The Pink Flamingo :: Romney’s Spinal Disability & Attacking Big Mac

I think the most remarkable part of this newly found conservative love-in with Mitt Romney is the fact that our precious little MSM multi-millionaire talk radio and top shelf bloggers along with the conservative MSM pundits are ignoring Mitt Romney’s true record. If they would be honest and honorable they would be forced to accept the fact that Mitt Romney is probably the most liberal of all the GOP POTUS candidates we have had in quite awhile.

Gamecock has posted on Race 42008

“…Mitt Romney has failed to earn the trust of a majority of Republicans that he would not go wobbly during wartime when things get tough. That is why McCain won Florida. McCain was vilified by the most of the conservative press, as well as many in the MSM, for his primary election eve’s eve attack against Romney accusing him of favoring a “timetable” for withdrawal early last year when the war was not going well and the leaders of new elected Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress were trying to force President Bush to set a public date certain for withdrawal for Iraq.
Many even called McCain a liar. (more later below on that) I remember the time well. I remember arguing in January of 2007 that President Bush would not go wobbly since he knew that the only way he could be stopped from fighting our enemies in Iraq would be a two-thirds super majority override of a defense appropriation budget veto. I remember that only a handful of liberal Republican House members and Senator Chuck Hagel(R-NE) explicitly agreed with the Democrats that we publicly set a date for surrender.

I knew the President had a spine.

I remember that Senators McCain and Lindsey Graham and many other Republicans called for sticking with the President and his new surge strategy and rejected timetables and defeat. I remember Fred Thompson praising President Bush and those that refused to settle for anything but total victory as he filled in for Paul Harvey on the radio.

McCain and Thompson had spines.

Regrettably, I also remember my disappointment in too many Republicans, including some of our then declared candidates for president, trying to have it both ways. Senators Brownback, Lugar, and others come to mind. Another Republican also comes to mind. This republican was one that I had written many columns in support of, as I defended him against attacks by the media that his religious faith would prevent him from winning the White House.

I have been vindicated in my defense of Evangelicals as they gave this former governor a plurality of their votes in the Sunshine State. What I remember most about this man back in early to mid-2007 though, was my disappointment at his equivocation on the war when things were tough. Violence was up in Iraq. The Democrats had just taken over Congress. Democrats were calling for public timetables for withdrawal. Mitt Romney did not do that, but neither did he sound an unequivocal clarion call for victory. Instead, he…well, let’s see the quote:…”

Lindsey on Romney – Weekly Standard

“… Moments after McCain's victory speech here last night, I asked a jubilant Lindsey Graham about possible Romney strategy and Romney's positions on Iraq. Graham pointed specifically to comments Romney made in a December 2006 interview with Human Events, in which Romney refused to take a position on the recently-proposed troop surge. "I'm not going to weigh in. I'm still a governor. I'm not running for national office at this stage. It was a less-than-courageous position and more than a bit disingenuous. Romney had participated in specific briefings on Iraq by the architects of the surge and had done virtually everything but formally announce his candidacy. "I welcome this debate," Graham said last night, as former CIA Director Jim Woolsey gave him a hug. "We had just lost badly in the congressional elections in November and Romney and many other Republicans were running for the exits. He was afraid to embrace the surge because Republicans were terrified after that. John was thinking about the nation, not the next election. So if they want to have a debate about where he was at and what he said, bring it on."…”

Powerline on the core differences between the two men.

“…Why is it a problem that Mitt Romney didn't take a position on the surge in December 2006, when he was governor of Massachusetts? At that time, he hadn't been to Iraq and he had not been briefed on the subject. He also lacked access to classified information. Nor can Romney be blamed for not having become an expert on Iraq. Being governor of Massachusetts is, after all, a full time job.

I suppose Romney could have relied on some combination of prejudice and the views of others. But, while this may be sufficient for bloggers and pundits, it's not a sound basis for decisionmaking about whether to send 30,000 more troops into harm's way. Romney did not take a position until he had studied the situation, and I think that's to his credit.

John McCain rarely lets lack of information and expertise stand in his way. Iraq, of course, is a notable exception. McCain frequently visited Iraq and consulted with everyone he could. For this, and because he found the right answer, he deserves the great credit he claims.

But what about McCain's other positions? He opposes drilling in ANWR because, in his words, the area is "pristine" (which in this case means barren) and he "wouldn't drill in the Grand Canyon." Has any candidate ever presented a less serious analysis of an important policy question?...”

Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? I have. Do you know it is in Arizona, Senator McCain's home state? Do you know it is one of the most fragile and magnificent landscapes in the world? I don't blame him. What FOOL would advocate drilling for oil in the Grand Canyon? Now, on the other hand, here in New Mexico, on Highway 54 on the way to Fort Bliss, there is one of the largest pools of oil in the world. Drill there! It is so near my next door neighbor's ranch, I'm sure she would end up quite well (sorry about the pun). I can't imagine anyone advocating the drilling of the Grand Canyon.

Steve Kornaki’s New York Observer piece has the intellectual honesty to go after Romney the way conservatives will not.

“… Romney’s entire campaign has been premised on cozying up to the conservative base, even if it means reversing positions and attitudes that he’d held for years. … But for all of Romney’s griping, there is a certain justice in his campaign being sullied by such a disingenuous gambit. Romney, after all, has built his entire campaign on disingenuousness, wrapping himself in a language and ideology that he once told Massachusetts voters repulsed him. More than that, he has shown remarkably little restraint in taking his newfound, base-friendly views and spending millions of dollars to advertise them. His chief target, for nearly a year now, has been McCain.

It was Romney who just two years ago matter-of-factly told the Massachusetts press that McCain’s views on immigration were “reasonable” and that the Arizonan’s call for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers was “not amnesty.” Then he discovered that conservative activists were livid with McCain—the same activists whose support Romney badly wanted for his presidential bid. So he reversed himself, began spouting nativist rhetoric, and slammed McCain—in debates, speeches, interviews and television and radio ads—for supporting “amnesty.”

Meanwhile, it was McCain who stood by his position, at enormous political peril, urging a “humane” solution to the immigration morass and acknowledging that illegal immigrants “are God’s children” too. Right or wrong, McCain handled the issue honorably.

That’s just one example of the shameless opportunism that has defined Romney’s effort. In Massachusetts he brought audiences to tears with the story of a “close family member” who died from a back alley abortion, and how the experience had convinced him that abortion should be a matter of deeply personal choice, and not any business of the government’s. “You will not see me waver on that,” he declared.

But then he decided to run for President and declared himself adamantly pro-life, claiming that he had only been “effectively pro-choice” back in Massachusetts (whatever that means). …

And he authored a brand new chapter last night, proclaiming that Ronald Reagan would “absolutely” endorse him if the former President were still alive. Of course, when Reagan actually was alive, Romney was running around Massachusetts assuring voters that “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”…”

I’m getting sick and tired of this. I want to write about other things. There is this huge story about the Southern Baptist Church and pedophiles, and I can’t get to it because of this %@#$! It’s getting old. I think for me the final straw is Bob Novak’s treachery and half-truths. Have you seen the article? Read the whole thing, carefully. As the conservative mouthpiece says, “Words mean things.” Read all the words here.

“…I found what he could not remember was a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after McCain announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral for president, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Each said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:
"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative….”

“My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is…”

Novak’s sources include an attorney who is “neutral” and one who is a Romney supporter. I expect better of Bob Novak. Steven Hayes at The Weekly Standard points out the same thing. Lone Star Times is another conservative site where they refuse to acknowledge Romney’s past. AJ Strata on Laura Ingraham’s nastiness. American Power Blog on Rush Neocon News has the whole rundown on the Conservative Big Mac Attack. Can Mark Levin get any nastier? WuzzaDem proves that the anti-McCain Bots are the same mind-set as the Ron Paul Bots

I find it absolutely amazing how all these Radio Conservatives with the exception of Medved are sticking together. Today he committed the unpardonable by criticizing Rush on Tucker Carlson.
Flopping Aces Newsbusters

“…MICHAEL MEDVED: Well they’re acting like liberals, and I know that’s a terrible thing to say about people I like and respect — I have great respect for Rush. But he’s acting like a liberal on this. Liberals allow personalities and emotions and feelings over issues, substance and policy. And that’s what they’re doing here. Because if you actually look at the three essential elements of the Reagan coalition: security, economics and social issues — McCain is solid. He is very conservative. He is a traditional Reagan Republican, and there is no policy reason, there is no issues reason, for people to be so hostile to him and to call him all these names and to bang on him day after day after day. I actually believe that talk radio is hurting itself more than they’re hurting Senator McCain….”

A MINI RANT
It has dawned on me that today’s Rush brainwashed conservative who is incapable of thinking is no different than the Ron Paul Bots. I think Hugh Hewitt is the worst of the robots. He has no intellectual honesty. Just check this review of the debate in CA. I listened to some stupid conservative freak on Cavuto today calling it the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech law. Of all the disingenuous mendacious canards I’ve heard, this is one. Does anyone remember why these laws were put in place? Does anyone remember how atrocious conservatives like Rush Limbaugh (and I must include myself) behaved during the Clinton years? Do you know how many tens upon tens of millions were collected to take out the Clintons? Do you know why George Soros was brought into the fold? Even with his billions, Soros cannot equal the tremendous amount of 527 money that the conservatives have to throw around against anyone who counters them.