (Romney/Thompson or Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

McCain is the author of the most brazen assault on free speech in the modern area. That’s just the first item on McCain’s extensive list. Romney’s blemishes and/or flip-flops don’t hold a candle to McCain’s 8 years of incessant treachery.

I really wish some of you guys would reconsider what you’re doing. At the very least, dedicate as much of your time and effort to taking down the man who’s declared war on conservatism and has surrounded himself with likeminded crusaders (like Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Martinez, Crist, Hernandez, Perry, etc.).


433 posted on 01/31/2008 3:54:01 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard ("I didn't raise taxes. I raised hope" - The Huckster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

In his personal and business life I can’t think of a better candidate than Romney. No divorces. No marriages to millionairs(so Kerryesque)like McCain. No accusations of dishonesty in his business dealings. No accusations of dishonesty in his political dealings. He has always done what he said he would do. He hasn’t even failed.


434 posted on 01/31/2008 3:55:23 PM PST by Delacon (Don't Immanentize the Eschaton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Frankly, that is a whitewash.


435 posted on 01/31/2008 3:56:13 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on.

Exactly.
436 posted on 01/31/2008 3:58:10 PM PST by CottonBall (The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

“That’s been the modus operandi of the Romney Sleaze Machine since day one.”

Give me a break.

“Let’s 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 McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s 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 McCain’s comments about Romney.


437 posted on 01/31/2008 3:58:29 PM PST by Delacon (Don't Immanentize the Eschaton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

“That’s been the modus operandi of the Romney Sleaze Machine since day one.”

Give me a break.

“Let’s 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 McCain’s record? Is this the first campaign in which an opponent has run ads questioning another candidate’s record? That’s par for the course. To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s 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 McCain’s comments about Romney.


438 posted on 01/31/2008 3:58:30 PM PST by Delacon (Don't Immanentize the Eschaton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: VegasBaby
Mark Levin is a wise, wise man. McCain must be stopped now.

I always thought Levin was the voice of reason even in the midst of chaos. My respect for him has doubled.
439 posted on 01/31/2008 3:59:40 PM PST by CottonBall (The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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 Romney’s character doesn’t let him to cross certain boundaries of decorum and decency, but McCain’s 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.


440 posted on 01/31/2008 4:00:01 PM PST by Delacon (Don't Immanentize the Eschaton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
like it how no one has mentioned that a Romney has never, in 200 years defended, served or worn a uniform of America.

Reagan didn't serve either, but was an outstanding CIC. One of the best.
441 posted on 01/31/2008 4:02:28 PM PST by CottonBall (The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
In his personal and business life I can’t think of a better candidate than Romney. No divorces. No marriages to millionairs(so Kerryesque)like McCain. No accusations of dishonesty in his business dealings. No accusations of dishonesty in his political dealings. He has always done what he said he would do. He hasn’t even failed.

That is likely why the MSM hate him. And the voters are buying into the envy bit that McCain keeps trying.
442 posted on 01/31/2008 4:06:12 PM PST by CottonBall (The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
One has to wonder what influences Clear Channel/Premier Radio Networks exercise since the purchase by Bain Capital. And regardless that Mitt is no longer an OWNER of Bain, the "good old boy network" is a factor in business.

LOL! Now that spreading the lie that Romney has business dealings with Clear Channel doesn't work, you add in the 'good old boy network'?

It's time to move onto something new! That old line is sounding more pathetic with each caveat.
443 posted on 01/31/2008 4:08:11 PM PST by CottonBall (The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. (Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
How about an Ad that lied about John McCain?

You must have missed the Fox news broadcast when the Romulan was crying about the "milestones" charge...while the pundits; Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke, all agreed McCain was stretching the truth about Mutt they also castigated the Romulan for being "dishonest" about the "amnesty" and "making tax cuts permanent" attack ads about McCain. He did the same to Huckabee in N.H. on the the "fair tax" ad, he hit Rudy with "gay marriage" something which he, himself, endorsed in Mass; and he tried to tie Fred to McCain's CFR proposal... Mitt is a dirtbag, pure and simple, he started out violating Reagan's 11 commandment but when the table is turned on him he acts like a crybaby.

444 posted on 01/31/2008 4:09:50 PM PST by meandog (Please pray for future President McCain--day minus 334 and counting! <b>Vote Mitt=Get Billary!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: enough_idiocy
“No she didn’t, you, like McCain, have a problem with accuracy.”

It was on Drudge and posted to FR.

Give it up, Mutt is tanking in the polls and will be crushed on Tues.

Everyone on the Fox News panel tonight agreed that McCrazy was mostly correct about Romney and his surrender timetables in the debate last night.

Mutt is finished and can slither back to his liberal sewer in MA.

445 posted on 01/31/2008 4:18:20 PM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

So, if Mitt is known to have supported sordid, disordered lifestyles in the past, how come you support him? (And I’m not saying I don’t—he could ultimately be the least disgusting of the three.)


446 posted on 01/31/2008 4:18:45 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Go see Cloverfield. It's good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: meandog

I think the reason they don’t like him is because besides being an outsider, they’re liberal and he’s more conservative. It’s almost like the Ayn Rand adage, “The hatred of the good for being good”.


447 posted on 01/31/2008 4:19:19 PM PST by FrdmLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Feel free to copy. That's what I did.

448 posted on 01/31/2008 4:20:51 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Go see Cloverfield. It's good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Sent my donation to Romney last night. Go Mitt.

Yes, that is something I can do.

449 posted on 01/31/2008 4:23:19 PM PST by ncpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

Jeeshe, is it a requirement that Romney supporters be ignorant?

Military service

After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve[18] on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa.[19] He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.[20]

Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.[21] His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office.[22] Upon the request of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, California.[22] On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California.[22] He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.[19]

In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit, Culver City, California on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of the World War II.[19] He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[23] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9 1945.[


450 posted on 01/31/2008 4:23:53 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-526 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson