Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features | Sunday Morning Talk Shows — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, February 3, 2008
On FNS, John McCain said that he hopes he can wrap up the GOP nomination on Tuesday but cannot be certain. He expressed hope that his "conservative record" can united the Republican Party once the nomination is secured but he acknowledged that he has "some work to do" in that regard.
Next on FNS, Hillary said that everyone will know that Bill is not running her White House and that she will not create a "government of advisors."
On TW, Hillary Clinton pledged to "do almost anything to achieve" universal health care. Running as an old shoe, Hillary assured us that she had no "new surprises" and had been "vetted."
On TW, Mitt Romney attacked John McCain in an attempt to dissuade potential McCain voters. He pointed out that McCain and he now agree on Iraq.
On MTP, host Tim Russert had another of his dread roundtable discussions. He said: "This is it! It's Christmas, kids!" Heresy.
On FTN, McCain made the case that his record was more conservative than that of Mitt Romney. He called for tax cuts, reduced spending, and lower corporate taxes.
On FTN, expressed delight that Bill Clinton's negative campaigning had backfired in South Carolina, saying that he is "pleased to see the voters of South Carolina push away the politics of the past."
On LE, Mitt Romney attacked John McCain, ridiculed "reaching across the aisle" to achieve legislative success, attacked McCain some more, and compared himself to Ronald Reagan.
Read More for the show-by-show review...
JOHN MCCAIN ON FNS. On FOX News Sunday this morning, host Chris Wallace asked John McCain if he thought he could "wrap up the nomination on Tuesday." McCain said that he hoped so, but one never knows how these contests will fall out. His peeps are not counting delegates so much as gauging how he'll do in various states, McCain asserts.
Wallace played a clip of John McCain's 95-year-old mother Roberta telling C-SPAN's Steve Scully that her son has no support among the GOP base who would eventually "hold their noses" and vote for him. McCain expressed his love for his mom but pointed out that she is not an expert in these matters. McCain reminded Wallace that he had such supply-side Stalwarts as Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm, and Steve Forbes in his camp.
McCain explained that when these primaries were over, he would have to "unite the entire party." He acknowledged that he has "some work to do," but he expressed confidence that his "conservative record" would out in the end.
Wallace pointed out that McCain now says he opposed President Bush's 2001 tax cut because it contained no concomitant spending cuts, but in a contemporary speech given by McCain, the Senator said that he opposed them for reasons of economic class: they benefited the wealthy. McCain explained that the supply-siders argue that you must restrain spending with tax cuts, adding: "Unfortunately, I was right." What's more likely that any of this is that McCain opposed the Bush tax cut of 2001 because he was still stung by the 2000 election.
McCain pointed out that in 1981, he fought for President Reagan's tax cuts. (He also mentioned that he went after Jack Abramoff, although I don't know that he was tying Tom DeLay's support of Mitt Romney to this.)
Wallace was interviewing Hillary next, and he brought her up on a split screen towards the end of his interview with McCain. They were very nice, very respectful, towards each other. Politeness. Then he removed Hillary from the screen and asked McCain about the war. McCain answered: "The key is success, the key is American casualties." The American casualties are way down, he pointed out. He said that as the world's only superpower, we have a role to play in the world's security. Wallace, who hadn't goaded McCain to attack Romney and McCain didn't, tried to convince McCain to attack Hillary. McCain pointed out that he hadn't received the nomination yet: "I'm not focused on Senator Clinton yet."
McCain wants the stimulus package to get through Congress, though he expressed that there were parts of it with which he did not agree, and he wants the Bush tax cuts to be made permanent. He also wants to cut corporate taxes, which he blamed for driving jobs overseas.
As the prohibitive frontrunner, McCain didn't have to get his hands dirty this morning.
HILLARY ON FNS. Hillary reiterated that she believes that there is no military solution in Iraq. She thinks that evacuating our troops is the "right political solution."
On how her campaign is doing, Hillary said that she has "huge crowds" and will see what happens on Tuesday.
Wallace said: "Let me ask you about the horse race, Senator." I condemn this in the strongest terms. It was uncalled for.
Wallace asked Hillary how she would set up the White House to make sure everyone knows that she is the boss. She replied that the "weight of decision making is on the President," and that she will have people advising her; however, contrasting herself with another candidate, she promised that her administration would not be a "government of advisors."
HILLARY ON TW. On ABC, Hillary told This Week host George Stephanopoulos: "I'm more likely [than Barry] to attract voters who are serious about the issues." She promised universal health care and predicted that it was unlikely for there to be any "new surprises" about a Hillary Administration, as she's been "vetted." (By Jove, she's running as an old shoe!)
She told Steph that she would negotiate with Iran and Syria, but would do so first at the ambassadorial level so she could see what she was getting. She accused Obama of making "deliberate misstatements" regarding her willingness to negotiate with rogue regimes.
She again promised universal health care: "I will do anything I can to achieve that." (Which statement frightens me a little.)
Hillary is not concerned that Obama will beat her amongst Hispanics concerned about illegal aliens and drivers' licenses. "My position has been consistent," she boasted, though it has not.
Wallace asked her about Ann Coulter's endorsement, and Hillary laughed and coughed at the same time. She seemed tickled by it and commented about "strange bedfellows."
ROMNEY ON TW. Mitt Romney came out with guns blazing, accusing John McCain of trying to characterize his positions while he characterized McCain's. Romney said he was winning the "battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party," the "house Reagan built." (He's still invoking Reagan.) Romney boasted of the conservative commentators "coming out for me in record numbers." Which begs the question, what is the old record which he claims to be breaking? Also, how many of these commentators are supporting him and how many are trying to flex their muscles concerning McCain?
Romney pointed out that McCain's positions on ANWR, BCRA, immigration, and global warming "cause many conservatives to rally to my camp." Is this a big Romney rally or a STOP MCCAIN fest?
Romney did allow that he and McCain agree on Iraq. (But he moved to McCain's position, not v/v.)
Wallace asked Romney about his support for a cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions, and Romney accused McCain of twisting his position around. Yes, though, he said that he did support cap and trade.
Romney launched waves of attacks into McCain and McCain's positions as characterized by Romney.
This was Romney knowing that the numbers do not look good for him right now trying to draw sharp distinctions between his rival and himself. It would have worked better, I think, if he could have focused on a few areas at a time, rather than a general broadside, but time is short. We'll see how this plays on Tuesday.
RUSSERT'S POLITICAL ROUNDTABLE ON MTP. Host Tim Russert spent this morning's Meet the Press talking Presidential politics with Mary Matalan, James Carville, Mike Murphy, and… Bob Shrum.
RUSSERT: "Welcome, and do we have a lat to talk ab-aht!"
ASSEMBLED GROUP: [knowing laughter]
RUSSERT: "This is it! It's Christmas, kids!"
One cannot blame Russert for being a bit giddy before talking Presidential politics with a group of pundit-strategists before the Super Tuesday, but my church celebrates the birth of Jesus on December 25. I do not support this Russert heresy.
Russert began showing Dem State polls, and it looks like Obama and Clinton are blowing each other out in some places, closer in others. Russert gives some States "advantage Hillary" and others "advantage Barry," with others in the toss-up category.
Mike Murphy, who skipped his shave and a haircut, told us that we'd have a "mixed result."
Hmmmm.
I couldn't understand a word coming out of Carville's mouth.
Shrum said that money will matter if the Dem race drags on, and he said that it could last until Pennsylvania (April 22). Matalan said that Republicans think Hillary is the tougher of the candidates.
Carville thinks the economy will be the issue and he repeated Romney's attack that John McCain, the former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, knows nothing of the economy.
Murphy said that they cannot predict the future "based on what's happening right now."
They eventually discussed the Republicans, but there is nothing to be gained from a panel discussion led by a guy who takes in the results with Chris Matthews and sportscaster Keith Olbermann.
JOHN MCCAIN ON FTN. On CBS's Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer began by interviewing John McCain, asking McCain if he can handle being the frontrunner. Schieffer repeated comments by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and McCain countered that he's gathering support. "I have a strong conservative record that I'm proud to run on."
Schieffer asked about Romney saying that he's the "firewall" between McCain and the nomination. McCain said that his record is more conservative than is Romney's, and he is proud of it and will run on it. Of Romney's record, McCain said: "It's very different, and I am more conservative."
Schieffer played a clip of Obama attacking McCain on tax cuts. McCain said that he enjoyed the attention from the opposition, and he pointed out that he supported President Reagan's tax cuts. He also pointed to his own tax cut package in 2001.
He called for cutting corporate taxes. Spending restraints. Simplifying the tax codes.
Schieffer asked McCain if he though "rich people need a tax cut." McCain answered that everyone should have a tax cut, but "spending has to be brought under control." McCain pledged to veto any Dem-passed tax increase which reached his Presidential desk.
Schieffer asked McCain if he could win this fall in "conservatives sit out." McCain does not think they will sit it out.
McCain wants to talk to CPAC if he gets the chance, but he also wants to talk to other parts of the party, including Teddy Roosevelt's old environmental wing.
Schieffer brought up Romney's harangue about McCain sponsoring legislation with Dems. McCain said that it is going to Washington to get things done, and he boasted of his co-sponsorship of legislation creating the 9-11 Commission. (A boast?)
OBAMA ON FTN. Although it was taped before the McCain interview aired live, FTN host Bob Schieffer followed McCain's interview with Obama's vid. (Obama was in St. Louis.) He showed Barry a WashPost headline showing Obama and Hillary even in the national poll.
Barry talked about Hillary "galvanizing" the Republican Party more so than he does, because of the "tone that I take, the ability to disagree without being disagreeable." He thinks that he can "get the votes that Senator Clinton cannot get," which "broadens the map."
Schieffer asked Obama if there were a "brown-black divide" in the electorate. Obama doesn't see it.
Obama talked a lot about Nevada, and he boasted on Teddy Kennedy. (No, Obama was not wearing a neck brace.)
Obama wants his government to "create more fairness in the economy."
Schieffer suggested that Bill Clinton has chilled since South Carolina, and Barack didn't address this directly. He said that his peeps were "pleased to see the voters of South Carolina push away the politics of the past."
Schieffer asked him about the DREAM TICKET – Hillary/Obama – and Obama thinks it would be presumptive to offer Hillary a veep slot when she's running to win the nomination. He talked about the "sharp contrasts" between a McCain Presidency and an Obama Presidency. He said that it looks like McCain will be the nominee, but even if it is Romney, both will continue President Bush's policies.
Schieffer complimented Obama for his ability to get "a little bit of his message" into his answer to any question. He put it on historic terms, and since Schieffer quits next year, this is ALL TIME.
ROMNEY ON CNN. Mitt Romney was Wolf Blitzer's first guest on CNN's Late Edition this morning; Romney was in Minnesota. Blitzer pointed out that McCain blames Romney for the nastiness in this campaign. Romney said that he attacks only on issues, while McCain got personal in Florida. He said that he was not going to talk about that. (Romney's stance vis-à-vis the surge is oriented toward an issue. Romney promised that he would keep mentioning that John McCain had repeated reports that Romney had talked of a timetable for withdrawal.)
Romney said that McCain's "lack of understanding of the economy" was bad for the country, adding that we have to have someone who has had a real job in the private sector in the Oval Office. (That is a personal attack on the former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.)
Romney belittled "reaching across the aisle" and "making political deals." He said that he is a man of action, of getting things done.
Romney said that McCain-Feingold hurt the Republican Party (it didn't) and McCain-Kennedy granted amnesty to oodles of illegals (it didn't even pass). He said that the Florida primary was close, "only a few points." (Five points is a big win.) He said that conservatives were rallying behind him as a way to stop John McCain, which is why he won the uncontested caucuses in Maine at which no delegates were awarded. (Maine is a bastion of conservatism, electing Senators Collins and Snowe, both of whom endorsed John McCain after co-chairing his exploratory committee last year.)
Blitzer pointed out that polls show McCain beating Hillary and Obama with Romney losing. Romney claimed that the polls swing wildly.
Romney repeated that with our economy "struggling," we need to elect someone who has held a "real job." He compared himself again to Ronald Reagan.
= = = = =
Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (76) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 1 hidden) Post a comment »
Perhaps your eyes
by hunter
are wide shut?
We now know that those who actually work to get conservative Judges nominated and approved are OK with McCain (Brownback).
We know, if we bothered to listen this AM, that he will do good Conservative things for the economy.
We know he will fight the war to win it, and was in fact behind the surge before there was a surge.
And he did vote for Judges who are opposed to McCain-Feingold.
So do we accept, if he wins, a real Veteran, a lifelong loyal Conservative Republican, or do we become sheep led by a bunch of radio talk show hosts and TV talking heads who have misrepresented him and worse in a shameful number of cases?
His eyes are shut (along with his mind)...
by nighthawk
Some had rather have a president with a 7% conservative rating than one with a 83% conservative rating. Go figure!
good one - 555 - nt
by gamecock
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"It is not the critic who
by RandomGuy
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
- Teddy Roosevelt
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
at least, and not in a very subtle manner either. You've praised almost everything McCain's done.
He's lowered your concerns? About what? The color of the upholstery? Perhaps that the pavement on the North Lawn will remain firm and without potholes?
McCain still has yet to lower my concerns about him.
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
Actually, Thunder, I took McCain's performance
by Mark Kilmer
today to be a reflection of his realization that barring a disaster, he has this one sewn up. (It has to be what he is hearing.) Since he is going to be the nominee, he realizes that he now has to work extra hard to convince conservative Republicans that, despite the few differences and the ongoing attacks, he is one of them. That's what he stressed in his interview.
the antipathy with which many conservatives view McCain if you believe that McCain's apostasies are limited to a "few difference". Not trying to be catty, just realistic.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
A vote for McCain will only give us more McCains
by EagleWatcher
If we line up behind McCain the GOP will have no incentive to promote true conservatives. We will get more and more moderate Republicans that are easier to elect, but will capitulate at every turn to Democrats.
If McCain nominates Huckabee as him VP then the watered down version of conservatism will perpetuate itself into future elections.
With McCain we usher in the era of compromised principals:
1. Open borders
2. Closing of Gimo
3. The restriction of interrogation of detainees and the elimination of our most effective interrogation techniques.
4. Judges approved by Ted Kennedy and Arlen Specter.
5. Repeal of the tax cuts.
6. Anti-business policies that view drug companies as villains.
7. The carbon tax (Cap and trade)
I could go on...
Ask yourselves this question: does the NYT endorse strong conservatives?
A sit-at-home-conservative handing our nation to Hillary or Obama gives us catastrophe.
This is not a highschool class election.
This is about running the greatest nation and most significant economy on the planet.
You will either have someone who openly embraces and seeks out American defeat in war, American weakness in foreign policy, dramatically increased taxes, absolute support of unregulated abortion, and Judges to enforce this for dcades, or you have a shot at someone who has a lifetime of seeking American victory and strength and who is openly pro-life and has voted for every Conservative Judge who has come up for his vote.
That is the choice.
I do not like McCain so much.
But I will not be a baby and sit it out..
I will look at this as a mature patriot and seek what is best for our country. I will not pursue narrow partisan games.
I will not let the non-existent perfect drive out the acceptable.
I strongly urge you to consider this electoin in a similar light.
Your points would be valid if McCain were a true conservative
by EagleWatcher
When people who are pro-abortion, anti-military, pro big government, pro same sex marriage come out and endorse you, what does that say about you?
The NYT, The Boston Globe and the LA Times are all endorsing McCain. These are all left wing mouth pieces and they are embracing McCain because they know full well he poses no real threat to their agenda. They know he can be manipulated by the liberal establishment. Does a "conservative" really want these kinds of endorsements? It would be like the KKK endorsing Hillary.
And just because some useless old-school media hacks endorse him, that is enough to get you to reject him?
Instead of analyzing him on his own, you have to react against what others say?
I wish we on the right controlled media outlets so powerful that we could endorse Hillary and make all the lefties do the opposite.
Why is your analysis of
by swamp_yankee
Why is your analysis of every interview factually based except Romney. Every comment on Romney is followed by a dig. It weakens the format.
I noticed that also, obviously not a Romney fan.
by Mike Dugas
FredHeads for Mitt!
Sad to say, what I wrote about Romney
by Mark Kilmer
is entirely accurate. He was not at his best today, attacking from all directions with little regard for the truth. I pointed that out.
McCain, on the other hand, did not attack. If he had, and if he had turned the truth on its head, I'd have blasted him as well.
I suspect the dichotomy of behavior of the two candidates is based on the position of each. McCain has to do not so much to secure the nomination, but he does have to work to unite the party. His remarks reflected that.
Romney, on the other hand, needs to tear down the opposition using whatever he thinks is at his disposal, whether it is accurate or not. Where I saw inaccuracies, I pointed them out. You are at liberty to counterpoint if you can and want to do so.
Your opinions and analysis are yours, and yours alone. Accurate as in what? From an anti Romney standpoint? Sure. From my standpoint? Neep, sorry.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
But everything else you write is informative, and really even your Romney stuff is good I guess. I think what really gets me is your insistence on defending negative views of Romney to a "just calling it like it is" mentality. In that respect, I can't help but disagree.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
Oh, stop whining.
by Mark Kilmer
I watched the reviews. Romney was on the constant attack, and I related that. Romney accused McCain of things which just weren't so, and I documented that.
If it had been McCain trashing Romney with inaccuracies, I'd have documented that.
This was not Romney's best week, and you cannot excuse that by accusing me of writing from an anti-Romney bias. In fact, that is childish and completely ignores what happened this morning.
I've been reading your reviews for a long time
by David Ribeirao
You definitely have a bias against Romney. No big deal - it's your blog and you can write whatever you want but I'm surprised that you can't recognize that your interpretation of what Romney says is painted negatively because of your bias.
I have a pro-Romney bias and I recognize that. As such, I have no idea how you saw this as a bad week for Romney. He did a superb job in the interviews and I thought it was probably his best week.
*Tagg Romney 2038!*
Interesting how this works
by John E.
Interesting how this works isn’t it. You can summarily dismiss my perspectives as due to pro-Romney bias without reference to a single shred of evidence particular to me based on your profound ability to perfectly stereotype. But if anyone points to specific cases where you seem less than perfectly objective they can be, with immediate certainty, pronounced childish and/or ignorant. I don’t like to call you out Mark Kilmer because you are a big man on campus. I am not. And I have no interest in changing that. But that unnoticed point to which I called your attention also played out later that night in the debate and it was universally recognized and talked about it. Well that at least gave me some outside confirmation that I could remove the dunce cap that the respected Mark Kilmer had crowned me with. Problem is that you never seemed to notice and so it leaves me with a sucking chest wound of flagging respect for you.
I read today mainly to see how you would handle the MTP panel discussion on McCain and Republicans. I figured it would be painful for you to try to summarize that, because it is a trove of quotes that echo all the concerns about Sir John that have been disturbing these boards. And ‘lo, you took a total pass and with such very objective reasoning. Or not?
We all have blind spots, so that’s a possibility that nearly always needs to be held open for consideration. It takes outside interventions and a penchant for humility to discover them. It is better if those interventions come from friends who actually want to support us and our endeavors. I thought yours was an endeavor I wanted to support Mark. Is it? I am doing my best to fight off cynicism but frankly I’m losing that battle right now. If this is all caused by my own blind spot and I could me made to see it clearly, I would be delighted to grow and even more delighted to be saved from this gall of cynicism that I am starting to wreck upon my comrades. I have been looking at me. I have been looking at you too. I haven’t been finding anything that delights me.
Oh how quickly people forget...
by Fernman
It was but a few weeks ago before Florida's elections, our revered John McCain was all nasty and negative on Romney.. propagating lies about Romney's position on Iraq.
Now that McCain is on the lead, all his vitriol and anger disappeared?
Fernando Caballero
Here's a Latino that will never vote for McCain... Stop dealing in stereotypes and discuss real issues.
You just can't help yourself.
by David Ribeirao
Nearly every week you add your own little commentary to every one of Mitt's comments. It's pretty funny that you don't recognize your own bias.
Thank you very much for doing this each week. I'm surprised, since you do add your own commentary, that you don't point out McCain's obvious attempts to pander and his obvious flip flops on taxes.
Romney's interviews were solid. McCain is flip-flopping and pandering all over the place.
You do us all a great favor but you are very biased.
*Tagg Romney 2038!*
David Reibeirao...
by Mark Kilmer
The comments I added to Romney's were corrections.
Your blind, pro-Romney bias won't let you realize how the man is campaigning this weekend.
I went so far as to offer him an excuse.
As I explained, McCain's job is to appeal to the base going in to the general election. That is not pandering, as he talked only if his own record.
Mark
by David Ribeirao
I'm going to refrain from any more posts about you being biased out of respect for your well thought out posts. I've said what I wanted to say but I definitely don't want to come across like I'm attacking you personally, or helping bots to pile on.
Have a great day.
*Tagg Romney 2038!*
I confess
by GOPaisano
to saying something along the lines of "This is my Christmas!" during primary season, so I understand where Russert is coming from. Less family fights and all that.
And kind of a harsh view of Romney. I've gotten to the point where I am prepared to vote for him as the nominee, because he just seems so well-informed. If I can't trust his positions to stay the same, I at least trust his judgment.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
I was not trying to bash Romney.
by Mark Kilmer
As I've explained, Romney was forced to take a different approach than was McCain this week, and where Romney's attacks were inaccurate, I pointed it out.
If Romney does manage to secure the nomination, I will vote for him. I would write in support of him. No matter what I think of his elasticity and his tactics, he would be far better for the Republican than would Hillary or Obama.
Two, two, two mints in one
by Robert A. Hahn
Long-time RedStaters know that one of my pet peeves is the ability of liberals to propose — and believe in — two contradictory ideas as a way of avoiding decisions. I call them Schrödinger positions after the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment in which an imaginary cat is both dead and alive at the same time.
On LE this morning, Senator Menendez (D-NJ), performing the role of Hillary shill, announced that Hillary Clinton would leave Iraq with honor within 60 days of taking office.
Only a liberal could nod in agreement with the concept of cutting and running with honor.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
A diet high in used sheep fodder
by hunter
will produce that result all too often.
Oxymoron
by SteveLA
Hey that's an Oxymoron...using the name Clinton and honor in any sentence on any topic at any time.
Devil in the Blue Dress
Blue Dress ON
Devil in the Blue Dress
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
wrong SteveLA
by Lord_Vegas
"She was a beautiful woman and Bill Clinton was honor like white on rice."
It CAN be done.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
A few thoughts
by Lord_Vegas
Mark, you have had better days.
McCain explained that when these primaries were over, he would have to "unite the entire party." He acknowledged that he has "some work to do," but he expressed confidence that his "conservative record" would out in the end.
>then later<
Wallace, who hadn't goaded McCain to attack Romney and McCain didn't, tried to convince McCain to attack Hillary. McCain pointed out that he hadn't received the nomination yet: "I'm not focused on Senator Clinton yet."
A good way to shore up his base -- and unite the party -- might be to take on the Democrats. But then, that's just me.
Wallace said: "Let me ask you about the horse race, Senator." I condemn this in the strongest terms. It was uncalled for.
You completely lost me with this comment. Condemn? For what? He didn't ask if she was going to charge $10,000 for White House coffees, or $50,000 to stay overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Romney pointed out that McCain's positions on ANWR, BCRA, immigration, and global warming "cause many conservatives to rally to my camp." Is this a big Romney rally or a STOP MCCAIN fest?
Uhh, this is a true statement -- as evidenced by the pages of RedState.
I couldn't understand a word coming out of Carville's mouth.
Nothing new here -- I can NEVER understand the guy.
Schieffer brought up Romney's harangue about McCain sponsoring legislation with Dems. McCain said that it is going to Washington to get things done, and he boasted of his co-sponsorship of legislation creating the 9-11 Commission. (A boast?)
Johnny Mac -- ix-nay on the ost-bay! Conservatives don't exactly embrace the 9-11 commission.
Romney said that McCain's "lack of understanding of the economy" was bad for the country, adding that we have to have someone who has had a real job in the private sector in the Oval Office. (That is a personal attack on the former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.)
Pointing out that Sen McCain has absolutely NO business experience is a personal attack? In Clinton-speak maybe, but not in the real world. CONGRESS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD!
Romney said that McCain-Feingold hurt the Republican Party (it didn't)
I disagree strenuously to your editorialization of that comment. With the MSM as a Democrat cheerleader on EVERY issue, ANY weakening of the first amendment hurts the Republican party. ANY legislation to prevents free speech -- when we can all see that the MSM is NOT free speech -- hurts the Republican Party.
Like I said at the top of this post, Mark -- not your best work.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
except for one member of the GOP:
McCain
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I venture that this was one of my best...
by Mark Kilmer
as it captured the essence of what I saw this morning and it is having the proper effect.
McCain did attack Clinton. He backed off from Wallace's trap as it is not yet time to engage her fully.
Is it a Romney Rally or a STOP MCCAIN FEST?
The "horse race" comment was a bit of sarcasm.
I don't like the 9-11 Commission, so I let his comment stand.
When Romney said that McCain had no understanding of the economy, he was pointing to something McCain had said about the economy not being his issue. This is a statement McCain clarified by pointing to his experiences in Congress.
It is not necessary to have had a job in the private sector to do what a President does with the economy. I know, I know, Romney wants to micromanage it, but that is not how we do things in the United States under our Constitution. Romney's argument is specious at best.
As I've said, the comments attached to Mitt's words were corrections of his attacks. It is not what I do to let such statements stand as read.
Spend a few weeks actually reading what I write, or go back a year or so and read what I've written on Sunday, then talk to me about what I'm doing right or wrong. Your analysis is off base.
Mark, I HAVE been reading you for two years now
by Lord_Vegas
we will simply have to agree to disagree. I am my own worst critic on what I write -- this is not always the case.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
I certainly hope that Romney...
by RedHotandinBlue
stays on his toes. He needs to continue to be respectful but hammer McCain using his words and his votes. Facts matter. Words matter. And McCain's past should matter as well. It goes straight to his character; which is a vindictive, philandering, hot-head who thinks that we owe him his shot.
I dont like Romney for the Commander in Chief and because I find it hard to believe that a man his age with that many children in his life just recently found is way to a pro-life principle. But I also think Mitt is waiting to prove his Conservative credentials with the SCOTUS.
McCain does not deserve support from the GOP and most certainly not from the Conservative portion of the party.
BEAT MCCAIN NOW!......or Hillary will.
Romney and Coulter.
by KYJurisDoctor
Mitt "I'll flip flop on any issue" Romney and Anne "I'm too smart for my own good" Coulter are both GONERS!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/steve-flat-tax-forbes-endorses-jo...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
A question of priorities
by sinz52
If the War on Terror (including the war in Iraq) were the most important issue that voters cared about, then McCain would be the clear choice over Romney.
NO ONE has formulated a convincing argument why Romney would make a better Commander-in-Chief entrusted with leading an unpopular controversial war than McCain would. NO ONE. Including Romney's own supporters.
So what we have here are some conservatives who have suddenly decided that the War on Terror is just one of many issues; and probably not all that important an issue either, compared with McCain-Feingold or something else.
Which represents a complete reversal of the stand the GOP took in 2004.
In 2004, the GOP told the electorate that the War on Terror was THE defining issue of Western civilization. And that voters should vote for Bush, not Kerry, because Bush was the best one to handle that war. That voters should NOT be sidetracked by other issues, such as any disagreement with Bush over stem-cell research or No Child Left Behind.
And now, just four years later, having discovered that THEIR favorite candidate (Romney) may NOT be the best choice to wage the War on Terror, many of these same conservatives are going out of their way to change the subject to other issues.
Which is exactly what we used to accuse the Democrats of doing--changing the subject away from national security which is not their strongest suit.
Now the Romney supporters are doing the same.
Those of us who have focused like a laser beam on the War on Terror ever since 9/11/2001 will not let them get away with it. We're going to pin them (and the Democrats) to the central question of our time: How Western civilization can prevail over jihadism.
Interesting take by both Shrum and Murphy on
by RothNRA
McCain's independence and his refusal to pander to the angry right. A point I've been arguing for a while and I'm glad to see the two strategists make the same point. The angry right is trying to goad McCain to pander to them. I'm glad McCain has resisted the temptation. It shows backbone. It does him no good to move to the far right. It will only serve to alienate the moderates and independents who have stuck by him.
_________________________________________________
We're all in the same boat, fellas.
But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
His shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
-Evil shenanigans!
Did McCain say he fought for Reagan's tax cuts in 1981?
by generalgrant
He didn't serve in Congress until January 1983. I suppose he could have supported them, but fought for them? From where?
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
Another Mitticism
by shooflyguy68
So, Mitt won't reach accross the aisle to join with Dems to pass legislation? I suppose he thinks that Republicans will always have 60 plus Senators and a working majority in the House for perpetuity. That notion is almost as dumb as his "double Guantanamo" comment. He's been programmed with talking points and then makes ridiculous statements as he tries to explain what he stand for.
I agree that Mitt is wildly swinging and hoping to connect
by generalgrant
but on working with Dems in general as president, it certainly is advisable. The difference, I think, that Mitt is trying to show that McCain crosses the aisle to pass liberal agenda items, whereas a guy like Reagan (whose name Mitt is invoking) got Dems to come over to support his agenda (not 100%).
Again, McCain would do well to discuss how he will prevent the Dems from enacting their radical agenda, but can't because for the most part, he supports it (amnesty, campaign-finance, pharms, global warming, etc).
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
Notice the comments on Romney
by defthelmet
Notice the snotty, snarky, childlike comments in parentheses after anything Romney-related in the article. I swear, you guys are almost begging Romney supporters to either sit out or go 3rd party in November.
Behave, Matt.
by Moe Lane
Your one warning, and keep a civil tongue in your head in the future.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"Grandmother, what thin skin you have!"
by RothNRA
_________________________________________________
We're all in the same boat, fellas.
But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun.
His shenanigans are cruel and tragic.
Which wouldn't make them shenanigans, at all, really.
-Evil shenanigans!
MCCAIN NOT A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
by PoliticalJunkyFood
Do you want me to give you a link that Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat and a Holywood actor too? Do you want me to give you a link that Reagan signed an amnesty bill too? Come on dude, wake up. You want me to send you a link showing that McCain voted FOR federal funding of stem cell research? that McCain voted AGAINST the federal marriage amendment? was once against the repeal of Roe vs Wade before he was for it? McCain is not even a moderate Republican, he's a moderate Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
In sum, then Governor Reagan signed a bill legalizing abortion. But he wasn't pro-choice. Come on now.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/adamantly_pro_choice_rona...
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
Btw, Schwartzenegger endorses McCain, and Schwartzenegger's wife (Maria Shriver) endorses Obama. Get it? Got it, good. Reality check. McCain can NOT beat Obama or Hillary either. That's why husband and wife endorsed both Obama AND McCain.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Maybe not a Typical Politician
by MikeOYou haven't made your case, I'm afraid
by civil truthObama, c'est un poseur!
by streetwiseGore does claim the earth will be destroyed if
by streetwiseI appreciate it though
by Darin HNow that's a definition of genius. What an ear. n/t
by bantamwaitYes, but McCain's war, while genuinely heroic,
by bantamwaitA shorter way
by simpson316Good point, boychik!
by bantamwaitMass produced thin film
by moderichGotcha. Thanks.
by simpson316Actually, he was just lashing out.
by Moe LaneHow did I not figure this out??
by bantamwaitCatsandbeer may have been here for less than a week, but
by bantamwaitThat's a plan right there
by E Pluribus UnumRemember, kids: Obama supporter. <NT>
by Moe LaneOh, good. I got under your skin. <NT>
by Moe Laneyou're right [Sanitized]
by catsandbeerNot "boychick:" "boychik." It's Yiddish.
by Moe LaneAnd the funny thing is
by simpson316
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
to lower my concerns about his record and his intentions and philosophy.
When compared to the two democrats running, he is clearly the adult responsible and interesting candidate.