Originally posted by Kyle Hampton at http://www.mymanmitt.com/:
There's a lot out today about McCain's continued dishonest portrayal of Romney's Iraq position and I thought I would do a run down:
Paul Mirengoff: In doing so, he relies on a statement, which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain’s supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney.
Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.
Mark Levin: Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff.
Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.
Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq . (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)
Ed Morrissey: This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops.
David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida ’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.
Additionally:
John Fund says that John McCain didn't like the nomination of Justice Alito:
“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."”
Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.”
Couldn't have said it better myself. McCain should just come out and say it "I'm a moderate." For all his "straight talk" McCain has left out the most important piece of the puzzle: humself. If McCain were being honest with himself he would come out and tell the world that he is no conservative.
As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provocative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the isle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.
Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.
John McCain, whose conservatism begins and ends with the War in Iraq, would be an absolute disaster for America domestically and especially with the courts. His disdain for "agents of intollerance" and other advocates on issues of life, gay marriage, and other social issues is barely contained. He has tried at every point to undermine their ability to advocate (i.e. McCain-Feingold) and now would avoid nominating judges who supposedly wear their conservatism on their sleeves. The contempt for social conservatives could hardly be more.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Oh well, slick Mitt has been mis-representing everyone else's positions for months, what goes around comes around. It's about time someone joined him in the mud.
I guess you'd better move over then, to give Mitt some room.
Yes the pig does need his space, especially on his ground.
I was referring to you, down there in the mud, to make room for Mitt.
Romney is a flip flopping scumbag, and that is why EVERYONE of his fellow Republican candidates despise him. Mitt Romney, the Republican Dukasis, who will ensure a Democratic rout. I almost hope he gets the nom, so I can scan the blogs come September, when everyone is wondering why the hell they picked this dud. I might even listen to that pill popping Limbaugh.
That's an awful lot of words for them to have never pointed out what quote McCain was referring to, or how it actually should have been interpretted.
They may be right, but they are terribly unconvincing.
(which is unfortunate, if they are right)
Steve (or is it Speedzzter) -
Cool your jets. The article was about John McCain, not Mitt Romney. You sound more like a jilted lover with every statement.
Post a Comment