DISQUS

Frogg · 1 year ago

I was impressed with Romney long before anyone was talking about elections and he was Governor of Mass dealing with the marriage and health issues. He was relaxed and could explain his ideas/vision is a way that made it very compelling. He has seemed a little more rigid during the early part of his campaign; but, seems to be relaxing a bit more now.

He was my early choice. Then, I went to the undecided category and played around with all the scenerios. I went through my Fred moment, then thought hard about Giuliani. I warmed to Huckabee, then backed off once I saw his record. I can accept McCain; but, he would never be my choice. So, over the past six months I've gone full circle and have landed as a Romney supporting making my first contribution to his campaign on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.

Don't be fooled by the head to head electability polls right now. They will all change once the final candidates are nominated and Americans have a chance to see them side by side, issue by issue. Romney will do well. As a matter of fact the head to head polls on Romney are pretty erratic; but, there are atleast three that have him looking almost as good as McCain against Hillary. That will only grow.

My biggest frustration with the Republican party is that they don't seem to communicate their ideas very well; and great ideas get lost to the general population. Romney can change this. He has the business background and can make the sell.

Pirate_Hunter · 1 year ago

He's right. Romney is the last choice for conservatives. Not that Romney's perfect, as he pointed out; but he's less distasteful than anti-free speech, amnesty-supporting, tax cut opposing John McCain (and less distasteful than the guy who's clearly running for McCain's VP, Mike Huckabee). It would be tough supporting either McCain or Huckabee in a general election, especially after the dishonest way both have been characterizing Romney's position on Iraq in the last day or two. I just can't stomache them any more.

Dave Miller · 1 year ago

Your choice is right on. McCain dishonestly cites Romney for planning early troop withdrawal. What Romney would do, as any good executive, is to plan a strategy, just like General Petreaus did, Develop risk analysis and strategy for various eventualities and manage the program accordingly. Rudy would as well. Romney has the intellectual capacity to listen to learned military people and make intelligent decisions based upon input. McCain would make a decision then listen to input. God help your career if you disagree.

fejj · 1 year ago

Ed
I appreciate your thorough professionalism and integrity and it is one of the reasons why this blog is so popular.

I began to lean towards Romney after I read his book “Turnaround” which is his story of the SLC Olympics. This was a feat behind the ability of anyone but a small handful of supremely talented professionals. When I looked at his record as Gov of MA, I could see the same talented hands at work in an environment so hostile to conservatives.

For a long time however I flirted with Rudy because of the elect ability factor. Having researched the history and trends of head-to-head polls, I am convinced that the current polling in favour of McCain is a fool’s paradise. McCain came into the race as a nationally known figure and the MSM media have (in my opinion deliberately) kept his profile high to pump him up as their preferred candidate. McCain is too old, too angry, too entrenched in Washington and too hostile to the GOP base to ever govern as a Reagan conservative. Huckabee to me was always a liberal who happened to be socially conservative and his campaign convinced me he wasn’t ready for the big time. Fred was very attractive at first but lacked the fire in the belly.

The final clincher for me was hearing from a friend in the campaign about Romney’s on-the-ground effort and knowing this was replicated in all the key states and that he had the money to go all the way against the Dems. Always listen to what your enemies say about you and your competition, anyone the NY Times or MSM commentators fawn over in the GOP is code for me to vote for whoever is that candidate’s most obvious and successful opponent and that will tell you who they would really rather not face. The MSM used Huckabee as a foil first and now McCain or, in reality, anybody but Mitt – that speaks volumes about who they fear the most.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

I have many friends in the media and alot of hardcore liberal friends. In reality I think they do not fear any of our people. But most seem to be chomping at the bit for a piece of Romney, they dont fear him, they would relish the chance to eat him alive. McCain is going to loose the nomination race most likely to Romney's deep pockets. Then we will lose in November and be out of Iraq in a year.

Thems the breaks I suppose.

BTW: Why wouldn't McCain and Huck cozy up to the press, they have to get all of the free media they can get here in FL. I can't go 5 damn minutes without seeing Romney's pretty face.

BrooklynCouch · 1 year ago

Mr. Morrissey, I salute your decision and your transparency. The only qualm I have is implying that in some other election, especially the Presidential election, there is ever a "perfect" candidate--there isn't; only Alternative Brand X.

I also hope your endorsement will more than counteract that of Florida's governor!

Also, thanks for your Blog, and role in NARN--a breath of fresh air imported here, deep in Liberal Brooklyn, NY. Thanks, in part, to the sense you espouse, I just switched my registration from D to R yesterday; it won't be effective for the upcoming primary, but I am seriously thinking of volunteering for the Romney campaign here in New York (the primary may actually be competitive unless Rudy pulls off a miracle).

PS: hoping that many, many potential McCain votes are actuall in absentee envelopes for Rudy!

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

I think the Captain was simply countering the media, as well as most McCain supporters, who say that the Conservative base only want "another Reagan". We all know that such characters only come about every lifetime or two, and simply want someone who will direct our Party in the right direction. Voting McCain would be moving even farther toward Republicans becoming the "Democrat-light" party. And a party without a true vision is a losing one.

keemo · 1 year ago

Nicely stated BrooklynCouch....

EW-3 · 1 year ago

Good choice captain.
Got to watch him up close when he was governor here in MA. He did a good job although his hands were tied by the veto-overide controlled legislature.
While everyone talks politics and issues, he's the guy I trust to make the best most ethical choices if elected. He has very strong fundamental values.
Someone I know that knows him personally says he is just what you see. Very easy going, intelligent, optimistic and friendly.

Winsome · 1 year ago

When all the dust settles, it comes down to two factors: we need a candidate with a conservative outlook (nearly) across the board, including an understanding of the true threat of Islamic jihad, and who can go the distance in the general election against either (the most experienced/bare-knuckled political machine in a generation, or b) a candidate with a surprisingly strong personality cult following, i.e., tons of charisma, and growing rhetorical skills.

Putting McCain's dysfunctional campaign team up against Hillary would be a suicide mission; and he has all the charm of a junkyard dog compared to Obama. Ain't gonna work: Hillary would crush him; Obama would out-dance him.

Rudy may fare better in the ring, but I doubt he can ignite the conservative base to the degree needed (though he probably would do well with the swing voters). So far, he's failed to catch fire, but even if he does, it won't be enough: after a gallant fight, he loses by a small-to-significant margin. I don't want to snap off my television one November evening muttering, "Well, it was close…"

Romney is the rational choice: he has the conservative bona fides, is hawkish on Islamic jihad, and is doing a good job lately of becoming more relaxed & striking that Reagan-esque balance between confidence-inspiring leadership and "guy on the street" humanity, so has the best chance of motivating the base to come out in big numbers. He has the resources & professional campaign operation that can take on Hillary, and has the communication skills to counter the empty rhetoric of change of Obama with facility, which will pull the independents & swingers as fall approaches.

His executive experience and successful record is a huge plus, and Ed is right to note it: it will be needed to reign in a democratically-controlled Congress, for one thing, but first we have to get someone sworn in on Jan. 20th, and that means nominating someone who can prosecute a successful national campaign against formidable opponents & media spin. Romney, in my mind, is the only one who can pull it off.

Put your emotions aside, and use your reason. Then pull the lever in November with the confidence born of strategic evaluation.

Nozzle · 1 year ago

Ed,

McCain was CO of VA 174, a training Squadron. The top tier candidates for Squadron Commander normally get Tactical Squadrons. Tactical Squadrons are committed to offensive carrier operations vs training fleet replacement aviators. McCain's selection for CO of VA 174 probably means that he was not physically fit enough, or tactically smart enough to lead a frontline unit. No big surprise for someone who had spent nearly six years as a POW. Of course, none of this matters for a top tier candidate for President. He's had twenty five years in the House and Senate to show us what he's got...As a retired Marine Aviator, I'll be supporting Romney. I'm far more impressed with Mitt's command of the issues, his record as a successful businessman, his honesty, integrity and relative youth and vigor (compared to McCain), than I am with McCain's glory days as a Naval Aviator.

Caustic_Conservative · 1 year ago

Marines always have to jump on the Navy's nuts, don't they? ;-)

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

They're still smarting from the fact that the Marine Corps is under the Department of the Navy...whether or not it's the "men's department" as they claim... ;>

serfer62 · 1 year ago

Under the Dep Navy? Where have you been the last decade. But thanks for letting us
use you boats and those little white hats are so cute.

Captain put me in your boat...

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

Relax shipmate, that was a little inter-service rivalry....but, maybe you can out this lowly swabbie....who is the "Secretary of the Marine Corps" ?

serfer62 · 1 year ago

Semper Fi dude. The economy is in flutters and Gov Romney expertise benefits the nation the most. The single issue of conservativizm does not garuntee security or economics.

Sen Thompsen is too old to be VP, Duncan Hunter isn't.

maccain was a hero, so was Benedict Arnold, but Arnold didn't have an Admiral for a father.

Pukin Dog · 1 year ago

I am glad someone made the distinction, because it is one that has troubled me about McCain for quite some time. Yes, McCain commanded a RAG Squadron. What concerns me, is that we had a man who reportedly even then could not lift his arms above his shoulders, yet received a waiver, and was allowed to qual in the A-7. Also, I know of no one previously or after, who was in the Century Club (100+ Academy demerits), yet allowed to enter flight school. Many, including me, believe nepotism played a role in both instances. While McCain was certainly courageous as a POW, I believe he has been consistent in displaying character flaws that should disqualify him for the presidency.

Rose · 1 year ago

Captain Ed, I am really glad to see this endorsement for Romney, from you.
I'm not yet 100% sold on Romney, myself, but he is shaping up to the one I am most likely to vote for.

I like your reasoning towards arriving at this conclusion, and I very much appreciate you sharing your thought process with us.

I find myself very much in agreement with your thinking.

I do have one major divergence with you - perhaps. I know this is an absolutely staggaring "understatement": "I know I have mentioned this before..." ....

But I do live within a few hours of the Mexico border, in Texas.

We have a staggaring impact from the trafficking of Illegal Aliens, etc, across the entire Mexico border - and it is negative in many ways that those of you not in the thick of it cannot comprehend.

I find that Mitt Romney is the only one who shows a GENUINE attempt to comprehend the problem and the depth of CITIZENS' concerns about the issues.

I find the lies of McCain in this regard to be simply mindboggling - if one were to allow the lies and duplicitousness of a politician to get to one. McShamnesty, Juan Hernandez, his affiliation with the likes of Media Matters, and who many of his other allies are....
Ann Coulter's latest article this week - on McCain, concerning issues of the day I clearly remember for myself.

Huckabee - "SLAVE REPARATIONS" for Illegal Aliens, open borders, etc --- I know the Bible much too well to be told we owe TAX DOLLARS to destroy America by encouraging an infestation of swamping, and destruction, through ILLEGAL AND ILLEGITMATE means...

Guiliani - I saw him willing to set aside an election due to some small group flattering him - plus he sued the Federal Govt on behalf of ILLEGAL ALIENS - and again - I am too close to that border and have personal experiences with folks that I had known all my life...
He has no comprehension - and has recently stated that he fully intends to find a way for them to stay here LEGALLY, even without CITIZENSHIP.

And when Hunter endorsed Huckabee (I understand because they both "HONOR ISRAEL"), I don't know what Hunter is thinking, but that breaks all bets with me.
Because I love Israel very deeply. But the American border MUST be secured and cannot be left to the hands of such a person as Huckabee.

Therefore, NONE of the other GOP Candidates is even on the table, as far as I am concerned.

But I like Romney for the reasons you have enumerated. My own father has been in small business for himself most of my life, and what Mitt says about business makes sense.

I also like the way that he and his wife and sons carry themselves. I learned a long time ago to notice the way a well-dressed man's wife is carrying herself - and feeling about herself. Frankly, as a wife, Mrs. Romney is the only one who makes me feel good about her husband.

Mrs. Huckabee looks like a very very dear and lovely lady.

Well, I am from Texas, and as such, I have until the first week of March to make up my mind, and I hope and pray the candidates show me everything I need to know to make the right choice.

May the Good Lord grant EVERYONE great Wisdom.

hadsil · 1 year ago

As a New Yorker, I have to vote for Giuliani. He cleaned up New York City, literally and figuratively. He brought the city into prosperity. He governed what was thought ungovernable. He made people want to come to New York. I want him to do for the country what he did for the city. He gets my vote for the NY Primary. However, if Romney does get the nomination, he'll have my vote with no reservations.

bill w · 1 year ago

Rmney is clearly y the best choice based on his experience and positions on the economy. Rudy would also be my second choice. I cannot enthusiatically support McCain becasue of permantent damage he has done to the party by MCCain Feingold.

Jon · 1 year ago

Welcome aboard, Captain!

michaele · 1 year ago

I was in my gut a Rudy supporter but I have become discouraged that his strategy is not going to work out for him . Mitt has become more and more impressive in each succeeding debate. I figure Florida will help claify things for me before super Tues. Your endorsement, Capt. Ed carries weight. When people bemoan how Mitt is polling nationally against dems right now, well, how was Bill Clinton doing this early in the race back in 1992. I'll bet that's something to think about.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"well, how was Bill Clinton doing this early in the race back in 1992. I'll bet that's something to think about."
And the similarities to Clinton do not stop there.

Bennett · 1 year ago

A sad day in my own personal blogosphere. This has been one of the few blogs I read regularly that seemed reliable, not in the tank for any one guy and willing to present information and assessments in a fairly even-handed way.

But if you're going to participate in the caucus in your state then yes you have to let it be known that you are in the tank for Romney.

I would wish you luck with your guy except I believe strongly he doesn't have a prayer of winning in the general against either Obama or Hillary. Geesh, even I would consider voting for one of them over this gutless wonder if they'd just dial back their rhetoric on Iraq when it gets to the general. Which they will. Or the war will be at such a point by then it won't matter what they say.

Anyway, see you after the convention (if it's someone other than this guy) or if it's Romney then after the general in November.

Bragg Van Antwerp · 1 year ago

Ed,

I applaud your endorsement. And given Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain, your support of Romney comes at a time when he really needs it!

I am a 30 year old Republican living in NYC -- obviously not the friendliest of territories for someone with my political views. What I have noticed, however, from my "intellectual" Democratic friends here, is a genuine respect for Romney's intellect and his resume. That is significant. What I have also noticed from the "chattering class" and the Mainstream Media is a fairly overt disdain for Romney. I view this, though, as a feather in Mitt's cap and, quite frankly, I never fail to feel validated in my support of Romney when I hear the MSM talking derisively about him, because I firmly believe that he is the GOP candidate that Democrats and the Media most fear. They recognize his intelligence, his articulateness and his energy, and I think they realize that -- particularly if pitted against Hillary -- Romney would be an extremely formidable candidate.

The Crist endorsement concerns me given how tight this race in Florida is. It seems that when two candidates are running neck-and-neck, anything that can tip the scales for one over the other could potentially be important. I also worry about it because I fear it will overshadow McCain’s dishonest attack on Romney for his alleged support of timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. I think that if anyone takes the time to look at the Romney quote McCain is citing in context, it becomes pretty clear that Romney was in no way advocating a “timetable” of the type McCain is claiming he did. Even without the Crist endorsement “headline” that likely tops most Florida papers today, it would be hard to expect your average voter to delve into the timetable issue long enough or thoroughly enough to recognize its inaccuracy, much less to recognize the hypocrisy of the so-called “Man of Honor” making what he knows is a bogus charge. I worry that your average Florida voter will glance at the paper today and see “Crist Endorsed McCain” above-the-fold, and then not far below that, “McCain Accuses Romney of Supporting Timetable for Iraq Withdrawal”. (The only way Romney could truly trump this news cycle before Tuesday would be for Jeb Bush to step up and endorse him – something I view as a possible but not likely).

There is one last thing I wanted to mention, and I am quite curious what your thoughts are on the issue. I recently spoke to my Dad and, in discussing the 2008 Election, he told me of a good friend of his who told him that he would never vote for Romney because he doesn’t “want a Mormon in the White House”. To properly frame this, my father’s friend is Doctor, very intelligent, very open-minded, and a consistent Republican. He is not someone I have ever heard say anything that reflected even a hint of bigotry or prejudice. Similarly, I have a colleague at work with whom I regularly discuss politics. After the debate on Thursday night, I cam in Friday and told my colleague that I thought Romney had won Florida with his debate performance and, therefore, that I thought he would go on to win the nomination. He responded, “Well, then the Democrats will win because Romney’s religion is going to be an issue”. Here again, this is a very intelligent person, one of the most fair-minded people I know, and while he is not saying that Romney’s religion would keep him from voting for Mitt, he seems very firm in his conviction that the “Mormon issue” is one that will greatly hinder Romney’s chances for victory in the general election. What are your thoughts on this, Ed?

Again, thanks for all of the great work you do here, and thanks for endorsing the candidate who I also believe is best-suited to be our next President of the United States.

Very sincerely,

Bragg Van Antwerp
New York, NY

Kim · 1 year ago

I respectfully disagree, I believe that Mitt is a "empty suit". McCain has the fire in the belly, the gravitas to beat OB or HC. I want someone to have strong opinions, to rattle the cages. MSM pols like Romney bore me. No soul, twists to the theme of the day. Of course the Conservative Establishment loves him to death. But the unwashed will not, cause if I read the scene correctly, there will be large turnouts November 08. But my readings of Conservative Blogs are showing same old same old trend. No fire in the belly?

TerryGain · 1 year ago

Anyone who "thinks" Romney is an empty suit has an empty head. What have you accomplished, Kim, that makes you so high and mighty? Do yourself a favor. Think before you post.

Kim · 1 year ago

Every one is entitled to an opinion. Unless you debate by North Korean rules. You words are of a Clintionian bent. They have that cadence that Bill has been using of late.

Mensch · 1 year ago

Back up the empty suit comment, Kim. You may not like Romney but it's hard to dispute he has a stellar resume.

Scott P · 1 year ago

Sadly, for as much as I like John McCain, I think his fire is stocked by a combination of newspaper/MSM pulpwood and oily Beltway grease. It's a hot fire indeed, but one sure to be extinguished during his first debate with a icy cold Hillary, or a cool collected Obama.

I've followed the Rudy to Fred to Mitt trail myself, and honestly think that it's only Mitt left that can compete on the national stage with whoever ends up on the Democratic ticket, and I have to say that I'm a bit squeamish about the Mormon issue, as well as finding him a bit on the stiff side.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Captain,
I would have to profoundly disagree with you. True I also have a personal dislike for Romney, having met him before and come away with nothing but a bad taste in my mouth. I see him as nothing but an empty suit. He is no Reagan, Ronald Reagan had strongly held beliefs and convictions. I see nothing but fluff from Romney, fluff and a bit of cowardice. Romney reminds me very much of a Conservative Clinton. His race will end in a Goldwater-like defeat that will send conservatives into the socialist desert for 8-10 years. McCain is the only man with the stones and the credentials to sell the victory in the war to a public 70% against it . America needs pragmatic and real solutions not promises which can not be kept.

Turning around the Olympics is not turning around the largest economy in the world. His solution in the business world was layoffs as I recall (isn't that a tennent of venture capitalism?).

How did he propose to "bring the jobs back"? He had no conservative solution, you can not recork the bottle, they ARE gone.

As I said in a previous post, executive experience is not necessarily a precursor to successful presidency. We have been mismanaged for 16 years by a string of governors. They do not know how to play well with others, they do not know how to work the Senate and House.

HNAV · 1 year ago

could not disagree more...

turning around the Olympics was another example of the impossible, being soundly accomplished.

Ronald Reagan is a hero, a legend, it is not fair to compare the living to President Reagan.

But Romney shares the same 'can do' positive optimism as Reagan, and clearly embraces his policy of low taxation, fiscal discipline, with strong National Defense and serious engaged Foreign Policy.

McCain is a 24 year long Senator, who actually voted to oppose tax cuts (using populist rhetoric), gave us Campaign Finance Folly, never led the effort to reform PORK, is peddling global warming populism, and responds to serious economic questions by listing his fellow Senator friends...

In MASS, Romney displayed a very Conservative mindset to aiding the economy and growing job opportunity.

Reductions in tax burdens, fiscal responsibility, sound pro-business mindset, attracting companies, competing for employment and investment in the State of MASS.

His record is truly impressive, and perhaps you should review again.

One of Dr. Schackelford's readers provided these efforts...
Here is Romney’s actual conservative record:

---In the four balanced budgets he signed into law, Governor Romney used the line-item veto or program reduction power to cut spending by nearly $1 Billion. Over the course of four budgets, Governor Romney made over 300 line-item reductions, 350 line-item eliminations and struck language 150 times.

--- When Gov Romney took office in Massachusetts, he inherited a $2 billion deficit. While in office, he turned the $2 billion into a surplus----WITHOUT raising taxes.

---Gov Romney solved the health care crisis in Massachusetts----and his plans are still used today. He did this by using the free market and competition---and without raising taxes.

--- Gov. Romney was instrumental in passing a bill abolishing a retroactive capital gains tax in the state that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay an additional $200 million in state taxes and fees

--- 4 years ago --- before the illegals marched in our streets --- Romney opposed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. “Those who are here illegally should not receive tacit support from our government that gives an indication of legitimacy,” the governor said. (Scott S. Greenberger, “Romney Stand Dims Chances Of License For Undocumented,” The Boston Globe, 10/28/03)

--- Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have permitted illegal aliens to pay the same in-state tuition rate paid by citizens at public colleges and universities in Massachusetts.

--- Romney vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research

--- Romney vetoed a bill that provided for the “morning after pill” without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent

--- He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation

-------------------------

--- Governor Romney strongly supported a successful ballot initiative that replaced the state’s bilingual program with English immersion. (Romney Vows to Protect English Immersion Law, May 1, 2003)

--- Governor Romney demonstrated his commitment to school-choice by vetoing a bill that would have canceled funding for Massachusetts’ charter-school program. (Romney to Veto Charter School Moratorium, June 23, 2004)

--- He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement

--- He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students.

Governor Romney filed and signed into law the most significant expansion of military benefits in recent years. The new law reduced to zero the cost members of the Massachusetts National Guard must pay to attend public colleges and universities, increased twenty-fold the death benefit paid to families of members killed in the line of duty, created a new annuity benefit for Gold Star spouses and boosted the amount paid to Gold Star parents. (Romney Signs Legislation Expanding Military Benefits, November 11, 2005)

Bren | 01.22.08
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190882.php

Charlie · 1 year ago

Johnson worked the Senate and House and worked us into the poor house.

No thank you to senators for Prez, particularly one who hears the call to battle The Horror of Global Warming. There's a few billion up in (carbon-rich) smoke.

Pat in NC · 1 year ago

"McCain is the only man with the stones and the credentials to sell the victory in the war to a public 70% against it ." If McCain "sells" the public with the same grace used to "sell" amnesty, I don't think he will gain converts to his way of thinking. He comes across to me as it is his way, or get lost.
"His solution in the business world was layoffs as I recall" should help in shriking the bloated government which is a popular theme of citizens looking for change. He also grew many new jobs in his developing businesses.

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

An excellent and well thought out vote of approval from you, Captain. I expect nothing less from a Conservative who uses thought and reason before action.

I spoke to my Cousin last night on much the same topic. We are both Conservatives in this very Democrat state of Minnesota. Before I even told him my own thoughts, I asked him who he thought most Conservatives should support. He stated it like this, and spoke about how he drew conclusions Pre-Fred exit:

My Choice would have to be Mitt Romney. He is not the perfect Conservative, but I think he is one closer than the rest. I also liked Fred Thompson and Rudy Guliani, but neither have "stepped up" to tell us that they really wanted us to vote for either of them.

He then put his choices in order of acceptability:

1. Mitt Romney: A politician who defies expectations, who is more outsider than insider, and who seems more interested in how to fix America than in who likes him in the Media or in Washington. As Conservative as we can get in this election.

2. Fred Thompson: While being more Conservative than Romney, he just didn't seem to want it bad enough to go after it. And this is very important to becoming President, believe me.

3. Rudy Guliani: While pretty Liberal by Republican standards, Rudy is not afraid to fight for his beliefs and could care less who likes him for it. He is a leader who has based his career, although not all his beliefs, on the Reagan standard. A great speaker and powerful leader.

4. Mike Huckabee: A Liberal with Social values. A man who also seems more interested in making friends on the other side of the aisle than in pushing a true vision. In other words, he is very religious, perhaps one of the best speakers, but who cannot be relied on to do anything conservative. His record bears this out. (side note: We spoke of the fact that Huckabee shows that proof positive, Fiscal Conservatism holds a greater importance than Social, and one should not vote simply via religious bias)

5. Senator John McCain: The worst of all possible choices (except perhaps the quirky Ron Paul) due to the fact that John McCain is a complete Washington insider and panderer to the Left. Except for a few issues, this man is not has nary a Conservative bone in his body. Dangerous due to his unpredictability, McCain could raise taxes easily, might endorse "The Fairness doctrine" to silence his critics, and could very well nominate a very Liberal Justice to the Supreme court, again to please Dems.

As you can see, a very thought out Philosophy, and not at all one that says we need "Another Reagan or nothing" but also one that says we must all nominate the BEST candidate in the lineup, or fail in reforming our party.

I was amazed that I completely agreed with my Cousin, and that our thoughts were pretty much in line. Our only point of contention was voting for McCain if he is nominated, a point that I hope we don't have to face. He argued for voting for McCain but only to restrict damage to our Republic, and I argued that I was unsure if I could vote for a Republican who would pretty much do the same.

Good Choice, Cap!

serfer62 · 1 year ago

Harley things to consider are
1) Sen Clinton will not last 4, but MacAss will be in for 8.
2) The destruction by either would be best laid on the Kommiecrats.
3) Thank God I'm too old to enjoy the results to either senator.

Del_Dolemonte · 1 year ago

Hillary won't serve out a full 4 year term? What do you predict, impeachment or something more gruesome?

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

I think that serfer is right, Hillary would ram so much Marxism on America so fast that it would take less than 4 years to realise that she is beyond the veil out of her mind. At least her hb was considered a "new Democrat" in Arkansas, everyone knows Hillary took Socialism to heart in college.

WakeUP · 1 year ago

If you know anything about true conservatism, it's plainly obvious that Ron Paul is truly more conservative than anyone else running for the Republican nod. I can't help but wonder if you researched anything about the Federal Reserve or the IRS in your decision making process? It's pretty sad when the "worst candidate" is the only one who publicly mentions individual liberties, conservative foreign policy, conservative economics, saving our diminishing dollar, drastically reducing the size of the federal government, protecting our rights (which are being trampled, especially by the IRS; reference: "From Freedom to Facism" a documentary by Aaron Russo (Watch it if you don't believe me)) & protecting our borders (and really means protect our borders & doesn't just say it like Bush did, (and LIED) remember?) and ending a war that we were lied to about in the first place that has killed over a million Iraqis and thousands of American troops all while Osama bin Laden is still alive somewhere in Pakistan. Mitt Romney doesn't have any good ideas, he's just like every other candidate except he's not quite as ugly and is a good public speaker. He just lays out rhetoric, makes broad sweeping statements about change and how great he is, talks about and quotes Ronald Reagan and says he'll put more troops in Iraq and give us a tax break WHICH WE WILL BORROW FROM CHINA to get (look it up). Sorry but any Republican supporting the war is NOT going to beat a democrat in this election and Ron Paul not only voted against the War in the first place, but he's the only Republican candidate who still wants to bring the troops home. Ergo, Ron Paul was the only shot the Republicans ever had in the first place at beating Hillary or Obama because of his anti-war stance but Fox or MSNBC or CNN told you all he was crazy and you listened. Maybe if Americans understood our own history better things might change but no, we'll continue to get our information from billionaire media moguls and believe the fairy tales we learned in high school history class. It's good to know that truly abiding by the Constitution is now "quirky". Good job, Sheeple. Way to make a truly informed decision.

tmi3rd · 1 year ago

Bravo, Ed...

We've seen this new primary weed out the wannabees and some bona fide good candidates, and we are left with what we have... that completely satisfy nobody on our side. It would be one thing if we could "take a break from history" like we did in the 90s (with the obvious results)... and there are many who would like to do that.

We've seen McCain push some bad hands lately- and the Clintonian rewriting of his position on amnesty, as well as the amateurish attempt to selectively quote Romney's stance on Iraq, have eliminated my ability to support him. Now let me qualify that- that's not to say that I won't pull the lever for him if he's the nominee, but more to say that I'm so disgusted by his campaign that my enthusiasm for his candidacy will be limited solely to pulling the lever for him in the general election.

For reasons that have been rehashed over and over again, I absolutely cannot support the candidacy of Mike Huckabee- we don't need to go over it again. The notion of having a choice between him and Clinton or Obama horrifies me, and I don't know what I'd do in that circumstance. Fortunately (at least for me), it doesn't appear that I'll face that decision.

My preference for a candidate at this point would be Giuliani, but I don't realistically see that happening. As such, the closest thing remaining to someone that would make me the happiest is Romney. So, come Mardi Gras... I mean, Super Tuesday, that is where at least one lever will fall.

It ain't perfect, but it's what we've got... and as stated earlier in the thread, it is contrary to the wishes of the MSM- so it can't be that wrong.

tmi3rd

HNAV · 1 year ago

Wow !

You are so objective, I really could not tell who you leaned towards, and your insight means a great deal to me.

Your expression over the past month has been tough, professional, challenging, interesting.

I like both Rudy and Romney as well, and feel they truly improve the GOP quality.

I know I began to lean heavily towards Romney after studying his record vs. the rest.

The one aspect is, his campaign expression in the past has matched his record, so when he promoted the Conservative Platform in this race, I think it is truly in earnest.

His optimism is really impressive however.

In my book, this 'caucus' endorsement means a great deal.

One of the best, has sided to caucus for Romney, and that means a great deal.

However, I wouldn't have thought less of the mighty Captain if he went elsewhere, sincerely, far too much respect and personal affinity for the mighty author of CQ.

69Vette · 1 year ago

When I first heard Romney was looking into running, my first reaction was one of caution and reticence because I'm also a Mormon. Though it's hard to put us all in the same box (Harry Reid, anyone?), one thing many Mormons hate is the idea that we're all a bunch of brain dead sheep, doing what we're told. Mormon history at the grassroots is one of people who went against conventional wisdom and took pride in that fact. Yes, there are plenty of 'us' who will lean toward Romney because of his religious affiliation, but to many of us (including me), it was actually a hurdle he had to overcome before I could support him. Like many, I found that Fred appeared to be closer to me in philosophy and outlook . At this point, that doesn't matter anymore. I would happily vote for Romney or Giuliani in November, but in the primary I'll be voting for Mitt.

Funny enough, once I stopped letting his religion get in my way, Romney became my first choice fairly quickly. His style comes across as a bit stiff, but I think his background explains that well enough. I'm not an MBA and I'll probably never be mistaken for one. That being said, I don't think his business acumen can be overstated. The guy is a winner, hands down. IMHO, what he did in MA (especially with who and what he had to work with) portents especially well for what he could do in Washington, too. Unlike many it seems, I've actually read up on his performance as governor, and for every anti talking point I've heard, the reality is very different and shows a fair conservative making those decisions (the $50 abortion meme being just one example).

I've seen a big deal made about electability and the polls. Ten months before the election! What isn't being considered though is how Romney will fare in a head to head debate with either Democratic candidate. I think he'll do VERY well. Substantively, his understanding and command of the issues will be unassailable. His demeanor (especially if he'll just be himself and not worry about making any gaffes) will come across very well against Hillary or Obama. I think Obama will be harder to beat, but if issues are at stake (and not any liberal Camelot revisited fantasies), I think Mitt will come out on top. I'm glad to see that (some) others are starting to feel this way as well.

mylegsareswollen · 1 year ago

Don't underestimate how tired people are of the Clintons. In fact I've seen my 4th "Anyone but Her in 08" T-shirt today...and it was a woman!

Joe · 1 year ago

Among us Republicans, half support McCain and half support Romney. As a McCain supporter I look at the glass as half full in my guy's favor. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...

But we have to win the general election to avoid Billary Obama taking over.

McCain is essentially tied with Hillary and Obama right now...

McCain v. Hillary Clinton (+0.1 McCain) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...

McCain v. Barak Obama (+0.3 Obama) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...

Romney gets routed by both, badly.

Romney v. Hillary Clinton (+11.5 Hillary)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...

Romney v. Obama (+ 18.0 Obama)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...


Mitt Romney has no cross over appeal to Democrats, is weak with Indies and will lose. That is why Byron York today on Meet the Press noted that McCain is the only GOP candidate who in the polls has shown any ability to beat the Democrats in the general.

essucht · 1 year ago

Mitt Romney has no cross over appeal to Democrats, is weak with Indies and will lose.

Must have been all those die hard Republican voters in MA that got him elected.

ktcat · 1 year ago

And his reelection chances were ... what?

Dreadful. So much for crossovers.

essucht · 1 year ago

What really hurt him in MA was publicly taking on gay marriage - it cost him the center leaning left. Which is actually the "moderates" that one has to win in MA.

How popular is gay marriage outside of MA?

He can beat Hillary with the same sort of campaign he beat O'Brien with - only he won't have to worry about an electorate dominated by the left.

HNAV · 1 year ago

LOL !

is this the same JOE who was pushing McCain on Hewitt's site?

the same one who debased the GOP prior to 2006, complaining the Republicans weren't conservative enough?

but then pushes for the liberal leaning McCain?

we have watched a number of liberals, trying to pretend to be conservatives on the internet, desperately trying to undermine real conservatives.

it is amusing...

Bill Coleman · 1 year ago

If Romney is nominated, I'll vote for him. He has, however, no crossover appeal as far as I can tell. The Democrats are eager to run against him. I can think of nothing he brings to the table to offset the general anti-GOP trend upon which the election is being fought. As for Mitt's credentials as a businessman, which are impressive, I am reminded that our most recent businessman-President was Herbert Hoover.

roboris · 1 year ago

Oh yeah, that brand-new "anti-GOP" trend! Nope, never been anything like that before! LOL

Did you even read the piece by our illustrious Captain that kicked off this discussion? You don't have to think of what Mitt brings to the table to prevail against the Dems, the Cap'n laid it out for you.

BTW, what's so appealing about those much-vaunted cross-over voters? And how do you figure that the Dems are eager for a Romney nomination? Every indication given by the DNC Ministry of Propaganda (i.e. the MSM) points to McCain or Huckabee being their choice for an opponent.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"You don't have to think of what Mitt brings to the table to prevail against the Dems, the Cap'n laid it out for you."

Watch out Bill you might get burned at the stake for heresy.

molon labe · 1 year ago

I'm in the same place, Ed. I will not support McCain on character as well as policy grounds. Huckabee's a joke - but a dangerous one. I like a lot of things about Rudy but I've seen him govern up close and I think Congress and the bureaucracy would dance him around and press every button he has, with disastrous results.

Romney can do what needs doing and is close to my position on most policy matters. Moveover, his steady focus and business experience will attract a lot of people who see Clinton for what she is and who want capability, not 'hope' without substance.

burt · 1 year ago

"We saw this in 1992 and lost when Bill Clinton successfully convinced people that he had the best ideas for a turnaround."

Oh the irony. In only one of the four years of Clinton's first term did the economy grow as fast as it did in 1992, and it wasn't in Clinton's first year. Clinton was extremely lucky: the economy was growing like gang busters when he was inaugurated and it was diving like gang busters when his successor was inaugurated.

Steve Skubinna · 1 year ago

Dude, Governor of Massachusetts... the Peoples' Republic of Taxachusetts. I have a huge problem with that. I like every single one of the Bill of Rights, but in Mass they're more guidelines than actual rules. I can't see Romney overcoming that hurdle to my satisfaction. Besides, there's something automatically suspect about a guy placed in the governor's mansion by the same voters who put Kennedy and Kerry in the Senate.

Charlie · 1 year ago

Okay, but look at the flip side.

Dems and the media will not be able to portray him as a horror story after working successfully in Massachusetts the way they did Bush in his first campaign.

Plus I doubt you'll find many ardent K&K voters backing Mitt. There are Republicans in Massachusetts.

Caustic_Conservative · 1 year ago

OK. One guy says Romney would have NO crossover support. Another guy laments the fact he was elected as a Republican in the bluest of all blue states. Me thinks there's a disconnect there.

His record of conservative governance in a veto proof deeply blue state should not be a knock against him. He was actually able to accomplish quite a bit while paddling against the tide of liberalism. Likewise, McCain's opposition to mainstream conservativism when it truly counted also should not be ignored. He's a deal-maker seeking approval from those he would, as President, be expected to stand up to. It is not who he is.

Some make much of his "lifetime ACU rating of 83." Of course, in the years since he last ran for President--scorning conservative Republicans in favor of independents and Democrats--he has amassed a very George Voinovich-like rating of 73. The longer he has been in Washington, the less conservative he has become. Is that the way to win a race all wrapped up in the idea of "change?"

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

Kennedy and Kerry are endorsing Obama. There is a world of difference between Romney and Obama in terms of raw experience and success, as well as capability in policy-setting.

Terry Gain · 1 year ago

Exactly . The GOP nominee, whoever it is, will beat The Scold .The Dems would be smart to run the charismatic young black messiah against the old white guy. I'm surprised at how many GOP supporters are falling for this -and if McCain does win they end up with a RINO-except on Iraq.

gingertoronto · 1 year ago

... and Iraq is about the only place I would want a RINO. It was just reported that Bush and co. put out 925 lies to get us into this war. At least the media recognizes it. There's no way to "fix" the Iraqi government for its people, because we invaded them. While I think declaring a timetable for withdrawal before en election is foolish (and something Mitt Romney is innocent of) threatening 100 years of occupation is both tactless and unrealistic. This from the old senator who said it would be easy going into this. McCain has a big mouth, a bad temper, a mean streak, and he has flip flopped on decisions more than they say Mitt Romney has. I am satisfied with Romney's record as a conservative, and I think he is presidential. I am worried that he would expand executive authority even more, but I will wait to hear more in the general election. He is the best candidate the Republicans have.

Stephen R · 1 year ago

"It was just reported that Bush and co. put out 925 lies to get us into this war."

You know... the report? That, um, report --- you know the one. That one. They reported it. In the report. Yup.


Remember -- 67.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

gingertoronto · 1 year ago

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/

quickjustice · 1 year ago

Mitt Romney's a good guy, and your choice is rational, Ed. I'm a die-hard Giuliani supporter, meaning I'll wait until after February 5 to see if he can get any traction.

Count to 10 · 1 year ago

I'm for Giuliani, too, but I think would vote for either Romney or McCain in the General.
And that is aside from the fact that I will definitely vote against Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

RD · 1 year ago

Hey Captain-You can add another mention to your list. You are on Real Clear Politics with this essay.Congratulations!

FedUp · 1 year ago

I like Romney for his business acumen. I like Rudy for his stance of terror and immigration. We need to have both these guys running the country. Rudy would make a great Secretary of Defense. McCain and Huckabee have to go away!

Spider79 · 1 year ago

I believe I've come to the same conclusion Cap'n. The best slogan I can find however is Vote Romney, he sucks the least!!

captained · 1 year ago

Well, that's one that gets used in almost every election. ;-)

tim · 1 year ago

Great....A president that "sucks the least"... Just what America needs....

olddeadmeat · 1 year ago

Just remember, America gets the gov't it truly deserves. :)

I understand the Captain's reasoning, and he makes a good case.

I hope he's right.

Anthony Ragan · 1 year ago

You make a good case, Ed. Romney's my second choice (after Rudy). His speech at Herzliya last year convinced me he understood the threat from Islamic fascism and the nature of the war we're fighting, which is my primary issue. If the polls hold up and Rudy fails in Florida (*sob!*) and effectively drops out, my vote in California's primary will go to Mitt.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

I have never bought the argument that executive experience=presidential qualification, we have had 16 dismal years under two "qualified" governors. Maybe it is time to give the experienced senator a try.

quickjustice · 1 year ago

Last two "experienced senators" elected president = Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Both had time in military service, although Johnson, according to Caro, was a physical coward.

Last three ex-governors elected President = Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"Last three ex-governors elected President = Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush."

My point exaclty, well once out of three aint bad i suppose

mw · 1 year ago

And the last two ex-governors were boomers. I think the boomers deserve one more shot to improve our record before handing the reigns to gen-x. As an advocate for continuing our happily divided government, I have despaired over the GOP choices. That said, Romney is comfortable in front of a camera, has a slick Clintonesque sincere-ish quality, even when explaining 180 degree flip-flops in core convictions, and people want to believe him, eve if they don't. His political platform is determined at the intersection of his ambition and the polls. It is clear that, like Bill Clinton, he will govern based on the polls and continuous compromise. Not a bad thing, since there will likely still be a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009. After GWB, I am not opposed to a President that pays attention to the will of the American people. We will probably still be in the range of 70% of America wanting us out of Iraq by the time the next President takes office. As president, Romney will get us out of Iraq quickly, no matter what he says now to get the nomination. He can be trusted to blow with wind.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

amen

McCainguy · 1 year ago

Why limit your review to the last three ex-governors? Jimmy Carter served as the Governor of Georgia. Anyone remember the oil embargo, stagflation and a 21% prime rate?

hunter_123 · 1 year ago

Captain,
The tough part is that while I am comfortable with Romney if he does prevail in this process, I am dismayed at what the Romney campaign has done to the blogosphere.
From the transformation of Hugh Hewitt to a Romney infomercial to your cozying up with Hugh for a regular post just prior to breaking your word and endorsing Romney, to other places, I don't like this process at all.
If the MSM was being as blatantly highjacked by a campaign machine, we would talk of nothing else.
You guys in the blogosphere had a choice: to either balance between being conservative in general but non-agenda driven, or being just a conservative version of the MSM, except with a lot less infrastructure and depth.
I am sorry so many of you have picked the latter.

captained · 1 year ago

A couple of points here. First, I don't need to "cozy up" to Hugh for a post. Hugh's a friend of mine, and he gave me a regular spot on his show two months ago without needing to swear fealty to him or to Romney. I've disagreed with Hugh on this blog a number of times in the past, and I'm sure I'll do so in the future. Our respect for each other doesn't depend on suck-up.

Second, I am going to vote, and the election does matter. There are no generalities about policy; if one wants to make a difference, one has to take a stand on specifics and on candidates. How does one become a non-agenda-driven conservative? It's a contradiction in terms. Isn't conservatism itself an agenda? Of course it is!

No one has hijacked any blog. Bloggers express their opinions freely and openly. That's what makes them different from the MSM; we don't hide our opinions and biases.

keemo · 1 year ago

CE,

The success of your blog is a direct result of your personality, integrity, & character. Take those ingredients and mix them with a talent for writing, and you have a very good formula for success. I have enjoyed your blog for several years now, and remain thankful of your efforts & your willingness to share some of your personal life with a cyber space community that has grown up around you.

I applaud your decision to throw your support in the ring for Mitt Romney. I'll leave it at that. I'm in California visiting my ailing parents at the moment; driving back to Montana today. I just watched McCain on the Russert show. All I can say is "Go Mitt".....

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

I second Keemo, Skipper.

Good luck with the family, shipmate.

hunter_123 · 1 year ago

Captain,
I apologize for any implication I may have made questioning you over announcing your vote.
However, I do think that as far as the blogosphere goes, I do not believe I am alone in sensing a real change in the blogosphere. And the change I and others sense is not good.

Peejz · 1 year ago

Did you miss this part of his statement: "Over a year ago and many times since, I wrote that I could give no endorsement, because I had honestly not made up my mind about which candidate to support. I also told the CapQ community that if I did make a decision, I would announce it as soon as I made it so that they knew where I stood. The deadline for that decision rapidly approaches, since Minnesota caucuses on February 5th, and I have decided to caucus for Mitt Romney."

Ed promised to let his readers know, he never said he wouldn't let us know who he was endorsing..

JonPrichard · 1 year ago

Well that's hardly the Captain's fault and if Romney is using the Blogosphere to his maximum benefit then the more power to him. Your statement is like saying candidates shouldn't try to influence newspaper editorial boards because then the endorsement will mean the entire medium is in the tank.

Have to agree with you about Hugh Hewitt though. That sight has turned into Romney advocacy 24/7.

AuVox · 1 year ago

I'm not surprised there is filtered agreement in the blogosphere, since so many of us read one another's blogs--readers AND writers.

I do find it interesting that three of the most influential hosts in talk radio have come out in support of three different candidates: Dennis Prager for Rudy, Michael Medved for McCain, and Hugh Hewitt...lesse... who was he supporting agin? =)

Peejz · 1 year ago

I can't wait to listen and I am with you on this one Ed. I like Rudy, but feel that he did a terrible job getting his message out there. He didn't even try to get my vote in Michigan, and that put me off alot...At first I rationalized it by blaming it on the MSM, but when I really took a good hard look at it, Rudy didn't come to my state..

Huckabee was never an option for me. I went to the voting booth with Mitt, Fred and Rudy in mind, and I struggled up until I had to mark that circle, but at that point, I knew Mitt was in it for the long haul, that he was committed to this campaign, and committed to this country.

As a side note: The endorsements coming out for McCain are a strong rebuke to us..how dare we question the way things are run..When a liberal leaning media tells me that McCain is our best shot at beating the Democrats in 08', you better believe that McCain is anything but our best bet and anything but a conservative choice...JMO

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

Good point, Peejz. It is just like that with Fl Gov Christ, who now has endorsed McCain.
Nobody in the MSM is talking about the fact that Christ is one of the supporters of McCain-Kennedy Amnesty, or who pushed for giving illegals drivers licenses so they can register to vote for the Dems.

And every time I see McCain with Little Lindsey Graham, I think about what they called Conservatives during the Immigration fight: "All you noisy people" "Chicken Sh#ts!" "Nativists" ect. Apparently they have been in Washington so long they have forgotten whose country this is--it's OURs!

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

Apparently McCain is working overtime with his best new buddy Huckabee to mischaracterize Romney's position on withdrawal timetables. Check out NRO's "The Corner" for details.

McCain has learned a lot about spin from his senatorial friendships cultivated with the Dems. He is just not as practiced in the art as Madame Hillary.

Peejz · 1 year ago

That should to be the battle cry of the Republi Harleycon5...They work for us, and when the services that we have prepaid for via our tax dollar are being cutoff, they better listen up...I understand that I come from a state with a lot of problems (MI), but one doesn't compound the problem by allowing illegal aliens to draw from our limited resources...We have massive unemployment, yet every much needed road project in my state is saturated with illegals doing the work that an unemployed citizen can and would be more than happy to be doing..Look at the NOLA residents that were put on the demolition crews for 2 weeks after Katrina..2 weeks because that's how long it took to bring the "migrants" in to do the work..
Our prisons are busting at the seams with illegals, so the answer is early release of home grown violent criminals?

Local hospitals? How many are buckling in this country from the strain of servicing another countries problem..

I haven't a problem in the world with accepting new immigrants into this country. As long as they get in the back of the line, follow the proper procedures, and are not welfare bound from the moment that they get here.

gaffo · 1 year ago

thanks for giving the election to the Dems ;-).

Romney = zinch cross-over support.

that so called "liberal leaning media" is right in this case.

shooting yourselves in the foot.

fine by me since I ain't a Republican ;-).

mylegsareswollen · 1 year ago

Don't get cocky Gaffo. This quick primary season means alot of time before November.

Mitt Romney knows how to organize and motivate and he's clean (fingers crossed!).

Hillary is your girl. The country is tired of the Clintons.

Don't underestimate the polarizing power of the Clinton scumbags.

Peejz · 1 year ago

Is that what the MSM told you?

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

Gaffo, I have to wonder why you Dems, as well as your abiding fans in the media, seem to all gleefully support McCain. If he is such a great candidate, why would you get so angry about us supporting Romney? Something just doesn't gel with that.

Is it that you know that when given a choice between Very Liberal Hillary, versus "Not so Liberal" McCain, that you know that most Americans will simply say they might as well vote for the real thing??

If so, I guess you have a point. However, I can see the grand plan.

Brad Bettin · 1 year ago

"zinch" cross-over support?

the "l" is one row up, 2.5 keys to the right ....

Terry Gain · 1 year ago

Gaffo

Didn't you recently claim to be a libertarian? A libertarian who is a Democrat?

Given that you are a Democrat I can well understand your animosity towards Romney. He is clearly the class of the GOP field- though i have great affection and respect for Rudy. It's understandable that the MSM supports McCain. If the Democrat nominee is Hillary she will lose to eiither McCain or Romney but Obama will beat McCain in a young/fresh versus old/stale battle but he won't beat Romney who is just as energetic but brighter and has more life experience and success.

The national opinion polls mean nothing since most of those being polled have had little exposure to Romney. Once they are exposed to him in the course of an election campaign they will be won over.

Captain Ed's choice is that of an intelligent , fair minded, informed conservative with no ax to grind for any candidate. I'm not surprised that after carefully examining the platforms, resumes and personalities of each of the candidates that Captain Ed has has announced his support for Romney.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"but he won't beat Romney who is just as energetic but brighter and has more life experience and success."
Yeah because Romney making milions while laying people off while Obama was workig in the streets of Chicago is going to play real well in Peoria.

roboris · 1 year ago

Oh yeah, Obama representing "slum lord" (Billary's words, not mine) Tony Rezko is going to warm those Peorian hearts.

Your snide remark is based on the old liberal saw that all success and profit (except, notably, the profits of George Soros or left-leaning Hollywood) are at the very least to be distrusted, and should probably be "redistributed" to those more "deserving" through confiscatory taxes. And still McCain supporters wonder why we conservatives harbor serious doubts about the senator's agenda!

I'm with the Cap'n on this: I took my time making up my mind about whom to support in the GOP field. None of them is perfect, this is not a "litmus test" race. But I finally came down to my top four being (in the stated order) Hunter, Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani. Since Hunter and Thompson are not going to go anywhere, I'm going with my third pick: Romney.

McCain has pissed me off far too many times, on too many issues, for him to receive my support. In fact, I only prefer him to Huckabee in the GOP field. I find it interesting that McCain and Huckabee are the darlings (depending on the day) of the MSM; but I can't believe that either one of them would have the MSM's fickle support in November.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

My point was not meant to be snide, it was meant to express that Obama IS going to play better to the American public than Romney. And they will attack it in EXACTLY that manner.

"And still McCain supporters wonder why we conservatives harbor serious doubts about the senator's agenda!"
No clue what you are trying to get at here.

roboris · 1 year ago

Of course you wouldn't have a clue, you have bought into McCain's populist use of class-warfare tactics and don't have any problem with it.

Over and over (and over, ad nauseam) again, McCain's glaring deficiencies have been pointed out to you on this blog. We have explained very carefully the reasons why we choose Governor Romney over Senator McCain. But you just shrug off our reasoning and call us sheep for daring to question the candidate you support.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

I have no clue because the statement did not fit into the rest of your paragraph.

So I have to agree with your reasoning? Is that it? I do not concur and I have mentioned my reasons. I do not trust Romney or believe him. And I have explained why. I have my reasons for voting for McCain, I have expressed these as well.

"Of course you wouldn't have a clue, you have bought into McCain's populist use of class-warfare tactics and don't have any problem with it."
Where did I mention any language of class warfare?

You have been nothing but rude to me with every post, I dont know what I did to offend you, but I am sorry.

ADC · 1 year ago

Mitt was waffling in 2002 just as he is doing today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&feat...

roboris · 1 year ago

Rather than picking apart your gross mischaracterization of Mr. Romney's record myself, I'm going to let a couple of articles do it for me:

<http://tinyurl.com/ypmw2y>

<http://tinyurl.com/3cugbr>

daveinboca · 1 year ago

I looked over the rest when Fred left & between Mitt & McCain, decided that management might trump leadership if the leader has anger management issues & pulls off a lie as he did yesterday about Mitt supporting early withdrawal.

Mitt for me too. He won't beat Obama, perhaps, but will take HRC.

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

CE.

Thanks for the post. Good analysis. While not a McCain supporter, I'd take a little issue with your suggestion that Squadron command is not public "executive" experience. Guess I'd have to see how you define the word. McCain does have a serious lack of private sector experience to go along with his weakness on illegal immigration, first amendment etc.

captained · 1 year ago

It's management experience, in that McCain reported to others. I tried to make that distinction in the post. Executive experience means having no one above you, and you have ultimate responsibility for the entire organization. That's why governors, mayors, CEOs are "executives", and squadron commanders are leaders. I'm not trying to minimize squadron leadership, but it's a different and not entirely applicable experience.

unclesmrgol · 1 year ago

Even the President has someone he reports to, and rules he must follow, even as he commands the people who work for him. It isn't laissez faire for him or her.

So I'm sort of lost myself with this distinction. It isn't like we have a dictator (a person who's word is law) here.

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

Unlike an elected Executive, the CO of a US Navy ship/squadron is much closer to a dictator. He is judge, jury and executioner for dishing out punishment. When under way, the "guilty bastard" has no recourse. Cannot demand Court Martial where he can get "representation...and the "Rules of Evidence" would apply. ROE don't apply at CO NJP. Probably another reason why Squadron CO experience is not a good template to use for "executive experience".

unclesmrgol · 1 year ago

You've qualified the issue with enough boundaries that it really doesn't apply to the big picture. Let's suppose the ship/squadron is not "under way". Then can the swabbie demand a Court Martial, and present evidence?

So sometimes the CO is a dictator, and sometimes not.

But even when they are a dictator, I'm betting there's some form of "Sword of Damocles" dangling overhead.

Once, when one of my co-workers (contractor civilian) was flown aboard an aircraft carrier to check out equipment, a certain LTJG she encountered in a passageway demanded that she give way and salute him, and gave her a severe dressing down for failing to do so properly. She was in tears afterward, having no idea that civilians were supposed to salute anyone. This was her first day aboard and she had been invited to dine with the Captain that evening; she informed the Captain concerning the incident and the LTJG was immediately "called on the carpet" and required to apologize for his ill behavior toward her. He was further required to salute her whenever he encountered her in passing for the duration of her deployment. They became friendly thereafter, but he never forgot to salute.

Obviously, the Captain had indeed functioned as a dictator.

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

Yes, the swabbie can demand CM if not underway. I believe I said the CO is "closer to a dictator" than an executive. I didn’t say he WAS a dictator…though he is probably about the closest thing to one in our country…he “enjoys” this power underway EVEN IN PEACETIME.

unclesmrgol · 1 year ago

Got it. I think we've covered this 'til there's no room to swing a cat.

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

Let's not forget that Romney has both a law degree, as well as an MBA.

Do you remember his response in one of the earlier debates about how he would tackle an act of aggression towards America or American interests? He said that he would confer with the attorneys at his disposal as CiC.

At first, I dismissed the answer as a waffling. A deeper consideration led me to conclude that his answer was correct, for his options are limited by the Constitution.

Given the brouhaha of the second-guessers in the Democrat party and their repeated efforts to unearth some usurpation of extra-Constitutional power, he made the correct response. Mitt Romney would gather the best thinking/ thinkers and act decisively. (Do you remember John Kerry's dithering in his recollection of the events of 9/11?)

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

Good point.

SwabJockey05 · 1 year ago

Don't even Executives have "someone above them"...voters...or congress? (impeachment)? … and a squadron commander is absolutely responsible for his entire organization....they get fired all the time for what their underlings do. I’d say they are held more responsible (accountable) for their organization than ANY elected executive.

Just a quibble, skipper. No need to get up on your hind legs!! I've been there and I'll be the first one to agree that McCain’s "executive experience" at the Squadron level is not in the same league as Romney/Rudy’s time as Governor.

Roger · 1 year ago

Executives have boards of directors to whom they are responsible, similar to how there are checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative and Judicial branches. Being President seems to be much more like being the CEO of a corporation whereas being a senator is like being on a 100 person board of directors.

bert · 1 year ago

It is a tough call between rudy and mitt.
I voted in FL for Mitt after Fred dropped out.
Oddly this year does remind me of the Reagan vs Bush period .I was too young to vote but
I recall my parents going back and forth about who is more electable or
too wishy washee and they voted for Reagan.

Herb · 1 year ago

Good for you for committing yourself and defending the choice so well.

Personally, I think that if Obama is the Dem nominee, he will utterly engulf Romney. Mitt won't even win his own state (though he'll certainly win some of the hardcore red states). I think that if the Republicans want to have a chance against Obama, they have to nominate McCain.

If Hillary is the nominee, it may be a different story. You guys should be rooting for her.

TerryGain · 1 year ago

We are rooting for her. It requires the willing suspension of disbelief that she could beat the GOP nomineee. Ms Day One, whose executive experience consists of occasionally sharing a bed with a President will unify the GOP in an instant if she is the Dem nominee..

If Romney wins the GOP nomination he will have come out of nowhere to beat America's mayor and a war hero who was the overwhelming choice of the MSM.

Mitt Romney will be a great President.

Herb · 1 year ago

Terry! Good to see you! How come you never came back to Coyne's blog to admit that you lost our little wager? I was very disappointed. I had it diarized and everything.

MarkJ · 1 year ago

I'm edging toward Mitt as well. I think he could be the one guy who could definitely take on "Golden Boy" mano a mano. He could definitely pitch some devastating curveballs at Obama in any debate:

"Mr. Obama, it's nice to offer up platitudes about 'change' and 'hope"...but what you have actually done in your half-term as a U. S. Senator to bring them about? And, by the way, can you explain why you merely voted 'present' nearly 130 times as a state senator?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/2...

I'd like to see a Romney-Thompson ticket come out of the Convention: experience with a large dash of 'gravitas.' The fact that Thompson is a respected Southerner with ties to both coasts, thanks to his acting career, certainly wouldn't hurt.

Seneca3 · 1 year ago

The problem is that we don't know what this election is about yet. If security is on top then McCain and Rudy are better choices. Romney is probably stronger on the economy. But what happened to immigration? social security reform? health care?

I think that the talk about "conservative values" is hurting the GOP. The conservative vocabulary is rooted in opposition to the New Deal and socialism but self-proclaimed conservatives have been in power for most of the last 25 years. Measuriing one's purism in opposition to hypothetical liberal policies rooted in the past is a waste of time. Liberals also have the same old rhetoric but even less substance. That is why the current political debate rings so hollow.

The first candidate to grab immigration, national security, health care and pension reform in a clear, innovative and substantive way can change the whole debate. That is the "change" that current candidates need to find. Newt Gingrich offered a dynamic view of conservatism in the Contract With America. Where is that kind of energy now?

TerryGain · 1 year ago

Romney does not take a back seat to McCain on security . He is just as strong on Iraq and stronger on GWOT. McCain wants to close GITMO and believes waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders is a national disgrace. He will be influenced by how decisions will play in the leftist MSM-as he has been throughout his career.

Herb · 1 year ago

Good point. The election is almost certainly going to be about the economy, above all other issues. Romney's background in finance can help him there, but it can also hurt him. Huckabee's great line about voting for someone who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off, could make a re-appearance.

vamoose · 1 year ago

Capt. Ed:
I like your rubric (conservative values, executive experience, not vulnerable on the economy) and your assessment of the candidates. I vote in Virginia and can incorporate the Feb 5 results into my decision, but I am leaning to Mitt and detest McCain. In fact, it was only the SC Dem debate this week that convinced me that I would vote for McCain should he become the nominee. Anyone that entertains ideas of sitting out the general election because their guy doesn't get the GOP nod needs to watch a replay of the SC Dem debate.

Michael · 1 year ago

Good Analysis Ed. Insightful and thoroughly thought out. The difference in the blog vs MSM is the appearance of partiality. The MSM media acts independent we all know is Liberal. They love Clinton and Obama and really care less about the GOP nominee as long as they believe they can beat him. The blogs are peoples true beliefs and henceforth add to the legitimacy of them. You have the right, as we all do, to your opinion. As does Hugh Hewitt, he likes Romney and does not hide it. But he does have on people that disagree with him and I respect that. But his Blog is his opinion and he has that right. I liked Fred and wish he would have kicked into gear sooner. He was gaining his stride but he waited too long. He was the most conservative and a good man. McCain to me is just not trustworthy. He blantantly hides his Amnesty support and he is not good on taxes and I would question his Court Appoitments as well. He has leadership but we all do. What he does not have is distinction. He is a Washington Insider to the core. And to be honest what piece of legislation is tied to McCain that is pro-growth, tax cutting, stronger border security, pro-life, pro-second amendment and conservative. NOT ONE!! but he is known for McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, the gang of 14, against Bush tax cuts and anti-business. Now he is big on the CAFE standards. He truly does not represent the GOP and it is sad that many in the GOP act as if his VOTING RECORD does not exist. Crist will not help him in Florida because McCain's weaknesss is Conservatives. Crist is viewed as a moderate and his CAFE standards have hurt him in the eyes of Conservatives, as well as, his failure to deliver a MEANINGFUL PROPERTY TAX CUT. Crist's amendment is failing right now and will lose on 29th of Jan. That is no help to McCain.

Jeb Bush is the only man in Florida GOP that could change the GOP race. Rudy is a good man but he took a strategy that really was in doubt. He let his name go into the oblivion and it made him look like he could not compete. He hurt himself. He is great on Security and Taxes but those Social stands hurt him as well. Romney is classy and smart. He is the best of the group on the Economy. We need a non-Washington Insider to move the government to operate more efficiently and to shrink the size of the Washington establishment. Romney is tough and knows how to succeed and he is more in the Reagan mold than McCain. Romney knows he needs to cut taxes, enforce immigration laws, provide for a strong defense and national security and supports a family/value oriented America. He knows government is the problem and the best answer is American Liberty , Capitalism and Ideals. He will get my support and I am happy to see many Thompson Staff members moving to Romney's Campaign.

serfer62 · 1 year ago

MacAss should never have been part of your consideration. His only asset was hero, but then so was Benedict Arnold. Better 4 or less for Sen Clintion then 8 of him.

Gov Romney best asset is economic realization and he has been ahead of the pack for weeks, just look at the delegates he has.

Sen Thompsons only asset was conservatizim and thats it. He is too old to be VP...

Michael · 1 year ago

With all due respect..McCain is a flip flopper and is not trustworthy. To keep bringing up what he did in Vietnam is pointless. The man is a Liberal. He is pro-illegal immigration, does not support tax cuts, votes with the liberal democrats all the time, cut free speech, hurts businesses with his CAFE standards, is not a big pro-lifer like he proclaims and wants to give terrorists access to US courts. His war records means nothing vs HIS VOTING RECORD. The only reason McCain every gained attention was because the MSM media loved that he stood in opposition to the Reagan Coalition, tax cuts, free speech, tougher border security and smaller government. He is no hawk on anything except the Military. That is his one redeeming qaulity. But after that he is a Democrat in every way. Sorry but his War Hero status does not change his record. He is a fraud. He needs to be exposed as to who he really is. He is no Republican. He should run as a Democrat..that is where is heart and voting record lie!!

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

What exactly is your standard of "all the time" he has a 83% lifetims ACU Rating, down to 76% or so in the last 8 years.

roboris · 1 year ago

Those ratings are solely based on actual congressional votes, and do not take into consideration all of McCain's nefarious activities undermining and derailing the conservative agenda (e.g. the Gang of 14 debacle) in the senate. If anything, those ACU ratings should serve to illustrate the lengths to which the senator has gone to put an attractive public face on his behind-closed-doors dealings.

But, since we're talking about ACU ratings at the moment... what was Senator McCain's rating for 2006, the last year for which ratings are available? Wow, can that be right? It says 65 right there on the ACU's website: <http://tinyurl.com/2u8n5f>

Del_Dolemonte · 1 year ago

"Third, we face a tough election if the economy turns south, even mildly. We saw this in 1992 and lost when Bill Clinton successfully convinced people that he had the best ideas for a turnaround."

Actually, according to Federal statistics, the economic recovery started in March of 1991, or a year and a half before Clinton was elected. The mainstream media, in order to install a Dem in the White House, simply failed to report it.

Herb · 1 year ago

How paranoid can you be? The media *always* fails to get economic stories right, by assuming that controlling the economy is a simple matter of pulling some levers at the White House.

Would you say the MSM were equally biased toward the Dems when they gave Reagan credit for the recovery of the mid-80s?

Del_Dolemonte · 1 year ago

Actually, the NY Times, in an editorial in 2000, admitted that the recovery that started in March of 1991 was "unrecognized at the time". That's their weasel word for "unreported":

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...

As for them giving Reagan "credit" in the 1980s, you obviously missed that paper's resident looney, former Enron advisor Paul Krugman, who tried to debunk Reagan's mid-80s recovery just a few days ago. Likewise, in 1984, Krugs' paper was still screaming doom and gloom

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res...

Here's Krug's piece from last week. Enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21kru...

essucht · 1 year ago

I hear the same sort of MSM inspired economic doom and gloom from my co-workers all the time.

Then I point out we are painfully understaffed because we can't find people to fill the slots we have open and the traffic continues to get worse at rush hour every week.

It seems to make them wonder how the economy can be so bad after all...

Jake · 1 year ago

Well, I guessed your preference awhile ago, Captain. Fair shake, yes. But you did tend to lean on the other guys a bit more than Romney. Read long enough and it was there to see.

Of course, I'm going with Romney too. Of course, he'll probably screw us over on shamnesty, but oh well.

gingertoronto · 1 year ago

I wouldn't worry so much about shamnesty. Mitt got the Tancredo endorsement. The government will still inch toward NAFTA-like free trade agreements and issue a national ID card (real ID.) No one seems to mind all that much, so have fun, guys!

W-Girl · 1 year ago

Yes, Romney !!

Good pick, Captain !!

With your endorsement ....now I know I am on the right track !!

Peg · 1 year ago

Captain - I hear you on so many issues, but - this is my bottom line: What reasonable Republican candidate can beat the Democrat candidate? The answer to that question seems to be: Rudy Giuliani, more than any other Republican.

Frankly, forget about the issues for a few moments. I do not think that Romney has the personality to win against a Democrat. Should that matter? Of course not. Yet, what should matter and what does are frequently not at all one and the same.

While we of course weigh all the Republican possibilities, the bottom line should be: can this candidate win? If it's Rudy, I think "yes." If it is not - particularly if it's Romney - I am worried.

The fat lady has not yet sung for Rudy! Don't give up on him!

Mark · 1 year ago

Poll after poll after poll has demonstrated that Mitt Romney has absolutely no chance, at all, of winning a general election against any of the Democratic candidates. While I may not like all of the positions that John McCain takes, he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary and Obama. I would rather have him in office than a quasi-socialist like Obama or Clinton.

TerryGain · 1 year ago

Polls that poll people who pay no atttention to politics are of no value. It's like asking whether the Surge is working. Only those who follow the war understand that it unequivocally is working.

HNAV · 1 year ago

Sorry, must completely disagree...

Polls would have had Kerry winning an election in 2004.

McCain has a big name, being a celebrity, for his anti-Conservative liberal placation as a Senator.

Again, the National Poll numbers are simply based on a small number of Americans, sampled from the massive population.

It is often simply a game of Name Recognition...

It happens all the time, and until the Nominees are selected, the GOP Convention is held, the first Debate is offered in the General, most 'celebs' in our politics will hold a winning poll number.

However, once any GOP Candidate is given the high profile, this will change.

For example, if your suggestion were accurate, Rudy G would be the Republican Nominee from long ago, because he once held the lead over Hillary in a generic National Poll.

This is of course silly...

The McCain, who was aided by liberals in NH and SC, cannot win without their help in the GOP Primary (or has not demonstrated as such yet).

The reality is, those Liberal Independents, and even Partisan Democrats, who are helping McCain in the Primary, most likely will NOT be voting for him when he faces a Democrat.

Sure some will, but the large Conservative base will probably be uninspired and their lack of turn out will offset any independent Democrat gains McCain could add in the General.

Romney has been strongly opposed by the Globe, the Monitor, the Register, etc., for a serious reason.

The liberals fear his General Election challenge...

He is that impressive, especially because he fails to fit the stereotype Liberals often employ to destroy their opposition.

Romney has as good a chance than anyone, being a successful outsider, especially seeing how competitive he is in the West, and East...

McCain has been in the Senate for 24 years, and is cannot possibly offer any 'change' of any kind.

Caustic_Conservative · 1 year ago

Citing polls of electability 10 months before an election are of no value, except for inside Beltway navel gazers. I thought voting based on polls was the exlusive territory of the Democrats--but I see it applies to McCain voters as well. The fact that so many McCain supporters laughably choose this argument first tells you all you need to know about his conservative values. He might be able to get himself elected, but he would probably get the GOP swept in the Senate and lose another 40 seats in the House, because McCain's favorite voters don't pull the lever for the GOP's conservative candidates down the ticket. It would be a bloodbath handed on a silver platter to the Dem majority with the lowest approval rating ever.

wile e coyote · 1 year ago

I had hopes for Giuliani, but his campaign never shifted from him ("Tested. Ready. Now") to what he stands for. More than any other candidate (and I agree that Romney has legitimate qualifications), Rudy understands what it takes to defend and promote freedom.

Theflyman · 1 year ago

I think it's interesting and slightly disingenuous for you to support Mitt a this stage of the game. What has changed in any candidate since a year ago? Hmmm, the notion that maybe just maybe John McCain might be the nominee? Of course in classic "Conservative" style you hedge your bet for the sake of your reputation as a staunch Conservative. Better go with someone who will obviously loose and no principles will be sacrificed. Sooo much wiser of you sir. I woke up at 5 am this am wondering what my main problem with the issue of Conservatism is and I finally have decided, it's the idea that a candidate or elected official has to BE a Conservative, not just be more conservative. there is no such thing as A Conservative, just more conservative. Adjective not noun. Ed you should get together with Rich Lowry and just pick someone for the next election after 08 and support them BEFORE the fact not after, which apparently seems to be a life sustaining effort on your part. Mike Pence, now how about 5 more. The bull pen needs to be at least 6-7 deep. Well?

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

Flyman, so what your saying is that you are not going to be voting for the rest of your life? Because, while there is no perfect candidate in this campaign, there are some acceptable ones that move the party and nation in the direction of true Conservatism. I agree with the Captain because apparently, like myself, he was waiting to see who panned out as the best candidate on the battlefield. After Fred left, to me the choice was pretty clear.

And what is wrong with not wanting McCain to be the nominee?

jvandahm · 1 year ago

A well-reasoned arguement in your choice for Mitt, Captain Ed.

I'm concerned about Mitt's electablility, and have been hoping that McCain and Mitt would strike up a relationship during the campaign process that would lead to a McCain/Romney ticket, with McCain taking the lead on foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and giving Romney a larger than normal impact on the economy. McCain as Commander-in-Chief and Romney as Chief Executive. I think it's a ticket that could pull a lot of independents in, as well as hold down the Conservative fort. McCain would, admittedly, have to pull in some strong "social issue" conservatives for Cabinet positions, and make some of those choices known during the general election race to satisfy social conservative voters. I think he'd also have to make some strongly conservative campaign promises to those on the Right who are justifyably concerned about his more recent voting record on some of the issues he has made over the years since GWB was elected.

McCain is old, and the younger Romney would be both capable to step in should McCain's age become an issue, or develop for 4-8 years in office regarding his foreign policy, as well as continue to become more a household name, potentially becoming a very strong candidate for the top office after McCain.

Thanks again for the transparency and reasoning in your choice, and may the best person win. I could support McCain, Mitt, Guiliani or Huckaby vs. either Obama or Hillary, in that order.

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

My take is that that would be like mixing oil and water. Just look at how vile and angry McCain is getting with Romney pointing out how he is not a Conservative. But he has always made a point of hating Conservatives, so why not blame himself?
I think McCain is thinking that this election should be like most Republican elections--the oldest dog gets the tip of the hat. It worked really well when we nominated Dole, didn't it?

Lokki · 1 year ago

I fall into the "Romney is the best choice among those available" camp. I could easily vote for Guilani, but he seems to have become the invisible man. I'm not into the idea of selecting someone on the basis of how that person matches up against HIllary, but I won't support Rudy if he's not going to work for it. Huckabee makes me wish that there was an entrance examination to get into the Republican Party - he'd fail and wouldn't be able to call himself a Republican.

McCain is a trecherous senile old man who can't be relied upon to take consistent positions. Mavericks are sometimes a good thing; (See Newt Gingrich as gadfly for the Republicans) but usually make lousy Leaders (See Newt Gingrich as Speaker for the Republicans).


As for Captain Ed taking a position - I prefer someone who will tell you where he stands rather than sneak around hinting at it.

unclesmrgol · 1 year ago

Well, Captain, we could sure tell you weren't a Paulista....

BarryBoyer · 1 year ago

You are right, I think. I am not fond of Giuliani as I can remember his behavior when he was a prosecutor. A man who used the law as he did is not a man of honor. Of course if Islamic Fascism were the only issue before us, Giuliani might be the best choice. Absolutely not to McCain and Rev. Huck. My prayer is that Romney will turn out to be better than simply the best of the lot. He looks to be more than that.

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

Well reasoned, Captain Ed. I agree with your choice of Governor Mitt Romney for the factors that you have considered. Romney is head and shoulders above any of the Democrat contenders. He has the nation's interest at the heart of his campaign.

Mwalimu_Daudi · 1 year ago

Although I am a Rudy guy, I am leaning towards Romney as well.

And concerning all of the noise Democrats are making about how they want Romney more than any other GOP candidate - it reminds me a bit of how Democrats could not wait to run against Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Considering the meltdown the Democrats are experiencing because of decades of race-baiting for political gain, perhaps they need to fix their own badly leaking boat before they set out to sink someone else's.

BrooklynCouch · 1 year ago

I don't quite get the supposed leadership v. management dichotomy. Heading mega organizations successfuly requires most leadership and management talent. On the other hand, I fail to see how McCain has much demonstrated experience in either realm; if he has any from his Vietnam years, that's an awfully long time ago to be on one's resume. Yes he is a hero, but we are not nominating someone to be on Mt. Rushmore.

BrooklynCouch · 1 year ago

Let me amend that: we are not voting someone to be in the Hall of Heros (Mt. Rushmore has good Presidents on it, so it's not an apt analogy.

Joe C. · 1 year ago

Why is that no one especially the conservative media (we know the name, it's between e and g) will not say anything positive about Mitt Romney? Is there really such power, based on the gift from our legislaturesas to the FCC, as fearful as the mob, CIA, etc.? That no one dares mention what is really going on with all the free advertising, though they shamefully continue to mention the money Mitt spends and saves taxpayers?
Now we may have surpassed the Banana Republics afterall!Cross Media Newspapers/radio/TV/cable,
I expect this comment to also disappear within the hour. God Bless the original forefathers idealism. Joe

Jazz · 1 year ago

Congrats on coming to a decision, as I know it wasn't easy to do. Obiously I don't agree with your choice, but that's why it's *your* choice. :-)

I suppose that's one of the benefits or curses of being a registered independent in a state with closed primaries. I'm still not close to a final decision, but then I don't have to be until November.

terrye · 1 year ago

I still can not make up my mind. But since I am in Indiana I have not been forced to. I like Rudy, but I don't think he can make it. I would support any of these candidates {with the exception of Ron Paul} if they get the nomination.

I think that either McCain or Romney would make a good president. It is too bad the primaries have turned ugly, we need to stand together, not tear each other apart.

Fla_guy78 · 1 year ago

CE,

The one thing everyone fails to address in all these discussions of promises by these candidates made to "stop illegals" or "change the tax system" or "appoint conservative judges" is the fact that the Congress is now in Democrat hands. You can, as president, demand Congress do a lot of things but if you do not control Congress, they will do nothing of the sort. You can appoint all the judges you want but a congress controlled by the other side will never approve them. You can demand a fence be built on the border but Congress will never authorize the funds. Sure, you can veto bills, but do that too many times and the American public will turn its back on you as confrontative. That in itself may not be a bad thing if you had the intestinal fortitude to be able to openly and vociferously defend your decisions or if you were a charismatic enough LEADER but neither of these two Republicans will not and are not. Remember, one of them already sleeps with the enemy (McCain), the other compromises with them (Romney.)

I agree with Rush...either do not vote, write in a candidate or vote Democrat. That way when things go south after '09, we can blame the democrats for the mess. With a republican in office and things going south, no matter how much of it is the fault of the Congress that won't work with the President, it will be the President who will be blamed.

roboris · 1 year ago

Um, Rush has never even suggested -- mush less taken -- that kind of stance. He has consistently stated that he will support the GOP nominee, no matter whom, in the general election.

What we need to keep in mind is that it's the United States of America we're talking about here, not your favorite sports team. Placing the country in the hands of the Dems for any length of time is a recipe for catastrophe. I really won't care who gets the blame if the land I love is ruined beyond repair.

azlibertarian · 1 year ago

I'm pretty much in agreement, but will offer this one quibble...

...we face a tough election if the economy turns south, even mildly. We saw this in 1992 and lost when Bill Clinton successfully convinced people that he had the best ideas for a turnaround.

While it was the election of "Its the economy, stupid", it was also the election of "Giant Sucking Sound" Ross Perot. Absent Perot, Bush41 might well have been re-elected.

I can support Romney, but I confess that I'm not terribly enthused. His sop to Michigan voters that he'd bring back the auto industry jobs had me wondering two things: Just how? and Pander much, Mitt?

Personally, it won't make much difference for me here in Arizona. McCain is going to win no matter who I vote for (Other than a few "Mitt" yard-signs in my very Mormon Mesa, I've seen virtually no Republican campaigning for our primary only 8 days away now). For the primary, I think I'm still going to mark my ballot for Fred. Call it my "None of the Above" vote.

However for the general election, I'll mark it for whichever R gets to the top.

roboris · 1 year ago

I maintain that Romney was *not* pandering in MI, he was simply being optimistic in direct contrast to McCain's pessimism. And what are the results of well-applied conservatism? I believe that more jobs in a booming economy are just a couple of those results.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Pessimism or realism, another difference of opinion, you know we can have those right?

RJD · 1 year ago

Captain Ed's best attempt to support Mitt Romney as the best conservative for president is extremely underwhelming. It essentially amouts to an argument that he looks pretty. Sorry but presidents lead, they don't look pretty. On every conceivable point,Romney is weak, a mix between John Kerry and Bill Clinton. As for the war ofn terror and its quinessential battlefield, Iraq, the best one can say for Romeny, when one suppends all judgment and , incredibly enough given his history, takes him at his word is that he is for something if it works and against it if it doesn't. This is worse than John Kerry but merely a duplicate of Bill Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. Given Romney's history of hypocracy and lying, it is more accurate to say tha t he considers strategic retreat as a viable option against Al-Qaeda. He manages to take the one Republican advantage against a D and reduce it to nothing.

Domestically, Romney is equally a fraud and a liberal dressed up to look like a conservative. Undoubtedly, he would not have been elected in MA if he was actually conservative. He raised taxes, did nothing to reduce the size of gov't and introduced employer financed universal healthcare in MA. As for immigaration, while conservatives say Mccain is for amnesty dejure, Romney practiced amnesty de-facto. He did nothing to combat illegal immigration in MA. Additionally,he is a supporter of abortion and appoint those who think prision is a revolving door.. Romney's only conservative credentials is not his record but his ability to lie and utter some conservative rhetoric to the right audiences. Not surprisingly, this can convince the National review crowd but it shouldn't convince true conservatives. If someone wants to suport him for not being John McCain, so be it but there is no conservative reason to support Mitt Romney. He is an oppotunist who can not be trusted, unprincipled , JohnKerry and Bill clinton rolled into one.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Amen!

Kim · 1 year ago

Thank you. Well said

roboris · 1 year ago

Wait a minute! John Kerry? You mean the guy whose veep invitation McCain had to give serious consideration, before he could turn it down? Oh yeah, that just does wonders for McCain's conservative bona fides.

I have to admit that I am becoming fed up with the misrepresentations and utter lies being spewed by you McCain wingnuts. And if you must lie like this, please learn at least a modicum of English spelling and grammar. I keep having to blink as I read your diatribe, because it is difficult not to imagine the flecks of foam spraying from your mouth onto your monitor with every character you type.

Just because you say that McCain is more conservative than Romney does not make it so. You apparently skip reading things that might challenge your world view, so I will refer again to this post: <http://tinyurl.com/yssjdq>

Romney is not the only one with a record to be judged. McCain's record speaks volumes about his avowed disdain for the conservative core of the Republican party. I would not support Mr. McCain for the nomination because of any one of several of the shenanigans he has pulled as a senator. How about McCain-Fiengold, or the "Incumbent Protection Act of 2002"? Does limiting free speech, especially political speech, sound particularly conservative to you? It certainly doesn't to me.

Stipulating all of this, Senator McCain would certainly have my vote if he is the GOP candidate in November. I just can't understand how he could have any expectation of my loyalty in the primary when he has betrayed my trust so shamefully, so often.

okonkolo · 1 year ago

Ed, for what it's worth, posts like this are why I read you even though I am from the left side of the spectrum. You are thoughtful and have integrity and are independent. I usually disagree with you, but I respect you. Anyway, my two cents.

serfer62 · 1 year ago

Are all of MacCains endorsers pro amenisty?

Mark_0454 · 1 year ago

RJD

You are of course entitled to your opinions, but I read your comments and the endorsement essay. Captain Ed has the better of it.

Mark J. Goluskin · 1 year ago

All I can say is thank you for coming to this decision. You are right, there is no perfect Republican running. But, when we look at all the candidates and their qualifications and qualities, I found that Mitt Romney fits the bill. Not perfectly, but in a way that I believe is genuine. Especially on the life issue. Mr. Romney could have tried the Rudy up the middle, muddled view. But, I believe that he is changed on the life issue. All I can write is that when a politician goes the other way, from being pro-life to pro-abortion, he or she is a hero in the eyes of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media. Go the other way and he or she is accused of pandering. I recommend to those that doubt Mr. Romney's sincerity on the life issue to read Paul Kengor's recent article on National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com, on Ronald Reagan and the worst political decision and how he came around on the life issue. Also, you brought out some excellent points about the private sector experience of both Mr. Romney and Rudy Giuliani. I think that Mr. Romney will win on Tuesday in Floritda and will be well on his way to the Republican nomination

Banjo · 1 year ago

The fact a considerable nuimber of evanglicals have come out for Romney means the issue is dying down. That was his only disqualification in terms of a possible win.

richard mcenroe · 1 year ago

Cap'n, I know it's a bit late for you, but I figured out a way to vote for McCain over Romney. All you have to do is:

1. ignore everything McCain has done.
2. ignore everything Romney has done.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Or you could just be practical and pragmatic instead of listening to the talking heads. Some people look at things differently than you.

HNAV · 1 year ago

RICHARD !

that is a classic...

well done...

squid ?

you should take a big step back, cause you simply are not seeing it correctly.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Well I am glad that I have you to tell me how to see things. I have studied both of their records.
I have followed McCain for 8 years and have been following Romney since he became gov.
I am not an idiot and I made a reasoned choice, not everyone thinks that the sun rises and sets on the exact set of beliefs held by you or the blowhards in the talkeratzi.

Mister Snitch! · 1 year ago

I agree with your first commenter, Quickjustice.

JohnR · 1 year ago

If Mitt's a conservative, then I am the King of Siam.

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

John, are you saying he is less Conservative than McCain? (if so, I have some delightful swamp property to sell you) lol

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

I dont see what makes him any more conservative then Romney.

Please, is there a "conservative database" where I can sit down and read what are conservative principles and what are not.

Don't worry, the shepherds will be back to bring you into the pen soon.

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

Squid, if you are a Conservative, then you should instinctively know what the principlesare. However, since I am unsure what your political affiliations are, let me inform you of some of the "principles":

1. Reduced Government
2. Reduced taxation
3. National defense
4. Immigration control
5. 2nd amendment gun rights
6. Strict constructionism in relation to the Constitution
7. The belief in the American "Culture" (versus multiculturism)
8. A belief in the benefit of the nuclear family (vs. Hillary's socialist 'village" concept)
9. The belief in freedom OF religion, rather than freedom FROM religion.

Those are some, although I am sure some will mention many more.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Missing my point entirely.
There are many iterations of "conservatism"
My "affilitation is quite clear...I am a libertarian minded conservative.
I voted for John McCain.
I did not necessarily concur with McCain-Feingold.
I agreed that Pres Bush Tax cuts were done incorrectly with no consideration for spending.
I believe in reducing the size of gov't, apparently no one in the Republican Party does anymore though.
I supported the "Amnesty" bill, in the same way that Regan supported "amnesty", you can say you will deport illegals till the cow come home, but it will not happen. Amnesty with STRICT border enforcement (perhaps even a moratorium on all immigration for a time) is the right answer. Fine and the back of the line with a requirement to learn English.
2nd amendment I am pretty clear on.
I am very much a constructionalist.
I believe in .family.
As for the last point, I think most of the right goes WAY overboard about religion, but that does not make me a "liberal" except in the sense that both American parties are technically "liberal".

There is no repository of what conservatives are "supposed" to believe. I am a conservative but I dont follow the dittoheads and hannitized into the sheep pen at night.

HNAV · 1 year ago

that is absurd...

any conservative knows the tax cuts were essential to grow the economy, which eventually increases revenue...

besides, after 24 years in the Senate, John McCain did NOTHING to stop spending or reform PORK.

you could not be more mistaken, backing an aged Senator, who is peddling global warming diatribe.

very regretful, and now Senator McCain is being dishonest about Romney's expression on Iraq.

Senator McCain is a huge disappointment.

and his Campaign Finance reform is a disaster.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

One man alone can not stop pork he can only speak and vote, when all the pigs are at the trough...

Dont get me started on Global Warming. That is NOT I repeat NOT part of
the "reequired beliefs" of the conservative movement.

Responsible tax cuts should ALWAYS be accompanied by a reduction in
the size of govt, isnt that one of the "sacred" principles you so espouse.
yes they will "eventually"increase revenue. But until then, it is irreasponsible to
just cut taxes and keep on spending like nothing happened.

roboris · 1 year ago

Why don't you go ahead and get started on Global Warming, because YES, FIGHTING THE "MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING" HOAX IS A CENTRAL TENET OF CONSERVATISM. Let's get this out in the open right now.

Man-Made Global Warming is a religion for those without religion, and underpins many of the liberals' "progressive" plans for the country and the world. The theory is without scientific merit, and is only supported by sheepish scientists who see it as a source of continual revenue and politicians who wish to use it as justification to tax us back to the Stone Age.

As a conservative, I believe that *all* governments should be limited in power... not just ours. I want to see the UN empowered to combat Global Warming even less than I want to see American bureaucrats handed that same power.

Now, about tax cuts: reasonable tax cuts are *never* a bad thing. Bush's tax cuts, just like every tax cut before them, actually resulted in more real federal government revenues, not less. Would I have liked to have seen spending curtailed at the same time? Sure. But that is no reason to refuse tax cuts that will help keep spending within the budget.

I cannot, of course, read Mr. McCain's mind. I can only guess as to his intent, or why he voted against the Bush tax cuts. But my strong, educated (by Mr. McCain's past behavior) suspicion is that he was mostly grinding a personal political ax against President Bush. That's the kind of grudge-holding and political maneuvering that I don't want anywhere near the White House.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"YES, FIGHTING THE "MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING" HOAX IS A CENTRAL TENET OF CONSERVATISM. "
It is if you believe that responsible environmental stewardship USED to be something we took pride in.

roboris · 1 year ago

Buying into a giant hoax cannot be the definition of good environmental stewardship. I learned good environmental stewardship at the knee of my grandfather, a forest ranger and professor of Forestry and Range Management. I practice that stewardship as I backpack with my son throughout the Rocky Mountains.

Grandpa was generally contemptuous of those who cast themselves as "environmentalists", and he taught me to not blindly accept shifting conventional wisdom. He did great work, especially in protecting rangelands, and was awarded many honors for his efforts.

But Grandpa knew a scam when he saw it, and he never hesitated to point one out. He knew, right from the start, that Man-Made Global Warming was a hoax, and he told me so. That I had already come to the same conclusion was a point of pride for him -- it meant that he had taught me right.

I'm not the only one thinking for myself on this issue, willing to look past the spin offered in the MSM: <http://tinyurl.com/33cjom>

I am a computer engineer by profession, so I have an intimate understanding of the GIGO rule: Garbage In, Garbage Out. What Michael Mann did was not only junk science, it was criminally irresponsible. But all of the pro-Man-Made Global Warming folks use Dr. Mann's research to this day in their arguments.

Your underhanded poke at me, implying that I am not a responsible steward of our environment because I don't believe in Man-Made Global Warming (or even its toned-down cousin, Climate Change), just doesn't hold water. It was a feeble attempt to label me as a heretic, and only ended up making you look foolish.

the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders at this point. Would you care to try to prove that Man-Made Global Warming is anything more than a hoax intended to usurp power for the environmental elite?

Oh, and I noticed that you didn't care to comment (once again) on my problems with McCain's lack of support for tax cuts. Hmmmm.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"Buying into a giant hoax cannot be the definition of good environmental stewardship."
We disagree on what constitutes a giant hoax.

"Grandpa was generally contemptuous of those who cast themselves as "environmentalists", and he taught me to not blindly accept shifting conventional wisdom. He did great work, especially in protecting rangelands, and was awarded many honors for his efforts."
Well that is good, and I admire him for his efforts it is rare these days to see service like that.

"But Grandpa knew a scam when he saw it, and he never hesitated to point one out. He knew, right from the start, that Man-Made Global Warming was a hoax, and he told me so. That I had already come to the same conclusion was a point of pride for him -- it meant that he had taught me right."

Other scientists would disagree, I am no scientist, so I must analyze their findings and make my own decision. I came to a different conclusion, maybe I wasn't "taught right" as you are implying, but you can think what you like.

"Your underhanded poke at me, implying that I am not a responsible steward of our environment because I don't believe in Man-Made Global Warming"

It was never meant that way but apparently yous skin is quite thin judging by your other posts.

"the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders at this point. Would you care to try to prove that Man-Made Global Warming is anything more than a hoax intended to usurp power for the environmental elite?"

We can spend all day exchanging research and sites. I am not going to waste everyone elses time on the board. We can discuss it on e-mail if you would like. My address is on the blog linked to my name.

"Oh, and I noticed that you didn't care to comment (once again) on my problems with McCain's lack of support for tax cuts. Hmmmm."
Ok Mr. Snarky :) I agreed with opposing the tax cuts on the grounds of lack of spending cuts accompanying it. I know those were not the reasons McCain mentioned at the time, so I disagreed with his initial reasons, however the lack of spending cuts is the reason I opposed them at the time, I saw Bush's drunken spending spree back then and was very displeased.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Also, many of the issues mentioned only became part of the "Conservative" movement in the last 50 years.

roboris · 1 year ago

Um, since that is nearly how long the conservative movement has been around, is this supposed to come as a surprise? And even if that was not the case, what is the problem with broadening the conservative platform to address issues with conservatism's core principles?

BTW, which of the principles listed by harleycon5 do you apparently consider to be the Johnny-come-latelies to the conservative movement? I have to ask, I'm truly curious.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Since we are playing the Semantic games, replace conservative with Republican party.

We also used to be the party AGAINST nation building, remember?

roboris · 1 year ago

But that is a replacement that I would never make. I do not equate the Republican Party with conservatism. I am only a registered Republican because I find it to be the party that most closely (certainly not perfectly) represents my conservative principles. If some other viable political party did a better job of that, I would have no problem leaving the Republicans and lending my support to that party.

This is exactly the point of my objections to Senator McCain: he does not represent the conservative principles that I look to the Republican Party to support. Period. End of story.

Yes, the Republican Party used to be isolationist. But the US can no longer afford to turn its back on the world. To do so now would be pure suicide. If Ronald Reagan had been isolationist in nature, we would still be dealing with the USSR and the Soviet Bloc. I, for one, am very happy that we are not.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"If Ronald Reagan had been isolationist in nature, we would still be dealing with the USSR and the Soviet Bloc. I, for one, am very happy that we are not."
Thank you for that patronizing history lesson, but I am glad to see that you can admit that a party can admit that it is wrong and change it policies.

BTW Speaking of questions, what is your opinion of my earlier points about the Regan amnesty and McCain amnesty?

Emaughan · 1 year ago

Are you sure? I did not know the King of Siam's first name was John??

HNAV · 1 year ago

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY KING OF SIAM !!!

RBMN · 1 year ago

I'm somewhat comforted by Dean Barnett's reassurance that Mitt Romney is a much better man than the tone of his bare-knuckles presidential campaign would indicate.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15bar...

The only thing between me, and picking up the Mitt flag, is Rudy. So, not that much it looks like. I'll do it, I'll support MItt, but I won't like it. I think McCain is the more honest man, but I don't agree with him enough.

fejj · 1 year ago

I appreciate your thorough professionalism and integrity and it is one of the reasons why this blog is so popular.

I began to lean towards Romney after I read his book “Turnaround” which is his story of the SLC Olympics. This was a feat behind the ability of anyone but a small handful of supremely talented professionals. When I looked at his record as Gov of MA, I could see the same talented hands at work in an environment so hostile to conservatives.

For a long time however I flirted with Rudy because of the elect ability factor. Having researched the history and trends of head-to-head polls, I am convinced that the current polling in favour of McCain is a fool’s paradise. McCain came into the race as a nationally known figure and the MSM media have (in my opinion deliberately) kept his profile high to pump him up as their preferred candidate. McCain is too old, too angry, too entrenched in Washington and too hostile to the GOP base to ever govern as a Reagan conservative. Huckabee to me was always a liberal who happened to be socially conservative and his campaign convinced me he wasn’t ready for the big time. Fred was very attractive at first but lacked the fire in the belly.

The final clincher for me was hearing from a friend in the campaign about Romney’s on-the-ground effort and knowing this was replicated in all the key states and that he had the money to go all the way against the Dems. Always listen to what your enemies say about you and your competition, anyone the NY Times or MSM commentators fawn over in the GOP is code for me to vote for whoever is that candidate’s most obvious and successful opponent and that will tell you who they would really rather not face. The MSM used Huckabee as a foil first and now McCain or, in reality, anybody but Mitt – that speaks volumes about who they fear the most.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"I began to lean towards Romney after I read his book “Turnaround” which is his story of the SLC Olympics. "
McCains written some good books too, I reccomend Character is Destiny, a good one to read with your kids.

HNAV · 1 year ago

mmm...

you know Liberals are big on McCain...

is that your position?

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"mmm...

you know Liberals are big on McCain...

is that your position?"

What the hell does that have to do with an excellent book written by McCain.

mmmm, you know there are some conservatives big on McCain too, I know it is a news flash to you.

I was merely reccomending a book, if you are asking if it is my position that "Character is Destiny" the answer is yes. If you are asking if i am a liberal, the answer is no.

beanieville · 1 year ago

Secret trading system just out. Take it or leave it.

Dan · 1 year ago

Ed (or anyone else), can you make the case empirically for the need for private executive experience? In other words, how has this led to successful presidencies in the past?

I'm also interested in why familiarity with the biggest issue facing the President, foreign policy, appears nowhere in your decision-making process. Certainly inexperience with foreign policy was a major problem for Bill Clinton (who did have executive experience); his immediate blunders in Somalia were a direct result of his lack of knowledge in the arena. Certainly this is a way in which a Republican candidate (I am a McCain supporter, to acknowledge my bias) could have a major advantage over both Obama and Clinton.

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

I would suggest that Romney's executive experience and success are the result of his tapping on the best minds to problem solve. Whether addressing foreign policy issues or economic ones, he would build teams of the best and the brightest, not people expecting to be awarded political spoils for favors.

Dan · 1 year ago

Onlineanalyst: It is specifically the building of teams of the best and the brightest, and the commander-in-chief's inexperience with the subject matter, that led to the morass in Iraq. Pardon me if I want the C-in-C to be enough of a subject matter expert to contribute his own analyses and judgment.

hermie · 1 year ago

McCain is going to act just like he has done in the Senate: Give up principles for 'comity'.

He will go into a General Election pledging to be 'civil', as Hillary and the Dems keep pounding him and pounding him.

csupreme · 1 year ago

One question. When's the last time a candidate was elected president yet lost his home state in the general election?

RBMN · 1 year ago

It's easier now. Everybody has at least two home states.

Dave · 1 year ago

Romney is a proven political contortionist. We can believe that he just happened to arrive at a set of core convictions conducive to winning the governorship of Massachusetts, then evolved at the appropriate pace to arrive at an opposite set of convictions that happen to be conducive to winning the Republican nomination. But the simpler explanation by far is opportunistic political branding. I am not one whose demands ideological purity first from a candidate, much less a purity that can be demonstrated back to childhood. But if Romney has a backbone -- a core -- then he has decided it's not in his political interests to put that forward yet. Because we haven't seen it yet.

Looking at the number of people voting for Democrats versus Republicans in the nomination contests so far, I am beginning to believe this is all a mute point.

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

Moot, Dave, not mute.

Obviously you haven't looked at Romney's actual record of accomplishments. Mute is what one would prefer a person to be who relies on talking points rather than real research.

reliapundit · 1 year ago

i agree with you 100000%

LadyLogician · 1 year ago

Ed,

I have to say after hearing the clip of the interview on NARN on Saturday that I have to concur with the endorsement. I have too many issues with McCain and Huckabee and I just don't think that Giuliani will gain traction between now and Feb. 5.

LL

Ryan · 1 year ago

Another McCain lie is his claim that he tries to run a positive campaign and only "responds" when attacked.

Were you aware that McCain attacked Mitt first? McCain had been attacking Mitt in his stump speeches for a long time before Mitt said anything bad about McCain. In fact, in one of the debates the moderator asked Romney about the attacks McCain had been making and Romney replied, "he's my friend." But McCain kept it up.

That was June 5, 2007!

Below is the transcript excerpt. I hope you will read it!

(Begin Transcript)

BLITZER: Thank you, Mayor.

I want to get to Senator McCain in a moment, but first, Governor Romney, Senator McCain has accused you of flip-flopping on this issue, in effect.

Yesterday in Miami, he said the following: "Pandering for votes on this issue while offering no solution to the problem amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty."

What do you say to Senator McCain?

ROMNEY: Well, he's my friend. He campaigned for me two times. I consider him a friend. I'm not going to make this a matter of personal politics. It's an issue that's way too important for that.

My view is that we should enforce our immigration laws.

And this bill, unfortunately, has at least one provision that's a real problem. It's the Z visa.

And what it allows is people who have come here illegally to stay here for the rest of their lives -- not necessarily as citizens; they have to wait 13 years to become citizens. That's not the point.

The point is: Every illegal alien, almost every one, under this bill, gets to stay here. That's not fair to the millions and millions of people around the world that would love to come here, join with family members, bring skill and education that we need.

It's simply not fair to say those people get put ahead in the line of all the people who've been waiting legally to come to this country.

(End Transcript)

Remember, the z-visa was not in the 2005 bill (the one Romney called "reasonable"). The z-visa is the main problem Romney has with the 2007 bill, as he explains in the transcript. So, again, when you look at the details you can see that he did not flip-flop on the issue.

Here's another blatant McCain lie on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G07tkPDcqa0

DanO · 1 year ago

I'm disappointed you think Giuliani would make as good a choice as Mitt, or any of the other respectable candidates. While I applaud his tax plan and how nice of a city NYC has become, his record plainly shows he'd be a megalomaniac, and that's the last kind of leader we need for our country.

11Commander · 1 year ago

I am sorry that you have joined the gang rejecting McCain. This year is so different from many others. The winds are blowing against us. Talking to uncommitted independents and sometimes Republican voting Democrats in Arkansas, I find most of them liking McCain and not Romney. The party is turning inward. Romney is not a really likable person. If Obama is the nominee, it will be all over. Many I know think Romney is buying the Presidency. They do not like it.

At most Romney can only win on the basis that Bush did and only on the basis that he can carry the South, Mountain West, the farm states and Ohio. McCain gives an opportunity to go beyond that. Because of the Republican problems in Ohio, I do not think Romney can pull it off.

I do not like Romney personally. I do not believe he has any core beliefs. (at least 3 different opinions on abortion). If you nominate him, you elect him. I will vote for him, so I cannot be denied a seat at the table when we have to pick up the pieces. I will not do one stitch of work for him. I worked almost everyday for Bush in 2004. I am 64 and I am not wasting my time on someone I do not like and do not think can win.

Romney will just be Bush lite. I love Bush. Was big supporter. The public turned against him at the time of Katrina. The war is not the problem. If it was, his popularity would be going up. But with the Katrina response, the public turned on him. Romney only offers more of the same. The public will not accept it. He can talk change all he wants, but McCain is the only one that can actually convince the public.

You better tell your fellow Romney supporters to stop saying they will not vote for McCain, if he is nominated. If they keep it up, I may change my mind and not vote for him. If Obama is the nominee I also may vote for Obama, just to kick the Republican establishment in the face. So tell them to stop.

All these pure Republicans, who say McCain is not a conservative, would probably say Goldwater was not a conservative, when he died. He supported abortion rights and agreed with McCain on not reducing taxes without reducing spending. Laughable, but true.

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

At the time McCain made the objections to the tax cuts, his rationale was that they favored the rich, not reducing spending. His no vote was straight out of the Dem's class warfare playbook. He is repeatedly on record saying thus.

The reducing spending mantra is a new addition to his "straight talk"-- a sort of flip-flop, if you will.

Besides, considering the provisions of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill for illegals, he would have increased spending through social protections for scofflaws.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"All these pure Republicans, who say McCain is not a conservative, would probably say Goldwater was not a conservative, when he died. He supported abortion rights and agreed with McCain on not reducing taxes without reducing spending. Laughable, but true."

Good point and post!

john marzan · 1 year ago

"Putting McCain or especially Fred Thompson against the Democratic nominee, whether that is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, effectively cedes the inexperience argument."

by choosing romney, the repubs are ceding the future of iraq to the dems because romney is not as strong in iraq, foreign policy and national security. in fact, among the three main candidates in florida--mccain, rudy, mitt--- romney is the weakest in those three categories.

john marzan · 1 year ago

"Putting McCain or especially Fred Thompson against the Democratic nominee, whether that is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, effectively cedes the inexperience argument."

by choosing romney, the repubs are ceding the future of iraq to the dems because romney is not as strong in iraq, foreign policy and national security. in fact, among the three main candidates in florida--mccain, rudy, mitt--- romney is the weakest in those three categories.

Mike · 1 year ago

Ed my hat off to you. I think you have made a wise and sensible choice. Some while ago I settled on Romney.

McCain is just too old for the job, sorry to say it.

Guiliani and the others are falling behind.

Romney is a good man, and I respect someone who has had a stable marriage for as long as he has.

In the end the idea is to pick a good man and then support him. I don't believe McCain could rally enough Republican support to win the election. Romney could.

Newzaroo · 1 year ago

John McCain get's Florida's establishment endorsements. Mitt Romney get's my vote. Period.

DeliberatelyOpaque · 1 year ago

Traveling around the web and reading the comments sections I've noticed the GOP primary breaks down to the rational/reasoned/intelligent voters support McCain and the zombies who take their cues from talk radio support Romney. It's an interesting commentary on the current state of the conservative movement to see the latter group's candidate is winning.

roboris · 1 year ago

I think it's obvious that you're being deliberately obtuse, rather than opaque.

prentman · 1 year ago

Pragmatic repulicans will elect McCain
We are, at the end of the day, a pragmatic party.

Republicans will vote for the most electable candidate--and that is John McCain.

The GOP knows that is in tough in November. Both houses of Congress are all but lost. The fight for the WH will likely be against the Clintons--the most devious and the most formidable couple the world has seen. Democrats are motivated and their fundraising coffers are full.

Who do we nominate to stand against them? It is clearly McCain. He pulls from the centre of the electorate. The same reasons he is being eviscerated by Fox News and Talk Radio are why he is popular around the country.

And it is not just the White House---hundreds upon hundreds of elections are held at the state and local level which are not covered nationally. Who do they want as their standard bearer? A experienced war-hero or a flip-flopper with good managerial skills?

Electability is why hundreds of Florida officials from the state and county level have endorsed McCain. It's why the two most influential GOP politicians in the state--Sen. Martinez and Gov. Crist--both endorsed him. It's why former Secretary of State Howard Baker came into the camp from the Fredheads. The establishment is embracing McCain because it senses a winner.

McCain will be good for the long term health of the party because he will help us defend against the coming storm.

That's why he will win. The GOP will do what's in its best interests.

Ben · 1 year ago

McCain has been lying about his performance in states so far in the Florida debate, lying about Romney's record, and conspiring with Democrats to create a lot of terrible legislation that is as ineffectual as it is unpopular. He is a disaster with no meaningful experience and no real distinction from the democrats. He will say anything in desperation, has admitted that he doesn't undestand the economic issues, is easily manipulated by the other side, and his age is a legitimate concern (though not nearly as big a concern as his flip flopping on immigration, taxes, judicial nominees, and his lack of integrity or leadership).

McCain would be the worst candidtae to put up against anyone, and he cannot even run a primary campaign, so it is no wonder no one would trust him with a country . . .

roboris · 1 year ago

Damn! It's not spring yet, so I can't make good use of this potent fertilizer in my flowerbeds while it's still fresh. The MSM love McCain because he would tear the GOP apart as the nominee.

Corelli · 1 year ago

What is this back and forth between decent Mitt Romney and unethical Rudi Giuliani. Even the Conservative Judicial Watch lists him among the 'Ten Most Corrupt Politicians'.
CLINTONS = GIULIANIS if you don't like the one you cannot love the other.
Let's support MITT ROMNEY, the most accomplished, energetic, decent, intelligent, photogenic, educated of all the candidates. (bonus: wonderful wife and family - no scandals!!!)
An all around competent person. We'll have a respected leader on the world stage.

Bogey · 1 year ago

Willard Romney - the successful executive who does know economics.

Which also innately means he knows that Govt has little to do with the economy and the economic cycle outside of spending, tax policies and free trade.

Yet, he has the typical huckster pandering politician instinct of telling the people of Michigan that he will fight very hard to bring their jobs back

(and just HOW will you do THAT, Willard????, your entire business life has been about eliminating jobs in places like Michigan and moving them to more "efficient" places)

I expect an uninformed voter to get taken in by the huckster Romney, but not someone like you, Sir.

he's tried to outtancerdo, Tancredo
he's tried to outBush Bush (I'll build 2 Guantanmos!)
he's tried to outHuckabee Huckabee (No freedom without religion)

and NOW he is outObamaing Obama (Washington is broken and I am the change agent)

How far will the man go? as far as it takes. If Bill and HIlary Clinton and John Kerry had a threesome and produced a "love child", his name would be Willard Romney.

If I have to vote for him at the point of a gun, I will ask you to pull the trigger.

roboris · 1 year ago

Okay. BANG!

Bogey · 1 year ago

your little peanut brain should consider something.

You are standing at and staring into the very edge of an electoral abyss.

(and deservedly so given your "record" of the past 8 years at Presidential and 12 years at Congressional levels)

hello Rick Santorum? Hello Tom de Lay?

then there's Bill Frist, the renowned physician who gave us his great diagnosis on Terry Schiavo from a piece of videotape. Has his medical license been revoked yet?
stop using stupid monikers like MSM and RINO and other troglodyte acronyms.

You need every single vote, especially of someone like me.

or else you can be happy with crashing and burning at the 40% ceiling and staying true to your "troglodyte err. "conservative" roots)

either way, suits me just fine.

Publicus · 1 year ago

Amazing that so many of my assumedly conservative brethren completely omit any discussion of Romney's (and Rudy's) atrocious record on 2nd Amendment Rights. This is the same man that supported the Brady Bill, the so-called Federal "Assualt Weapons Ban" and in 2004, as Governor of Massachusetts, gleefully signed into law a State Ban on so-called "assualt weapons" after the vile federal infringment on citizens rights expired.

Although McCain is not, admittedly, the Second Coming of Ronaldus Magnus, McCain clearly and steadfastly embraces our 2nd Amendment Rights and unequivocally states he opposes bans on so-called "assualt weapons", high-capacity magazines, ammunition, etc.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Mr. B. Franklin, don't be to hasty to trade security for Liberty!

brtnk · 1 year ago

All of the Rep candidates are honourable men with accomplished backgrounds. However McCain has actually created national legislation. It is surprising to hear conservatives attack McCain as a liberal when he has stood firm with the President on the most important issue of the Bush administration, that being the Iraq war. That McCain proposed a “surge” when Rumsfield’s Iraq policies were failing are a sign of both good judgement and good leadership and if McCain’s advise was heeded, we would have both a stabile Iraq and a Republican Congress in 2006. There is no substitute for his experience and track record and my vote goes for McCain.

JT · 1 year ago

I could vote for just about any of them except Romney. I just feel he offers nothing other than some business background, great but I do not trust someone who flip-flops all over the place...worse than his fellow Mass buddy Kerry

roboris · 1 year ago

Another person drinking the MSM's Kool-Aid....

BillEastland · 1 year ago

Ed—

I've been a fan for a while but this is my first post. I applaud your reasoning to arrive at Romney. My perspective is a bit different because I have been a life-long (since a teenager) Republican Party apparatchik, so I signed on with Fred Thompson at the first hint he would run, because, as you said, he was the closest to the Conservative Ideal. When Fred left I began to move to Romney. Your reasoning that Mitt is the strongest Conservative candidate to go against the Dem nominee is persuasive. I would cynically add that we are sadly at the point that only self-financed candidates can capture the inside track in a multi-candidate field. The 22 state Super Tuesday hurdle in FEBRUARY is absurd. McCain, Huck and Rudy can only cross their fingers. Mitt can make any media buy he needs.

But, I do disagree with you about McCain and Huckabee. This is also related to your other post about Peggy Noonan’s column. You might recall this was not Peggy’s first piece to excoriate Bush as a party leader. On June 1st in another WSJ column, “Too Bad” she said the same thing, “What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition.” My point is that both McCain and Huckabee are Bush-style Big Government Conservatives (the term Compassionate Conservative just hides the truth) who will do nothing but continue the sundering if either became president. Like you, if nominated, I will support either, but, unlike you, not without reservation. The election of either would result in the continued disappearance from the coalition of Independent Conservative and Populist voters and disastrous losses for us for two or three elections.

Honestly, though, I think McCain might win, but only because the Dems are proving once again to be, Dukakis-like, inept and politically tone deaf, while Huckabee would be chewed up and spit out by the MSM giving the Dem nominee a narrow victory. This latter result would give us a chance to rebuild the majority conservative coalition that exists in the electorate while the Dems turn everybody off by enacting a massive socialist agenda and allowing the pre-Bush tax rates to revert to law in 2010. They aren’t smart enough to recognize they will lose the middle class in the process.

Your criticism of Peggy is wrong in one part but right in another. It’s true that Bush ran as a Compassionate Conservative and we knew he was different. The Weekly Standard did an important cover story in October 1999 arguing that both Bush AND McCain were CCs and out to remake the party. But, you failed to mention that Bush also promised to cut spending along with taxes, thereby mollifying we Reaganites and bringing us to the polls. Then Bush betrayed us on that key tenant and never cut spending. You are right that part of the blame lies with the Republican Congress. But a president is in a unique position to fix that sort of thing by showing leadership. Just imagine: Do you think Ronald Reagan would have allowed a Republican Congress to spend money like drunken sailors for SIX years without ever wielding the veto pen?

Independent Conservatives and Populists vote for Republican Presidential Nominees for exactly the belief that they will keep the Congress in check. This is why we’re losing their votes.

The foregoing begs the question of why we didn’t fire Bush in ’04. The answer is that we are still a royalist party (as John Buckley famously said) and we were loath to throw him out at a critical stage of the war. But once it was clear nothing would change, we lost the ’06 elections leaving us free to debate how to rebuild a winning Conservative Coalition in a post-Bush world.

On that point, I recently imagined a statement my guy, Thompson, could have delivered at the Florida debate, but he didn’t stick around. So, I would suggest it for Mitt. It is designed to distinguish him from McCain and Huckabee, AND from Bush, and to point to a future that is free of the mistakes that have upset so many of our voters. It goes like this: “In a Romney administration there will be no McCain-Feingolds, there will be no earmarks, there will be no McCain-Kennedys, there will be no Amnesty, there will be no Harriet Miers, there will be no budget-busting prescription drug benefits, we will repeal No Child Left Behind and the Department of Education, we will balance the budget and cut spending and taxes, and we will build that fence on the border and make American citizenship valuable again.”

All the polls say our electorate is quite fluid, many making up their minds at the last minute. I would bet that statement would give Mitt five points in the polls and he would be on track to wrap up the nomination on February 5th.

Xineohp · 1 year ago

Mr. Morrissey, while I commend your decision to select a candidate for president, the fact of the matter is a vote for Romney is surely and without doubt a vote for clinton or obama. Once again the republicans may end up selecting a polarizing candidate who cannot beat either of the democrat front runners. While I don't agree fully with Senator McCain, I do respect a man who tells it like it is and is not afraid of telling you want you need to know and not what you want to hear. Michigan is a perfect example. Rather than pandering to the voters as Romney did, McCain told them the cold hard truth, that their jobs in the auto industry are probably not coming back. (they can thank the grossly overpaid UAW and teamsters for causing companies to outsource to cheaper countries.) The question is, "do you want a pandering execucrat, who can't beat the dem's, or someone like McCain who places the love of his country first and foremost as your president?"

Peter from Dover · 1 year ago

"Trust Romney" are you serious? Over and over people who know Mitt say he can't be trusted. Just look at his record. Olymics was a big deal like someone was going against it? It was a slam dunk.

Willard AKA Mitt’s statement about the timetable is doublespeak. We need a timetable but keep is secret. That way he can say he supported a timetable and didn’t. Who in their right mind would think it’s possible to have that secret? Even considering a timetable is a losing war strategy that will lead to surrender.

This is just another Mittism like his answer in the debate about catastrophic insurance. He said he supported a national program but not if someone in Iowa pays for a loss in FL. Is he serious? This is another one where he flips mid-sentence so he supports it and doesn’t at the same time.

Americans are tired of this dishonesty. This is not a conservative or republican value. Mitt is loose with the truth, wants to be on every side of every issue, and says whatever he needs to get elected. This is his track record all the way back to 1994. If he is the nominee he will be torn to shreds with his own words and record.

Oh, and for those swayed by fake testimonials… I used to support Mitt, I really like his hair, he looks so Presidential, and he says things that make me feel good, maybe he will tell us all how to make money like he did. But this last reminder (Timetable) that he wants to surrender really has me switching to McCain. He is the only one who can lead us from day one as Commander is Chief.

Go Johnny Go…

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008...

Go there and see how Willard made millions. Sheesh. Elect him, he will outsourse all our jobs to Bengalore and sell off all our assets. Thanks,

Bogey · 1 year ago

we all know how Willard made his millions. His job as an executive at bain capital was to identify inefficiencies with businesses and to rectify those inefficiencies.

Which means as a businessman he would be the first to cut those inefficient Michigan auto jobs yet he was in Michigan as a candidate pandering and LYING promising to fight those jobs back.

He knows better than anyone ELSE that those jobs are lost jobs.

The pandering never stops.

btw.. how many people really know economics?

and knowing economics, how many people (stupidly) believe that the govt, and especially the President can really affect the Economy?

more Romney spin. I expect such things from the Democrats..

but then, as noted, if Hilary, Bill and John Kerry had a threesome, Willard would be their "love child".

Harold · 1 year ago

Gun control == no sale.

Unfortunately, of the three leaders for the nomination, he has *by far* the worst record on this issue, a reliable touchstone for someone's attitudes towards liberty.

The fact that he'd likely be an effective executive makes that all the worse....

Anyway, it's very unclear to me that he can lose that much of the conservative base and still win, unless he's going up against Hillary! Regardless, it will be a cold day in the underworld before I vote for another gun-grabber, I think Bush (who in *deeds* has been relentlessly anti-gun) has shown the futility of "the lessor of two evils" approach.

onlineanalyst · 1 year ago

When you read any posts that refer to Mitt Romney as Willard, be assured that the commenter is a Democrat currently registered as an independent working darn hard to skew the election in John McCain's direction. McCain is ripe for general-election dirty smears by the opposition, and should he win, he is most malleable in pushing through a Democrat agenda. After all, the bulk of his legislation history comes from holding hands with those across the aisle, just as does Arlen Specter's.

Bogey · 1 year ago

Willard is his first name, is it not?

it's not my fault that the dork has a dorky name.

he says things like "who let the dogs out, woof woof" with some young black kids.. what a dork
how about "patria o muerte" when pandering to Miami Cubans (nice one Willards, that's Castro's slogan... hahahahahhahahahahahaah)


btw.. all the people who comment about "sticking fingers in the eyes of v conservatives".

WHEN are the "conservatives" going to stand up and look at themselves in the MIRROR??

wasn't the Contract With America the premier "conservative manifesto"?

How many republicans have lived up to the contract with america?

what happened to small govt?/federalism?) (terry shiavo?)

what happened to Tip O Neill drunken sailor like SPENDING?

Hello?

Maybe McCain is CORRECT in throwing some stones and sticking some sticks into very very guilty eyes.

Face up to your pathetic failures over the last 12 years in the mirror... or live in your little delusionary worlds, and face crushing failure in the decade(s) to come

(until the Dems screw things up the same way you've screwed them up)

hey.. how many spending bills did Georgie Boy veto in the first 6 years of his presidency?

Larry · 1 year ago

You're making a mistake. What we need more than anything is someone who says what he means and means what he says. Mitt Romney has changed virtually every one of his positions from those he held to win the Governorship in Massachusetts. Every one. Also, he is spending his own money like a drunken sailor to get elected- certainly legal but it makes me feel like he's trying to buy the election. Last and most importantly to me - I have a son in the U.S. Army - I trust John McCain to make the right decisions about deploying our troops. He won't put a finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing. [at one point Romney was asked why none of his five sons had joined the military - his answer should have been that it was their choice and he had nothing to to with it - his response - "they're doing their public service by working to get me elected President". I'll be thinking about that comment when my son is on the front lines in Iraq. John McCain, by the way, has several sons serving - he NEVER mentions it.]

TomHolmes · 1 year ago

Captain,

I agree that Rudy's star has faded in this race and that he has effectively taken himself out of the race. I wish it were otherwise, because I think that the best situation we could face at this point would be a close race between Romney and Rudy. I like Rudy because of what he has done. But I also think he's squandered his opportunity, much like Fred, and is no longer a serious contender for the nomination.

Huckabee seems to be a nice-enough guy, but he's out of his depth in this. He is a one-issue candidate, and his issue is the least critical from a presidential perspective. On issues like economics and defense, he doesn't register on the meter.

McCain was a war hero, and I love me some war heroes, but he has betrayed conservatism so many times, mocked conservatives so many times, and slandered conservatives so many times that I cannot in good conscience throw my support behind him, regardless of "electability" calculus. McCain is generating enough support to be competitive in a three-to-four many race, but that support is his ceiling within the Republican party. Yes, most of us will most likely vote for him if he gets the nomination. At least with McCain there is a chance he will get some things right. But he is a hold-your-nose candidate for a conservative, and I'm not cynical enough to pretend otherwise.

So, in the end, Mitt Romeny is the only acceptable choice we have. I wish he didn't come off with such Max Headroom glibness sometimes, and I wish he weren't so ready to pander. Those are legitimate concerns and objections I think. Still, he has the right positions on the vast majority of the issues, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is a decent, admirable person. Yeah, I like gritty and tough-minded heroes who exhibit a Bruce Willis-like attitude and determination, but mugging for the cameras and never missing a microphone isn't the same thing.

Good call Captain. I made the same one the day after Fred threw in the towel.

bill_o · 1 year ago

John McCain may not have executive experience, but he is by far the most qualified in terms of foreign policy and military experience. As commander in chief, those are far and away the most important elements in the background of any prospective president. We live in a world (not a U.S.) economy, and there are inherent limitations on what any president can do to influence it.

TomHolmes · 1 year ago

I agree that McCain would be extremely effective... at poking his finger into the eyes of conservatives on a frequent basis. Not only does he do that now, but clearly enjoys doing it. Even his strength, taking a level-headed and long-term approach to Iraq, is tempered by his media-whoring about Gitmo and waterboarding.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Media whoring? Is that what calling a spade a spade is? Have you ever been to GTMO? Waterboarding is torture, plain and simple.

TomHolmes · 1 year ago

Media whoring is the practice of guaging one's policy positions on the amount of microphone time they are likely to result in rather than any basic principles. And please, no hyperbole about "how dare you question McCain's integrity". I've seen him throw it to the wind a bit too often in the past few weeks.

No, I've never been to Gitmo. So... what? I've been to the Arctic and stood on glaciers... have you? Didn't think so., so shut the heck up about your melting ice and dying polar bears.

You say waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. That's a lot more efficient than actually making an argument to support it. I happen to disagree, but if you threaten to show up with your with friends in front of my house and waterboard each other in protest, I may relent.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"I've been to the Arctic and stood on glaciers...have you? Didn't think so "
Yes I have, actually, and I did not stand on a glacier because I was on a Naval vessel goign through and area that had been charted as an ice sheet for hundreds of years
but now has almost no ice at all. Just because you "stood on a glacier" does not make it right.
But nice straw man attempt since I did not mention Global Warming in the previous
post.

Also Willard has mentioned Global Warming too...if it is a myth why talk about it at all.


" so shut the heck up "
classy

"You say waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. That's a lot more efficient than actually making an argument to support it."
The fact that it crosses the line in the army field manual is more than enough for me
its kind of like pornography, "I know it when I see it" I would think that the burden of proof would lie with the people arguing that it IS NOT torture, since the guidlines list acceptable forms it would seem that the person advocating for something not listed there would need to cough up some reasons.

Bogey · 1 year ago

Hey Immolate.

Have you actually ever served in the Armed Forces?
Have you ever actually been shot at?
Have you ever been taken prisoner and tortured?

I'm going to guess NOT, just another wannabe chickenhawk "tough guy", so you'll forgive me for taking the word of an ACTUAL tough guy and prisoner of war on what constitutes what, ok?

I actually also think in many ways Al Ghrain was much ado about nothing (except we weren't screwing with Al Qaeda there, we were screwing with iraqis, BIG difference)

I respect McCain enough to take HIS word on such matters, even though I used to think it was all much ado about nothing.

Ron Wagner · 1 year ago

Would you rather be waterboarded or REALLY tortured. You know the truth, and have to live with your duplicity.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"Would you rather be waterboarded or REALLY tortured. You know the truth, and have to live with your duplicity."
Thanks Rush.

Define "real" torture for me then? Since I cant figure it out myself, but you clearly know what "real" torture, please enlighten the rest of the class.

JohnR · 1 year ago

How is it going to look when President Romney sends young Americans to die in combat? Romney went preaching in France instead of serving in the military during Viet Nam. None of his sons signed up for service after 9/11, but Mitt wants the authority as Commander in Chief to send my sons and daughters into harm's war, while he never did so himself.

Russ · 1 year ago

So what? Does a President have to have served in the military in order to make those decisions? I think not. He will have all the aids available to him as all other Presidents. I mean do you really think President Bush's "military experience" has been helpful? Please!!! It wouldn't be any easier for any other President, including my home state man McCain to make that decision.

Ken · 1 year ago

In my opinion, a vote for Romney is a vote for Hillary. There is simply no way a Republican like Romney will get elected this year even against a log of wood in the Democratic party. If the US is going to continue to be led by a Republican, it's going to need to be someone who is closer to the center. That's just the reality of the situation, and voting for anyone but McCain at this point is damaging the party.

Ron Wagner · 1 year ago

The future of conservatism might be better served by a Romney loss than a McCain win. Goldwater's loss led to a conservative revolution. McCain will give the country to illegal aliens, to befriend his rich rancher and hotel buddies. Romney has his own money, and can be his own man.

Frank · 1 year ago

Romney would be my first choice....

...if we weren't at war.

But we are. So I'll have to go with McCain

MAB · 1 year ago

Romney gets my vote. McCain is the one person in the general election I could NOT vote for. He's a Republican in name only. Ideologically, he's no better than Clinton or Obama.

Ali A. Akbar · 1 year ago

I respect your decision. I see the war on terror as a greater issue than one view on who may or may not be the Democratic nominee. John McCain is the choice to stand for. John McCain will be supported by the fiscal capitalist and render a cabinet worthy of the history books.

Romney cannot be trusted, but seems like an okay guy. I think he'll be liked, however the general difference between Bill Clinton is that he has charisma and charm, whereas Romney's words are obviously measured.

Ed you did a great job writing this piece however. I'm pleased to see your reasoning. This is one endorsement for a differing candidate than my own that I can say - I respectfully disagree and the War on Terror means more to me.

Cory · 1 year ago

Go Mitt! The liar McAmnesty must be stopped!

Jarod · 1 year ago

Fred Thompson was our best bet as conservatives, but I agree that Romney is the next best choice. He'll get my vote Feb. 5 in Alabama.

TruthSucks · 1 year ago

Mitt Romney is a bigger flip flopper than Kerry ! You support him? He is buying his State Party Support with tens of millions of dollars. He will surely lose and the Republican Party will crash and burn until a Reagan Republican rebuilds the Party in ten or more years after sustained losses and Democrap victories. You must be blind.

Ron Wagner · 1 year ago

Mitt is the clear choice. McCain is too old. He cannot be depended upon to have full vigor for nine more years. He is weak on illegal immigration also. He has defied conservatives on illegal immigration, freedom of political funding, and other issues. I am 62 years old, and estimate that to be pushing the limits for someone going into a nine year period of national leadership. McCain would be about eighty at the end of his second term.

Jim · 1 year ago

My issue with McCain is that I think he is an individual with a brittle personality and no strategic political sense that will be chopped to pieces by the much more savvy Clinton campaign or portrayed successfully as a Washington insider by an Obama campaign.

In a one on one debate with Hillary, there is no differentiation after the Clinton campaign gets done... they are both senators with a long history and spin will blur anything else that his so far elephantine campaign can produce.

Its not that I don't like him, though I think that his rather clumsy, desparate attacks in New Hampshire and Florida show that he was a fighter pilot, not a strategist or a leader, I just don't see him as differentiating without massive vulnerabilities and at the end of the day I still don't think he is a compelling leader. I am not ready to jump on the Bodb Dole 2.0 yet, but I think he will be shot down again in a general election against an Obama in a very Dole - CLinton fashion and that he would be chewed up and spit out by the Clintons. Head to head polls are hypothetical, his performance has been less than stellar in a very chopped up race so far.

Andy Koehl · 1 year ago

Look at the polls. If the general election were held today, Romney would lose to Obama by 18%. He has no chance. McCain is polling neck and neck with Obama. Why do these supposed champions of conservatism want 8 years of Hillary or Obama? Latest numbers for Romney v. Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...

notdajoe · 1 year ago

And the polls in January 1980 had Jimmy Carter up 63 to 32 percent head to head over Ronald Reagan.

Yes, let's vote according to what the left wing pollsters tell us.

Kenny · 1 year ago

I feel the same about Mitt as you do, I'm in Arizona and I am voting for Romney. That should tell you how I feel about McCain. McCain says he will get the govs. to sign off that the borders are secure. Our gov is a democrat that doesn't mind open borders...he's going to believe her??? Plus McCain's head of Mexican affairs is a gentlemen on public record stating (Nightline) that he supports Mexico first and wants all 1st, 3rd and 7th generations to do the same.

I have a very sour taste for John McCain. I think he has flipped more than John Kerry on issues.

Zsolt · 1 year ago

John McCain is the clear choice for our great nation. No other candidate has the level of integrity, resolve, and moral authority necessary to lead all the citizens of this country toward a common vision. The rest of the candidates are very good and capable individuals, but only the best will suffice.

cargosquid · 1 year ago

I say vote for McCain if he picks Thompson as VP. Because, you know, McCain is REALLY old.......

ThunderRun · 1 year ago

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/28/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The rigth president · 1 year ago

After reading your recent commentary about why Mitt Romney is the best choice for the republican presidency I agree. Six months ago or even one month ago I would not have sided with you, but now, I too, concluded that he is the “best” candidate for president. Adding to this comment--- is an interesting development today was Elizabeth Cheney’s decision to endorse Mitt Romney. I’m not a big fan of the Vice President’s helping hand with President Bush, but maybe she sees things differently and seemed to project this idea during her conversation on CNN this morning. I hope that more voters will agree that Mitt is the best choice for the Republicans.

BT
Denver

John · 1 year ago

I agree with the tone of the post as well, but strongly disagree with the decision. If Mitt Romney is a conservative at all, he is one of very recent vintage. In nearly 20 years around the pro-life movement, I have never known anyone to switch because of stem cells, yet this is esentially what Romney would have us believe. His health care plan cost Massachusetts taxpayers.

Looking at Romney, I don't know what's in his heart. I always think I'm being told what he wants me to believe, not what he really believes. And that bothers me.

And turning around a figure staking tournament will mean nothing when Iran tests a nuke or Musharaff is assassinated. At times like those, I want John McCain, not someone who said he'd call the State Department on foreign policy.

Final point: if Romney's the nominee, the GOP gets creamed. Against Obama, Democrat inexperience wins over Republican inexperience -- like Jimmy Carter, Romney is a one-term governor. And against Hillary, he's already behind. Is there even one poll that showed he would have won reelection in Massachusetts? Why not? And why then presume he is electable?

Bogey · 1 year ago

John

the Repub party has a small chance of winning in November and it's only with McCain they stand any chance to all.

and that's only if McCain goes up against HRC. She'll beat Romney and fairly easily.

Obama will cream both of them (sorry, but it's true)
If Obama is smart (and he is) he'll pick Jim Webb as VP. Which of the usual Republican chickenhawks will accuse Webb of being soft on national security?

even McCain, who's no chickenhawk won't win that argument. Webb is a pit bull and I've seen him consistently kneecap republican opponents on several "debates" on tv (notably on Meet the Press)

if I were a Demoratic strategist I'd be licking my chops at the prospect of facing Willard. It would also be delicious payback for them to be able to use the Kerry Flip Flop strategy to great effect back on the empty suit Wilard (and the examples of shameless pandering are SO many)

eric · 1 year ago

Captain,

While I disagree with your choice, since I am backing Mayor Giuliani, I not only respect your tone, but your commitment to support the eventual nominee. I think Rudy, McCain, Romney and Thompson are all fine men, and have promised to back whoever wins.

I just hope we all quickly coalesce and come together. Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment wins election. Intraparty warfare elects liberals.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

randallhough · 1 year ago

Well reasoned, unlike some other Romney endorsements I've read. However, two other issues preclude my following you into the Romney camp.

One is national security. Though the economy is the flavor du jour, the Democrats have a substantial natural edge going into this election, and only a candidate who is persuasive on security and has a track record has a chance. The national general election matchups verify this.

Second is authenticity. It is indicative (admittedly not dispositive) that Romney performed worst in Iowa and New Hampshire where so many of the voters had the opportunity for personal interaction with the candidates. Also indicative is the obvious personal animosity betfween him and the other candidates.

jc · 1 year ago

Management experience means nothing in politics. Sorry, it doesnt. Remember anyone mentioning Dick Cheney's executive experience?

I like Romney and would support him, but he'd be a dead nominee walking. He'd get hammered by the anti-religious left, the anti-corporate left, and he doesnt have the credentials to stand up to them. He's the Republican version of John Kerry, with no clear positions aside from "leadership". Great... no one wants someone promising leadership, they want someone who is respected and has the stature to run as president.

Bogey · 1 year ago

you forget the very distinguished (and I'm actually NOT joking or being sarcastic here) "management experience" of one Donald Rumsfeld, both in govt and in the private sector.

He sure put all that experience to very good use with his "judgments" (and here I use the word loosely) vis a vis Iraq, didn't he?

Bogey · 1 year ago

the only small excuse Donald Rumsfeld could find is that all of his farcical decisions were tactical which stemmed from a bunch of disasterously flawed strategic assumptions.

but then those strategic assumptions were also the responsibility of Rumsfeld and his idiotic underlings such as Wolfowitz and Feith.

Bogey · 1 year ago

jc, if people wanted someone who is respected and had the stature to run as President, why did they flock to "accomplished nothing with his life outside of being born of a certain last name? George W in 2000?

the American electorate is far more shallow than you think.

kerner · 1 year ago

I've never commented here before, but this seems like a more intellegent and less emotional discussion than I have seen on some other sites. Anyway, I'd like to add something.

I don't think McCain is misrepresenting Romney's position on time tables for pulling out of Iraq. I turned 18 just as the Vietnam war was winding down, and I remember statements that were very much like Romney's statement about Iraq. Back then, Nixon was not trying to win the war, he was trying to put a good face on losing. He wanted to "declare victory and go home", even though he knew that the South Vietnamese would probably be over run and suffer greatly.

Nixon had a secret timetable for withdrawal, so to speak. By 1972 or 73 it was pretty much common knowledge that we were going to get out eventually, and all that the Communists had to do was outlast us. Not telling them when we were leaving did not prevent the debacle that followed.

By talking about his secret benchmarks and timetable in public, Romney was talking like a loser. Or, if you prefer, he was talking like a businessman who had decided he had already lost and was looking to cut his losses and bail out. He sounded just like Nixon sounded before Nixon introduced the United States to its most humiliating defeat in history, from which we would take years to recover. This is not the kind of man I want in the White House ever again. Certainly, the Republican Party should never nominate him.

Like everyone else here, I can think of a number of reasons to worry about McCain. But I am confident of one thing at least. McCain is not ready to lose this war while trying to fool the American people into thinking it's okay. It didn't work when Nixon tried it, and it won't work for Mitt Romney.

mnjam · 1 year ago

Wake up, Dude.
Mitt Romney is the LEAST experienced candidate on either side. An undistinguished, do-nothing one-term governor.
His business experience does not look good. It's not like he built a business that hired people and produced anything. He did leveraged buyouts-borrowed money to buy companies, chop them up and sell off th pieces, hopefully for enough to repay the loan and turn a profit. It has nothing to do with government, unless you think an LBO of the U.S. to China is in order. I guess you're a Bush supporter -- that does seem to be his economic and foreign policy in a nutshell.

Bogey · 1 year ago

to be fair Willard was also involved in venture capitalism, ergo identifying business opportunities and plotting best strategies for building those businesses up for future success, ergo creating opportunities and jobs.

He's done this with several companies, Staples perhaps being the most well known.

But he's certainly been involved on the "inefficiency" side of the business enough to make his empty promises to Michigan autoworkers expose his pandering for the lie that it is.

btw Bush sounds great tonight, he actually sounds literate.. saying lots of great things.

too bad he's found fiscal discipline and responsibility in the very LAST year of his Presidency.

Michael · 1 year ago

My problem with Romney is that he didn't didn't pardon the wrongly convicted Amirault's in Massachusetts. McCain is more bull headed and would have tried to 'do the right thing.' In war and justice, McCain's approach is better. I like Romney's tax proposals in response to the 'stimulus package' idea, and he would add management capability and should be the vice president. Re: free speech, 'McCain Feingold' didn't prohibit its most important use in the last presidential campaign, that of the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.'

peter jackson · 1 year ago

The problem is that Mitt will never win the general election. This election, just like the last several, will be determined by independents. They've never heard of Mitt Romney. And whether it's true or not, his "empty suit" problem is quite real. He does not project sincerity.

Barry · 1 year ago

If Romney has to run against Obama he will get creamed. Plain and simple.

HNAV · 1 year ago

LOL !

please...

a proven Governor?

a proven CEO in the private sector?

vs. a youthful first time Senator?

mmm...

that is a race Republicans would favor...

Romney will stack up well against Hillary or Obama.

Sure, Obama would be preferred only because he seems to have some class, as the Clintons are as unethical as it gets.

But Mr. Romney will do just fine...

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"Romney will stack up well against Hillary or Obama."
Yeah, just like the sitting president and victor in the Gulf War stacked up well against a corrupt, womanizing, governor from AK?

Or the venerable, war hero, Senate Majority Leader of the 1994 Revolution against the embattled incumbent?

Politics is personality and if you havent heard Obama speak I suggest you go do that and try again.

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

Squid, you left out one factor and his name was Ross Perot....

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

those were just recent examples. The point remains.

HNAV · 1 year ago

LOL !

even more amusing...

politics is merely personality ???

oh my...

McCain is jaded, bitter, angry, and seems to be engaging in deceit in Florida.

Yeah, that's a real winner...

Liberals are big on McCain, the NY Times is a prime example...

it is no wonder why they want McCain...

and why they fear Romney...

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

"it is no wonder why they want McCain...

and why they fear Romney..."
They fear Romney only when he gets near MLK rallies and starts talking about
"bling" and "whe let the dogs out".

Classy guy, mine may be bitter but at least he isnt completely inept when not around white people. You think this guy will beat Obama?

ktcat · 1 year ago

Ouch. I'm afraid a Mitt nomination pretty much hands the election to the Democrats in exchange for a mystery candidate who would give you who knows what if he won.

I have a diffferent criteria for you. Any president has moments of extreme trial during their term. Do you think that Romney, who couldn't tell the truth to Michigan voters and ran around promising them massive government aid to bring back the 1970s or who got caught in a lie and tried to parse the meaning of the word "saw" over the MLK debacle could stand up to a crisis where an American city might be incinerated by a nuclear Iran? No way.

Running a business is great, but it's not being the Commander in Chief. His term in Massachusetts was indifferent at best and his state performed well below the average during his administration.

I'm voting for McCain because you know he can hold up under fire, whether that be torture by the North Vietnamese or constant demagoguery by bloated gasbags like Rush and Hewitt.

camgrog · 1 year ago

"I'm voting for McCain because you know he can hold up under fire, whether that be torture by the North Vietnamese or constant demagoguery by bloated gasbags like Rush and Hewitt."
McCain starts to cry when Romney uses his own record against him. You would think that after enduring torture in VIetnam McCain would have a thicker skin. I am in the military and i am comfortable electing someone with little foreign policy experience. Hell Bush had 8 years and we are still here. Reagan defeated the SOviets with hollywood experience and some time as governor of Ca so Romney should do just fine.

Brad Bettin · 1 year ago

McCain can stand up to "bloated gasbags like Rush & Hewitt?"

So ... us Republicans are supposed to be looking for a candidate who'll flip off conservatives ....

'kay.

ktcat · 1 year ago

BD, since when is it "conservative" to borrow and spend? Tax cuts in the middle of budget deficits are the equivalent of pay day loans. That's conservative? I don't need a pair of loudmouth, blinkered defenders of the Republican party to tell me what conservative is.

My real point is that Romney has yet to stand up to anyone. As far as I can tell, he cannot tell the public uncomfortable truths.

harleycon5 · 1 year ago

Actually if the economy is growing and spending held in check, you would historically get a nect increase in money coming into the govt via a taxcut. It happened under Kennedy, Reagan, and also under Bush. The problem comes with keeping spending in check.

TerryGain · 1 year ago

Gasbags?

ktcat, another Democrat pretending to support McCain?

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Not all republican like Limbaugh and Hannitty.

Maj Bill · 1 year ago

Captain, i had hoped for some integrity with your decision. Romney is untrustworthy. Mormonism has an agenda involving in a cult-like fashion our once proud country. How can you trust someone who has lied about his Liberal enthusiasm while serving as 'executive' for the most liberal state in the union? He made it his point to say how enamored he was with Pro-Choice on Abortion. A devout Mormon and devoutly Pro-Choice? Then he would not denounce torture when probed by McCain about it; Gen Douglas MacArthur prosecuted throughout the war and afterwards any compromise on the honored army manuals of the treatment of detainees to the absolute hilt. And so should you if you call yourself Captain. Romney is just the kind of fascist that Churchill fought most of his life to defeat, and so did hundreds of thousands of Allied troops.
Now that it is surfacing on the Repulican right wing, true Conservatives have to take a stand. America will not be taken over by a Mormon cult that has always had secret designs on America. Its not gonna happen, Captain; words from the Major.

Caustic_Conservative · 1 year ago

There is a small but clearly defined anti-Mormon tinge in a lot of the Romney posts by Huckabee and McCainiacs. Huckabee himself mocks Mormons for being different from himself. That was the first day I knew Huck could never be President. Religious bigotry can be quite a motivator--the true fascists of the 20th century knew all about it.

As a conservative and a Catholic, I call on everyone to nip the religious bigotry in the bud. IT doesn't look good on anybody.

Squid_Shark · 1 year ago

Just to be clear, I do not give a rat patootie if he is Mormon, I am a McCain voter and I have never criticized his faith and think it is despicable to do so. I just dont like him.

Emaughan · 1 year ago

I was very impressed with the quality of posts on this site compared to some of the low IQ posts I have seen on other forums. Then I read Maj Bill, and a couple of others, and realized that even the best of forums can have a few fruits, nuts, and flakes.

Watch out Maj Bill, and check under your bed at night, there are evil Mormon cultist who are out there, waiting, watching, plotting.... (play ominous music).

Oh, and sorry about the "unverified" post,
Evan

Mark Webster · 1 year ago

I am deeply curious about these secret designs on America you claim to be had by the Mormons. Been LDS all my life and I have never heard of them. Elucidate, please.

dmiller · 1 year ago

When was the last time you read the Constitution Major. Strange slant from a military man who probably served with many Mormons. Say Major, ever hear of a single Mormon who dishonored the uniform? Be honest now.

fejj · 1 year ago

Captain
Your post reveals you to be an anti-Mormon shill with constant use of the cult word. Calling Mormonism a cult doesn't make it so. Did you not read his speech? What part of Article 6 do you not understand? Finally - who'se your alternative so we can debates the merits or otherwise of your preferred candidate vs Romney.

unclesmrgol · 1 year ago

He understands the part of Article 6 that allows us private people to discuss a person's religious beliefs. Article 6 involves lawmaking and the taking of Oaths of Office, not private discussion.

By the way, you might read the Captain's entire article, since he has indicated he will be caucusing for Romney, so he apparently has worked through the issues of Romney's religion.

"Maj Bill", the person to whose post you are responding, apparently hasn't. I haven't either (I spent some time as a child in Utah so I know the dark side), and Romney has yet to answer to my reservations about insularity and racism which I personally encountered and which I haven't found proof (other than in his speeches) that Romney disavows.

If I had that proof that Romney was noninsular and non-racist, I'd feel better about him. For that, I need data -- what was Romney's hiring profile during his tenures at Bain Capital and the Salt Lake City Olympics, the two venues over which he would have exerted considerable influence with respect to hiring?