And we thought we were done with Mitt Romney? Not So Fast! An active campaign to get Romney selected as Sen. John McCain’s running mate is underway, as demonstrated (in part) by this Facebook group. The group’s admins list seven reasons why McCain should select Romney:
1. Romney has shown that he can win Michigan and places like Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, and some other "purple" states that could go either way in the general election. -Romney can win Michigan because he’s from there. McCain will do fine in “purple” states on his own because he appeals to the center, something Romney could never do. In many “purple” states (aka Swing States), Romney is actually a liability.
2. Romney doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that could hurt McCain. -This is because Romney’s skeletons are in the living room serving coffee. Gun control, his alleged “flip-flop” on abortion, and Mormonism, be they real problems or not, are going to be a liability. We didn’t make him our presidential nominee for a reason.
3. Romney could still sell his turnaround the economy strategy and McCain could say that he would let Mitt write the economic strategy. I’m sorry, did I miss the memo? Romney can manage money, I get it. I haven’t seen a strategy.
4. They both agree at the importance of protecting America and increasing the size of our military. So does everyone else in our party, except for Ron Paul, who isn’t really in our party.
5. Mitt can use his very impressive fund raising machine to help McCain raise money since McCain is still very short on funds. He should have been doing so already.
6. Romney would be a perfect candidate to strengthen the three legs of the conservative movement. I don’t even get what this means, or how McCain would need help.
7. Romney will be a very strong candidate to succeed McCain after McCain serves one term. Et tu, Brute? Seriously, though, are we talking about ’12 already. And I thought this cycle was bad.
All that aside, I can see why Romney would be a good VP nominee. But saying, as the group title does, that a McCain/Romney ticket is “OUR LAST HOPE” reeks of a political sore loser and trying to come in second place. This isn’t the Soap Box Derby, there is no prize for second.
A recent ABC NEWS story reported that most US Military personnel preferred one of the Democrat presidential hopefuls in the upcoming election. Despite the fact that most American military personnel voted for President Bush in 2004, ABC interviewed five soldiers who all seemed to support a Democrat. (four for Senator Barack Obama, one for Senator Hillary Clinton) None who were interviewed supported the presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain.
I honestly don’t think it would be that hard to find a soldier who supported McCain. This whole story smells greatly of a pro-Dem piece of yellow journalism, and a sad statement about media’s involvement in politics. Stories such as this serve less to report the news and more to disseminate a viewpoint. One that may be grossly out of line with what the reality of the situation suggests. How many soldiers are in favor of McCain? With news reporting like this, we will never know.
I've still got some reservations about the guy, but at least while watching this I can breathe clear and easy; I've yet to see another campaign ad that captures patriotism like this one. I felt like one of those women who faint at Obama rallies. Just before I lost consciousness, I could hear and feel the words, "Yes, we can!" escape my lips...
The question: Can you name one accomplishment in the political career of Barack Obama?
The answers:
"Umm, well he can speak really well! That's not a political accomplishment? Oh...well, he's black! Did I mention he's black? That's an accomplishment isn't it?...That's true, I guess he didn't really have any control over that..."
Or my personal favorite, from the first video--
Yellow-Shirted Man (with smug tone):"He's a great oratater like Jesse Jackson!"
Questioner (exasperated): "What isthat?!?"
All this goes to show that Obama's run a fantastic (although vague) campaign. All his supporters seem to know or care about him is that he is...well, a well-spoken black Senator. Nobody opposes Barack Obama because he is a great speaker, because he's black, or because he's a Senator.
No, I think it's something a little more substantial--like say, oh I don't know, maybe being the most liberal Senator in Congress? Wisely, Obama has spoken very little about his policy views. So until the candidates for each party are chosen, it looks like the Obama campaign is going to continue to be all about that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you hear, "Yes, we can!" and "Fired up, ready to go!"
Barack Obama: Pro-hope (as well as the requisite 'audacity' that accompanies it), Pro-dreams, Pro-future, and also very much in support of generic "good feelings."
Many have expressed concern over Romney's authenticity and whether he really believes any of the conservative principles he touted to voters during his campaign. The only way I can see it after this speech is that either: 1)Mitt Romney believes what he says, and he is committed to conservatism and America or 2)Mitt Romney is a liar on the level of Bill Clinton, saying anything to get elected, even to the point of lying in his withdrawal speech.
I think, after hearing and reading this speech, Romney is a fantastic American and I hope that he finds a place to prove his talents for these next four years.
UPDATE: A sentimental look at what might be in 2012...
You know what day it is! It's Mitt's last chance to turn things around, and a major test for the Democrats to see if Sen. Obama's message of change is more "changey" than Sen. Clinton's message of change.
I've got class for a few hours today, but I'll keep updating the results as they come in and I get a chance.
My hopes: Mitt stops the bleeding and an enraged McCain says something stupid, while Hillary stomps Obama
My predictions: McCain "straight-talks" his way to the nomination, and Hillary stomps Obama.
California-McCain 40%, Romney 36%, Huck 10% This state is critical for Romney. Whether he wins or not, he at least needs a significant chunk of delegates to even think about continuing after today. Jim Geraghty reminds that these are preliminary results, without a district-by-district breakdown, and likely without 3 million absentee ballots. This might get a lot closer.
Missouri-Romney 36%, McCain 32%, Huck 25% This was also a big state for Romney. It will be a major surprise if he holds on for the win here.
Georgia-Huck 34%, Romney 31%, McCain 30% While I don't know the strategic importance of Georgia, I think it will be exciting to see how it turns out with all three candidates so close.
New England- McCain wins pretty handily. No surprise there. Liberal is as liberal does. **Massachusetts, Romney's home state, is an obvious exception, but Delaware apparently is also going Mitt's way.
The South- Not counting the ones mentioned above, Huck is leading in most Southern states, followed by McCain and Romney, respectively. McCain has a slight lead over Huck in Oklahoma, though Romney is close enough that he might be able to stage a comeback...
McCain's winning his home state of Arizona, but only by five points...
WARNING: EXIT NUMBERS EARLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL VOTES:
OBAMA: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...
CLINTON: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41...
There are a couple close states there, but it looks like most Democrats have decided one way or the other. I also notice that Obama seems to have a lot more states behind his name. What else could explain it but....the audacity of hope. Well, my hopes were apparently too audacious because neither Mitt nor Hillary are winning out and out, but where there's a clever marketing strategy, there's a way:
UPDATE (11:15 pm): Well, my predictions were kind of right. McCain "straight-talked" his way through the day, and Hillary leads Obama, but she certainly didn't stomp him. She may be stomping her feet right now, as Obama did fairly well today. Things are much closer for the Democrats because (as far as I can tell) each state gave out delegates proportionately rather than 'winner-take-all' like many of the Republican primaries did.
The winner-take-all states explain the much bigger difference in the GOP numbers. To borrow a nearly worn-out phrase, I Hate Huckabee. Clearly, he fancies himself a vice president. It would be tempting to vote against a McCain-Huck ticket simply out of spite. Must...resist...cultural suicide...
Alas, it seems this spells the end for our hero Mitt Romney. We hardly knew ye. There are only three words that can express my disappointment and shame:
In case you haven't heard enough of the candidates all calling themselves the "candidate of change," here's David Bowie to help us lighten things up a bit.
In case you were wondering why his message is 10 parts gassy “change” to every one part specific policy proposals, here's why...How doctrinaire is he? He’s to the left of Russ Feingold. And moving leftward every year relative to his colleagues: He was the 16th-most liberal senator in 2005, 10th-most in 2006, and number one with a bullet now. Election year pandering to outflank Hillary among the base or is he really “evolving” in office, as the left likes to say of politicians who drift this way? Whatever the answer, it ain’t good. In fairness, he’s only very marginally worse than Hillary, the difference coming in her commendable willingness to take a hard-ish line on the Revolutionary Guard.
I've heard some people say they might just vote for Obama out of spite for both Hillary and the GOP, usually citing an argument along the lines of, "Well, if we're going to have a liberal president no matter what, I'd rather it be a Democrat. At least they're predictably liberal and if things go badly, we can blame their party instead of ours. Then we'll blow them out of the water in 2012!"
I heard similar arguments during the 2006 midterm elections, and frankly I think they're absurd. People seem to forget that election years aren't the only times important things have to be dealt with. September 11th wasn't during an election year. The Bush tax cuts weren't. The amnesty bill this past summer wasn't either. The idea is to vote for somebody who you think will do what is best over the course of four years as President, not just who seems interesting right now. If another terrorist attack happens, if the country falls into a recession, if a tax cut (or tax increase, for that matter) passes Congress...who do you want sitting in the Oval Office?
What to do about John McCain's surprisingly meteoric rise to GOP front-runner status? Is he really who he says he is?
McCain has cast himself as the stoic "straight-talker" who can help our troops win in the Middle East, stop pork-barrel spending in Congress, and stand up for America on the world stage. Unfortunately, he's also the Democrat-enabling Senator who help construct monstrosities like McCain-Feingold (curbing free speech via "campaign-finance reform"), McCain-Kennedy (the lovely amnesty bill Congress tried to ram down our throats last summer), and most recently, McCain-Lieberman-Obama (his newest effort to wring money from taxpayers to stop global warming). He's the guy who voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. He's the candidate who proudly touted his New York Times endorsement in the face of the conservative base. It seems as though he's thrown his "straight-talk" gimmick out the window, especially after Florida and last night's debate, when he insisted Mitt Romney wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq (despite nearly every single media outlet that investigated the issue calling him on the smear).
There's also this little chart, showing that McCain's lifetime conservatism ranking in Congress is lower than Chuck Hagel's. Granted, he wasn't always so liberal, but the longer McCain stayed in Washington, the less conservative he became. Inconceivable!
The newest charge McCain has to face, obviously, is whether or not he is a flip-flopping RINO--the same charge that has been leveled at Mitt Romney since he announced his candidacy. The difference, it seems, is that while Romney held liberal positions in the past, he now claims he has different views, and is asking America to let him prove his conservative bona fides; McCain, on the other hand, used to be more conservative, but claims to be one now despite his recent liberal voting and legislative record and dodging questions about his principles.
In the end, the question is not about who is or is not a flip-flopper (they are, after all, politicians). The question is this: do Republicans want to nominate a conservative? If the answer is yes, then I can't see how McCain is an acceptable candidate. Military valor and surge-support aside, he not only sponsors liberal legislation, he seems to have no problem spitting on the base whenever they dare question his principles. In my opinion, it's much more important to nominate a candidate you actually would want as president, rather than one you think might stand a better chance against the Democratic nominee. As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
