Saturday, June 02, 2007
|
|
Romney And The MSM: Their Enemy Must Be Our Friend
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:09 AM
|
|
Back in February, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff speculated on why the MSM is gunning for Mitt Romney so early in the '08 cycle:
The MSM has been trying to nominate a progressive/liberal/centrist/moderate/or maverick Republican presidential candidate since the days of Nelson Rockefeller -- in other words, ever since the Republicans stopped doing it to themselves. The MSM hasn't had much luck, though it made a decent run at it in 2000.
But 2008 (including 2007) may well be the MSM's year. That's because the two leading Republican contenders, McCain and Rudy Giuliani, arguably fit somewhere in the progressive/liberal/centrist/moderate/maverick continuum. At a minimum, both take liberal positions on several issues that many conservatives deem vital.
Right now, the MSM faces only one obvious obstacle -- Mitt Romney. Of the major figures committed to running on the Republican side, only Romney takes the conservative position on all major issues.
This explains, I believe, the relentlessly negative coverage he's received from the MSM. Usually, the MSM likes a horse race.
Read the whole of Paul's early prediction, and then read the transcript, or listen to my hour-long interview yesterday with Time's Joe Klein, on this very subject of MSM's growing anti-Romney animus. In his column this week Klein flipped flopped from a Romney admirer to a Romney basher on the laughably suspect grounds that (1)Romney, the best informed candidate of the viable candidtaes on the war (Senator McCain knows the war, but is finished as a candidate), wasn't serious enough about it, and (2)Romney's objection to the Senate's immigration bill was a reversal of Romney's endorsement of the concept of regularization in 2005. Klein also resents the fact that Romney speaks rapidly and has a great television presence.
In short, Klein delivers another example of exactly what Mirengoff pointed too four months ago --a collective shudder among the MSM at the prospect of yet another conservative GOP nominee who could keep the White House in Republican hands. Joe got testy when I called him on his transparent Hillary-McCain shilling, his backflip on Romney, and his dismissal of folks like Victor Davis Hanson, Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn --anyone, in fact, who sees Iraq as one battle in a vast war between the West and jihadism, a view which Romney holds and defends at every turn. Joe and the MSM generally have enjoyed decades of their ex cathedra utterances from Manhattan or the Beltway being protected from criticism by editors and the lack of a feedback loop through which either the center-right or the public could respond. Technology and new media have destroyed their insularity and now they indulge the myth --Joe did it in our interview-- that criticism from the left and right means they must be mainstream when in fact it just demonstrates that their MSM liberal bias doesn't satisfy the fever swamp and doesn't stand up to scrutiny from the center-right.
Klein's column and the other anti-Romney attacks are the best indication yet that Romney is emerging as the strongest conservative in the race. That key signal may be enough to encourage some of you to sign up at MittRomney.com or at least to throw a few bucks his way as a kind of thank you for scaring the Beltway-Manhatten elites.
As I discuss at length in A Mormon In The White House, Romney does scare these elites for many reasons, including the traditional strengths a tax cutting, pro-defense Republican puts on the table when it comes to electability. But there are four other reasons which make Romney uniquely a target for MSM ire.
First, his resume shreds theirs, even by their own standards. The MSM gang with its collective Ivy roots and confident dismissal of the judgment of those not initiated early on into the mysteries of the Bos-Wash axis confront in Romney a guy who beat them at their own meritocratic games. Like a drum in fact. Romney prospered behind the MSM enemy's lines, from his Baker Scholar credential out of HBS through the years of rising in the east. Born and raised in the heartland by a man who didn't finish college, Romney kept his midwestern values even as he climbed every east coast ladder. Romney knows his MSM enemy very, very well as a result, but he didn't go native.
Second, he's had a media training second only to Hillary's because of the intense scrutiny the Olympics experience exposed him too. (Having the Globe on his heels for the past dozen years or so was pretty good training as well, but nothing like the full court press of the international press from '98 to '02.) I have a section in the book on the media lessons Romney took away from Salt Lake City, and he's using those lessons now. Klein et al can't get a rise out of him, and they won't.
Third, he's wealthy beyond their experience (which adds not only fear but no little envy to their growing anti-Romney animus). My sources for the book put his wealth at over a billion, but recent reports say that he will report control of only a quarter or so of that amount. Either way he will have the ability as a nominee to counter late hits by the Sorospeople.
Finally, he's a square. Right angles at every corner. There won't be any scandals, no toeholds for the MSM eager to lend a hand to Hillary in the stretch run. Yes, there are vulnerabilities in Romney's background, which I detail, but they won't be of the sort the which MSM counts on to bring their favorite charge of "hypocrisy!."
Paul Mirengoff's had the MSM's number five months ago, which of course hasn't stopped the MSM from playing their game, and won't stop the next seven months worth of anti-Romney stories, or the 10 months of anti-Romney stories after that if he's the nominee.
But the early diagnosis of Romneyitis among the MSM will reduce the effectiveness of an already much disestablished media elite's attacks. In fact, each new one will give more conservatives reason to approve of Romney and laugh at the old guard trying harder and harder to be once they once were --significant.
|
|
|
I know you didn't coin the phrase. There are just some phrases guys don't utter--that being one of them. Stiil, I'm very glad your lack of DGL did not keep you from getting a beautiful wife. |
|
|
This man's homophobia doesn't belong here. |
|
If you think that was conservative, we're all in trouble.
Romney comes across as scripted and programmed to sound like whatever you want to hear.
And when his handlers screw up, we get wonderful things like confusing Castro's slogan with a Cuba Libre slogan.
Conservatives have been burned by George HW Bush and George W Bush. It's not a good time to come up to them and say "Trust me. I'm a conservative too."
|
|
Just some guy. I'm not on a singleminded mission to thwart Joe Klein. If Klein or the MSM is rabidy anti-Romney, I'm just not letting him influence me in *any* direction.
Anyway, I question the accuracy of this oft-repeated assertion (that the MSM attacks only Romney or mostly Romney; that this proves it's him they're most scared of; and that this indicates we should all get behind him).
There are some very shaky steps in the above logic, but I'll just talk abou the first assertion. The truth is that I just don't see Romney being talked or written about much (besides here, of course!) Maybe things are different up in Boston, for instance, but down here in Florida, there have been more Fred articles the past few days than there have been Romney articles all year. Rudy and his chances are consistently in the news. McCain, thanks to his latest bill, gets a lot of mentions. Even Tancredo drew more coverage than Romney ever his when a planned appearance in Miami was cancelled due to his receiving death threats from open borders fanatics.
Mitt? For all the Miami Herald and other media that aren't in Mitt's hometown know or care, he'd might as well not exist. And no, they're not ignoring him because he's the one they're truly scared of. They're ignoring him because unlike McCain and Fred, he doesn't represent a realistic chance of challenging Rudy. |
|
its simply the case with Hugh re: Joe Klein. I mean, if you had asked Hugh (or his girlfriends Mark Steyn or VDH etc)what they thought of Klein (and others like him), they would have obviously put him down and his intellect. And he has with respect to NYT and WP writers, etc.. So, is it any surprise that Klein did the same to Hugh's gal pals? And Hugh is upset about that?
Face it Hugh - this is the state of politics today. Just like righters dont care for the left's leading lights or their intellect, the left dont care for VDH's or steyns of the world. |
|
Frog nailed it:
"Hugh has lost his ability to think like a Democrat, if he doesn't see how the Democrats will attack Romney...If Romney's the nominee, they're going to turn Mitt into the fattest of the "crooked" fat cats."
Mormonism is a red herring. Mitt's real problem with the average Joe is that his resume makes him sound like a typical spoiled preppie who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I don't say the following is a fair characterization, and I'm not into class warfare anyway; I'd vote for Daddy Warbucks over log cabin Abe Lincoln if I thought he was 1% better.
But as Frog says, characterizations don't have to be accurate in order to be effective. Mitt may be a man of the people, but the Dems will effectively spin him as Thurston Howell IV. Even the cloying cute preppie nicknames he and his eldest son have (Mitt, Tagg) affect most people negatively - especially people weary of "Poppy" Bush's dynasty. They're not looking to succeed the royal house of Prescott Bush with the house of George, Mitt, and Tagg Romney. Boston Brahmins are definitely out.
So that's one huge vulnerability right there. Another is the war. The Dems are going to nominate a candidate who was of the wrong age or sex to have been expected to serve during 'Nam. But that won't stop then from gleefully exploiting Romney's vulnerability. If we give them a McCain who heroically endured years of NVA torture, or a Rudy who was busting the mob (or a Fred who can appeal to moderates by his Watergate accomlishments), our nominee isn't vulnerable on the 1967-75 issue.
But if instead we serve them up a guy who skipped the war to go on a "sheep stealing" mission to France, they're going to effectively exploit that weakness.
Powerline has one thing right: the MSM has indeed been trying to nominate a McCain-style maverick for years. And although I disagree with him and Hugh that Romney isn't at heart fundamentally the same RINO that Rudy and McCain are, let's assume for the moment that it's true. Why, then should a conservative prefer a "moderate" McCain or Rudy to a conervative Fred (or Romney, if we accept that he isn't just a pale shadow of Rudy?)
It's obvious: circumstances have changed. This is 2008, not 1994 or 2000 or 2004. The mood of the country has turned against mainstream Republicans. Were Mirengoff and Hewitt sleeping through all of the 2006 elections? This isn't the immediate post-911 world of 2002. We can't just take for granted that the Republican will win any election and manuever the best true conservative in there - hey, if we could, we wouldn't be settling for any RINO Romney or even Fred; we'd give them President Flake, Hunter, or Santorum.
If you're going to try to make a career of blogging politics, it's helpful to follow political dvelopments. Otherwise, you just make yourself look silly pretending that 2008 can be run the same way 2004 was run and won. |
|
Haha. Good one.
FYI: I didn't coin the idiom "dashing good looks." It's a familiar expression that I wish could have applied to me so I would have had better luck with the ladies when I was young.
Still, despite my unfortunate resemblance to John Goodman, I miraculously wound up with a beautiful wife. |
|
|
Did you write "dashing good looks" when refering to Willard Mitt? Jeez. You may have to turn in your man card. |
|
A mormon is runnin for pres! Why, if he's elected them darn mormons are gonna take over the world! Those stinkin missionaries are gonna tell everybody that even the PRES. is a mormon! Those mormons are all goin to hell cause they don't believe in the right Jesus!
Give be a freakin break! |
|
In 2000 and 2004, social and fiscal Conservatives & many Independents put our confidence & our hopes in a republicrat politican whom we saw as a conservative "born again" Christian.. Look what we got... (we also didn't have much of a choice) At least Jorge is still "stubborn" on a few of the right issues. The lesson is..we had better do our homework this time...in depth research on all the potential candidates. This free democratic Republic can not sustain another Clinton, Gore or Bush, etc. (Hussein Obama is a political-media construct to be Hillary's VP) I fear, it may be too late the the USA as we know it, already. |
|
1) I have no idea why Affleck deemed Romney as "Ken Doll", nor do I care. Affleck is a big lib and a joke of an actor. I use the reference not because of Romney's looks but due to his "wind me up so I can say what the audience wants to hear" persona. I honestly believe the man will say whatever he has to say to be POTUS.
2) You stated: "I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in the south are fair-minded and that Romney can win there. Those who oppose him because of his religion are going to be statistically insignificant, no matter what the MSM tell us."
Sorry, but based on personal, antedotal evidence, I think you're wrong. I am an evangelical christian. I work for a men's ministry and the vast majority of the friends/associates I talk politics with are also people of faith. I can honestly tell you not one person I've had this discussion with are going to vote for Mitt Romney in the republican primary and 99% of the time the reason given is "I'm not going to vote for a Mormon".
What I say may be too politically incorrect for your blood but it is the truth. MANY Christian view Mormonism as a cult and they are not going to pull the lever for a person of that faith. They may not tell that to pollsters, but in private discussions they had their true beliefs.
|
|
|
"Mormon Kool-aid" is a liberal talkingpoint. |
|
|
define Romney for you? Look at his real record, not just what the MSM feeds you. He governed Mass as a true conservative. For a few of you, apparently, it still comes down to "the mormoon thing" and it's sad that you can't get over it. |
|
|
For me, Romney's looks are not a factor in the slightest way. I think many of you men out there are not giving us gals enough credit! I think it's only the soccer moms on the left who fell for the pretty face- although to my mind he wasn't! |
|
I agree that Duncan Hunter is a capable conservative and would make a good president, even though he comes across a little dour. For me, though, Romney is the man with "the credibility, courage, wisdom, strength, and genuine leadership" we need. No one else in the race has his combination of strengths.
I am going to have faith and choose well, and hope that my right-thinking conservatives will also see that he is the best man for the job. His numbers are going to continue to climb and I really believe he will get the nomination. |
|
It's kind of funny that pretty-boy Ben Alleck was the first to apply the Ken-doll epithet to Romney.
As for the TH posters who fault Romney for his dashing good looks, you just have to consider the source. We men who lurk in this cyberworld do so for a reason--we tend to be a rather homely lot. Frankly, Romney makes us just a little insecure and worried that our wives will compare us to him. That's our problem--not Mitt's.
Obviously, I wish my favorite candidate, Duncan Hunter, were as handsome, so as to attract more easy votes from some of the ladies, but he looks like a regular guy. Even so, I would bet he has a handsome picture of himself when he was a young man serving as an Army Ranger during the Vietnam War. That's rather unusual among the candidates. |
|
|
The money men want an open borders candidate who will keep the cheap labor express running. Why do you think McCain, Giuliani, and Romney have all the money? Romney's recent shift on illegal aliens is a tactical adjustment to get the nomination as he rightly sees the majority of GOP voters are opposed to amnesty. However I do not trust that he would enforce the law any more than Bush has. Duncan Hunter WILL! |
|
Mr. Romney's stance, on many of the issues, have not been completely fleshed out, but he is causing considerable discomfort to the career politicians who are worried that their personal oxen will be gored by his ascent. As Mitt begins to spell out his stance and vision for our nation, he draws more fire from both sides. Those who fear what he will accomplish as the President and leader of the free world are found in both camps and they are not quite sure which way to jump on this one. I am amused as I read the remarks on this blog as, one after the other, we go over the same old tired points. I agree with Dean that we need to add a little something more if we post here. I get sleepy this time of the evening and would really enjoy fresh information about this campaign from each of your own areas of the country. I will also point out that I read this for information on my man Mitt and I don't care how much is written about him. It's a good omen from my point of view. Here in my hometown, in northern Indiana, I have found 4 articles in the local religion section of our paper in the last 2 weeks that are aimed at Mitt and/or his faith. Now I happen to think that us Mormons are a fascinating bunch, but 4 article in 2 weeks is almost too good to be true. I have been a regular contributor to our local paper on a variety of topics, but when I wrote a few comments about this paticular topic, I was not printed and recieved no comment from them. People who lack understanding of the LDS church and it's teachings had better bone up if they want to know what Mitt's core values are and how he gained them and why he is, by far, the best man for the office of President. Can we please take this discusion of Romney to the next level? I already know what many of the regulars posting here are going to say about my remarks, but maybe some new insight by someone who has been sitting on the sidelines will freshen this thread. |
|
Pam,
Giuliani and McCain have been the MSM's favorite two GOP candidates and the only two that have gotten much press coverage over the past few years. That doesn't signify that they deserve victory; it merely demonstrates that their base is the big media and those who are easily persuaded by it.
As soon as GOP folks stop asking who has name recognition and start asking who has the credibility, courage, wisdom, strength, and genuine leadership to serve as Commander in Chief, the sooner they will turn their attention to Duncan Hunter. And they will love the guy.
The two paramount issues of our time are the war and the illegal immigration crisis. Duncan Hunter is the right man at the right time to solve those two problems and many others.
Beware of defeatism. Have faith, choose well, and do your part, and you just might put a great man in the White House. |
|
Cook and Rothenburg are predicting a Hillary/Romney match up for 2008.
Cook based his prediction on "the most important factors influencing who will get their parties’ nominations are: Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary, national polls and ability to raise dollars."
It is early but this match up is a realistic probability.
Cook is also indicating that Thompson is an unknown that everyone can put thier hopes into right now. However, that will change over the course of the campaign just like it has with Obama and to some extent Rudy.
|
|
|
Romney sucks...he's never told ONE TRUTH. |
|
|
I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in the south are fair-minded and that Romney can win there. Those who oppose him because of his religion are going to be statistically insignificant, no matter what the MSM tell us. |
|
|
are not going to break into the top tier at this point. You have to ask yourself why not? Because for one reason or another they haven't been able to accomplish what the top guys have, so they don't really deserve to be there. If you can't get your campaign off the ground then perhaps you shouldn't be president. |
|
doesn't add to this debate. Can we all agree that Romney is a substantial candidate and worthy of a bit more respect? He is intelligent, well-spoken, has done his homework, is organized and prepared, has been highly successful in the both the public and private sector. As far as we know he is a good man whose intentions are honorable. And let's not hold it against him that he happens to have above average looks! It's all just a little silly.
|
|
your own advice and not make every other thead about Ken Doll. There are several other viable republican candidates but the the vast majority of ink on this site is dedicated to Romney.
Sadly, you and Hugh would rather Ken Doll get the nomination than a republican candidate that can WIN. Sorry, but there is NO WAY the candidate from our side win without the south. If you & Hugh think a Mormon will win a majority of votes in the Bible Belt then you're fooling yourselves. Even if the opponent is Hillary Rotten Clinton you can count a southern state or two going to the dems. Call me a bigot if you wish, but I am simply speaking the truth. |
|
Republican voters still get to decide who their nominee will be. Money only buys elections when people act like sheep. If 80% of Republicans are indeed seeking a conservative, we can nominate one. We can nominate Duncan Hunter. The money players won't like it and are trying to convince us only Rudy, Romney, or McCain can win. Hogwash. They want an open borders candidate. Give Americans a chance to vote for a candidate who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill it's most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com
http://duncanhunter.conservativebase.org/
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=23212 |
|
There's no such thing as "Romneyitis." He's a candidate for President. This is a free speech country. There are people in both parties who want to stop him. And the MSM, if it does its job properly, will look at the man critically.
I think it is Josh Marshall--maybe someone else--who reminds us that in the run-up to the 2006 election, Karl Rove made a big deal with a CNN guy about the polls. Rove said something like 'you have your numbers and I have THE numbers.' In other words, what Republicans these days call "liberal bias" is in fact simply stuff they don't want to hear. And to that, defenders of truth, free speech and the American way, say "ppppffffftt." |
|
|
I've heard Romney say several times that he learned a lot from his run against Kennedy. Are you saying that he'll make the same mistakes again during the general election campaign(assuming he is the nominee, that is)? |
|
|
...I hope we can turn these comments sections into a learning center, rather than a graffiti wall for the few. I certainly don't know everything about all the issues and am willing to read some serious posts by people who know the issues. |
|
|
It might be time for another purge. Here's a hint if you don't want to get banned - don't post the same thing 12 times on the same thread or monopolize it in any way. Have your say, then move on. |
|
Hugh, Dean et al,
Everytime I think about posting on your blog I start reading the comments and it's full of nasty hate filled trolls. So what's my point? I don't know...bored at work, and I thought I would check if Dean had really "cleaned it up" as he threatened to do several months back. Oh well, maybe I'll check back next year. |
|
If anyone wants to see what a political train wreck Romney can be they merely need to revisit his nearly successful challenge of Teddy Kennedy in Mass a couple of decades ago.
He started with a moderate theme and was winning, then Teddy and friends dumped a ton of money and some big names into the campaign and moved ahead.
Romney should and could have won but he let Teddy seize control of the issues at the end and merely did a "me too, me too". It was pitiful.
Teddy's theme was essentially "I have seniority and I can bring home more bacon than he (Romney) can. And yes, I know you disagree with me on many issues and don't like my lifestyle but it's about the pork, stupid!"
The "me too" spots Romney ran were about bringing home government pork and other liberal themes, including abortion.
Someone really needs to find and review those spots - talk about finger-in-the-air posturing.
I question the judgment of anyone who buys into Mormonism but right now all we need to know is that Romney appears to have no core values -- just whatever he thinks will win the election at-hand.
As for Hugh's back-handed attacks on Fred Thompson, I would not lose much sleep over that, attacking and underestimating Fred will be a common theme of many commentators leading up to 2008 -- as will being repeatedly wrong.
:-) dmc |
|
Sorry Hugh, I like you and your blog mates a lot, but you are totally wrong on this post.
Language is very important. And it is very important that a person be labeled correctly. It really used to bother me when liberals would attack Newt Gingrich as a Nazi, since he clearly was not, and calling him this took away from the power of the word, and allowed a real Nazi to say "hey, they call every conservative a Nazi." This is dangerous. (Likewise, most Dems are not communists or socialists, although they are certainly to the left.)
Thus, calling Giuliani and McCain progressive or liberal Republican or moderate or centrist or Rockefeller Republican is a bad idea.
There is no way John McCain and Rudy Giuluani can be considered progressive or liberal Republican presidential candidates like Nelson Rockefeller. A Nelson Rockefeller Republican was tough on crime, a "realist" on foreign policy issues, and in favor of huge spending programs. (Social issues were not important back than, although presumably they would be "liberal" on these issues.)
Giuliani, while tough on crime, has a record of reducing/restricting government. That is a huge difference from a Rockefeller Republican. Plus, he is no realist like James Baker or Henry Kissinger, which requires amorality in foreign policy. (BTW, most Dems are not realists either - they are appeasers. A realist is not afraid to kill people, when it strengthens the balance of power.) He stood up to Arafat, when Clinton was kissing that terrorist's butt! A realist never would have done this. And McCain is solid on spending - everyone knows this. He is also no realist in foreign policy. Like Bush and Giuliani, he is more of a Wilsonian.
You are on stronger ground when you label them "moderates" or "centrists," but I still think neither can be truly be classified as one. McCain is ornery, and not a Republican loyalist, but on ideology he is no moderate/centrist. His spending record is strong, he is conservative on the social issues, and he is dismissive of the fashionable "why don't we talk to the dictators -they will learn to love us" bs. And Giuliani is only a "moderate" on social issues; the mainstream media hates him on everything else, since he is, in their words, a "mean spirited Republican."
I would also like to take issue with the idea that Romney is not a flip flopper on immigration. According to your post, you say he found the prior McCain-Kennedy bill to be "reasonable", although he did not endorse it. He also defended this bill as not being "amnesty". However, now he bashes the current McCain Kennedy, which is actually a more conservative bill than the one produced in 2005, as amnesty and comes out strongly against it. If the first bill was "reasonable", and this bill is more conservative, than shouldn't he call it "more reasonable." I don't expect an endorsement of it, but I do expect consistency.
PS: My disclaimer is that I am leaning towards Giuliani or Fred Thompson (who you ignore) in the presidential race. And I object to this immigration act, since it does not secure our border from illegals, including Arab and Muslim terrorists.
PS2: I think the MSM is going after Romney, not because he is a conservative - which he has become - but because he is too obvious a flip flopper. He has shifted on a large number of big issues - abortion, guns, immigration, gay rights - in the space of four years, all obviously to run for president. This bothers a lot of us, including conservatives like me. (BTW, I will still vote for Romney in the general if he is the nominee. The Dems just don't get it.) |
|
"Gabby" said: Glad you corrected yourself, it saved us the time.
"Gabby" said: Pam, We feel the same way about you.
"Gabby" said: The right people fear us.
"Gabby" you are own best company way out there on the extreme edge of liberal and conservative thought somewhere.
The Hedgehog is right there are better things to do. I am off to the gym. |
|
|
I see why Hugh did not have comments when he controlled his blog. Now, in the TownHall era, it's a total waste of time to read this stuff. (No blanket slam intended-- some of you are actually insightful. Not Gabby, jeffry, or Cato, however. Those three need to get lives. |
|
The utter cynicism and historical ignorance in the allegations that Hugh, VDH, et al are somehow guilty of strategic or political malfeasance because they supported the Iraq war during the years when progress was halting and our understanding of the political realities was inchoate is staggering.
From the outset of WWI in 1914 until the U.S. entered the war in April 1917, there were several arguably pointless battles at Somme, Verdun, etc., with tens of thousands of lost lives, yet in the broader context of the war they were almost inherently inevitable if victory was to be achieved.
The same can be said of Gettysburg, the single greatest loss of American life in any single day, yet it was Lee's loss at a northern battlefield that effectively turned the tide and, among other things, allowed Lincoln to deliver the Emancipation Proclamation.
There are an endless number of examples, but the point is that it's only in retrospect that contemporaneous events become clarified and in the case of warfare, it's always at the horrible cost of human life. That drives the salient point: Do you concede, fall on your political sword, or otherwise capitulate, or do you continuously recalibrate your strategy, knowing that your purpose and goal are worthy of the sacrifice?
The question is which presidential candidate best understands this and has the leadership and conviction of his principles to make the case. That, and that alone matters most because Iraq is only the first of a series of strategic military targets that the radical Islamists have in their cross-hairs.
In brief, Hugh, VDH, and Pasadena Phil, are correct.
Phil Mella ClearCommentary.com |
|
|
Gabby is hilarious, harmless, and her views are utterly misguided and irrelevant. She is not worth responding to because she brings nothing of substance to the debate. Ditto for anyone here who mentions Ron Paul. |
|
"Gabby" said: I am for Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul even if they have a few faults.
I forgot "Gabby" was a Ron Paul supproter. Sounds as though "Gabby" was among the Moveon.org crowd that voted via text message to Fox News to run up Ron Paul's numbers on the candidate's debate.
|
|
Chris Matthews man-love for John McCain would be surpassed by another member of the media, but I'll be darn if Hugh's obsession for Romney has given me second thoughts.
Hugh's infactuation for Ken Doll is downright comical.
For those dismissing Fred Thompson, check out Robert Novak's column from today:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20936
|
|
macfan1950 writes: Gabby, I only see anti-Romney stuff when you post. Do you support *any* candidate, or are you just on life-long mission against anything Mitt?
macfan1950, "Gabby" only posts negative generally ad hominem augments. "Gabby" regularly attacks other Republicans especially George W. Bush. I don't remember "Gabby" ever advocating any Republican candidate with any vigor. I have observed that over time “Gabby” seems to have changed personas so that “Gabby” could in really be a Moveon.org or left wing false flag operation with multiple operators. I could be wrong, but that is what I have observed ...
|
|
Jeffry wins as entry number 24 on this thread as the know-nothing commentor on Mormonism as a reason to attack Candidate Rommney!!! While Powerline may have predicted why MSM has big fangs out for Rommney as a threat to their chosen ones such as Senator McCrank ("McCain is their creation," said Rush Limbaugh one fine morning several years ago), I will predict we'll begin to see more and more "exposes" in the MSM along the uninformed lines of the Jeffry's of the world.
For example, "Kolob" (Jeffry couldn't even get the spelling right) from a literal interpretation is a sun nearest the throne of God and has a revolutionary period (aka day) 1,000 years long according to Mormonism's Book of Abraham, hence the "reckoning of the Lord's time." The figurative interpretation is that Kolob is a reference to Jesus Christ. It is not the "galaxy" God lives in with His many wives. There are many flaws in Mormon doctrine I can see - the 13th Israeli tribe in the Americas tops my list - but the myths are greater in number and sexier to soundbite debaters too lazy to even browse Wikipedia.
The MSM will start digging into the Mormon church and some of its more peculiar doctines as fear of Rommney upsetting the applecart on their Selected Ones grows. No doubt they will pursue this agenda in the same style of professionalism and faithful attention to accuracy as Jeffry. |
|
Hugh has become to conservatism what jello is to concrete.
|
|
I don't see the hypocrisy of having supported the war effort. It is what citizens do when troops are in battle. This is a serious war, bigger certainly than Vietnam and with the virtual certainty of expanding to be more global than WWII. None of us are in a position to claim with certainty that we know what is going on. What we read is information mixed with disinformation with plenty of important missing pieces. That is what happens in wars. What caused all of us to withdraw our support of this president is his Carteresque trait of withdrawing within his circle of cronies and narrowing his energies to fewer and fewer issues as his popularity cratered. Now he is reduced to the amnesty bill as his last chance to, in his mind, leave a positive legacy (to whom though?). The list of cognitive dissonances is long. Engaging in a half-arsed war and citing in armeggedon terms the importance of fighting terror overseas while saving his biggest guns for amnesty was the last straw. Peggy Noonan is right. It's not we conservatives have a choice. We've been kicked out of the GOP.
Say what you will about Hugh, but he provided the big ammo to fuel the demise of the amnesty bill. He is not afraid to dig in and follow the facts. We may disagree but we better get our facts straight. I am looking for a candidate who has Teddy Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan passion to deliver us into a better, less cynical and corrupt world. I'm not feeling it from anybody yet. I'd rather gouge my eyes out than vote for McCain or Giuliani. Could we please move on? |
|
How many more years are we the people going to allow the government's utter failure to secure the border and stop the invasion of our homeland by 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants per year? How many more millions is it going to take to realize that this massive demographic shift really is a Reconquista and threatens our way of life far more than Islamic terrorism?
Here's Teddy Kennedy on immigration over the years:
1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."
2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system."
Does that not make your blood boil? The incompetence of the politicians in Washington to secure our border and have controlled immigration is astounding. Forty years of failure and Americans of both parties are fed up.
McCain is right that Romeny's immigration stance blows with the political winds, so I say forget the frontrunners. The immigration mess is going to be a huge issue in 2008 for both parties. And Americans want no amnesty, true border security and interior enforcement now. Not next year. Not in ten years when there's another ten million here. Now. Build a fence, or send the Marines, or both. Just do it already! What the hell is so hard for the policitians to understand that Americans don't want another twenty million in twenty years? In 1986 it was three million with a promise of secure borders after that? How the hell did we get to here and how much more are we gonna take?
What if we rallied the base, who are so unified on this issue, around a ticket like Hunter/Trancredo with a campaign built around this issue alone and how it ecompasses all other issues including the war on terror and especially the economic future of our nation? Campaign slogan: It's time to end forty years of failure!
The Congressional seats are going to move on this issue as well. You watch. This is the sleeping giant issue and McCain, Rudy, Romney, Hillary or Obaman sure as hell aren't going to do anything other than the status quo, which is forty years of failure and a demographic shift like this country has never seen before. And it's not pretty:
40% graduation rates among anchor baby Latinos in Los Angeles high schools. You think Mayor Villaraigosa's kids go to public schools? Think again. His kids go the best private Catholic school in Pasadena with my brother's kids.
Open borders is a disaster. As Reagan said, "We've lost control of our borders and no country can sustain that kind of position." When are Americans going to wake up that this is the issue that is rising up like a sleeping giant. Medved is for amnesty. Hugh is for eventual regularization. I think most Americans are saying, "What the hell happened since 1986?" And "Why in hell do we have another twelve to twenty million here now?" And "Hell no they don't get citizenship. Are you crazy?" It's time to end birthright citizenship. Attrition through enforcement. Cut the damn numbers. Do we really want a million a year instead of the historical average of less than 200,000 legal immigrants per year? I think Americans don't. How about a ten year moratorium on all immigration until we can get the situation back under control, then a return to a sensible quarter million a year of legal immigrants and zero illegal immigrants per year? As for the twenty million already here, forget the back of the line. What if we said to those who chose to break our laws and jump the line that choices have consequences and you lost your chance to ever get citizenship? Time to go back home with your anchor baby children and fix your own country. There would be riots in the streets of Los Angeles if we said that, but perhaps a little anarchy would be good to wake the country up from the biggest demographic shift in our nation's history with no end in sight. As for the industries like construction and agriculture, sorry guys, but it's past time for some market correction.
Hunter/Tancredo in 2008! Wake up America! This is a war for the sovereignty of our nation.
|
|
Jeffry writes: What drugs must you be on to imagine a narrow-minded, born-again, dumbed-down, white-bread Republican base voting for ANY Mormon?
Jeffry is totally off the wall, of course. But that is beside the point.
He is at least a ransparent loberal, He proves the point of Hugh's book. All we need for libs to succeed is to start a theological war among conservatives. Let's discuss and debate political ideas here and stay away from theology. Libs would love to rope us into that kind of fruitless discussion.
Theological warfare never makes much sense and has a long an sorry history. Consider these:
English Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
Thirty Years War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
|
|
|
Gabby, I only see anti-Romney stuff when you post. Do you support *any* candidate, or are you just on life-long mission against anything Mitt? |
|
|
For those of you attacking Hugh on his coverage of Romney, I would suggest that there is a lot more coverage of Thompson than Romney and it has been that way for several weeks. |
|
What's in that Mormon koolaid that you and Hugh are drinking?
Romney, as a Mormon, believes that God lives on a planet in the Koleb galaxy with his many wives; and that people of color are those who didn't side with God during Lucifer's attempted coup (and therefore evil, inferior, etc.).
What drugs must you be on to imagine a narrow-minded, born-again, dumbed-down, white-bread Republican base voting for ANY Mormon? |
|
McCain is probably not going to be the GOP nominee. But let's look at what is next in the GWOT
First a very limited defense of Joe Klein on Victor Davis Hanson. I respect VDH and think he is great, but he kept silent for three and a half years as Cheney-Rumsfeld lost Iraq through a completely botched occupation. Hugh kept defending Bush on that issue and never to my knowledge ever questioned the President's policies. Suddenly when the entire mission is in danger, Petraeus comes, and VDH and Hugh are all happy about it. Who promoted change in Iraq--McCain! McCain was dismissed as some lunatic in the wilderness when he said to prevail in Iraq we needed to ramp up the effort--while Don Rumsfeld did his best to mimic Robert McNamara. If we want to wonder why Iraq is lost, it is because we (I mean conservatives) did not hold Bush accountable for winning the war. Podhoretz is right, if you start a war you better be sure to win it. Heck, we are currently doing a good job trying to lose Afghanistan through some idiotic poppie erradication program. Immigration, tax cuts, spending, entitlement reform, and fighting corruption/pork, are all critically important--but the GOP is in trouble for botching this war.
Plan B? We are not leaving Iraq (even Obama and Hillary both know that is not going to happen). Middle east stability is too important for global markets. I suspect it will be a pull back of a smaller but sizable force to bases in Anbar and Kurdistan. I suspect that is also the long term plan if we can manage to forestall or prevent a massive Shiite bloodletting for all the attrocities al Qaeda in Mesopotamia have inflicted on Shiite civilians.
Now if Romney is the great hope who will save the GOP from itself, he had better get specific what his plan is for Iraq, followed by immigration, and the rest of the issues we all care about. I am not buying focus group soundbites intended to win primary races. He needs to sell us why he is the best candidate out there. General platitudes are not going to cut it.
Whining about MSM bias and unfairness to Mitt Romney is a bunch of baloney. |
|
Nothing like a conspiracy theory to appeal the vast majority of conservatives who have not bought into your tireless campaign for Romney.
The problem is that you have a track record. The last time you relentlessly worked your listeners (and readers) was for Arnold.
No one will deny that you are a very clever man. If you can get Romney into the White House, maybe that will revive your campaign to get Harriet Meiers onto the Supreme Court. |
|
|
Niether Thompson or Romney are all that conservative but they are more conservative than McCain and Rudy. Thompson will get some help in the short run from the MSM, he is a Baker Republican. However, as he moves to the right he will get attacked by some of the MSM. |
|
A new Gallup poll show that about 1/2 of Republicans think Romney has an excellent or good chance of getting the nomination.
I am getting less worried about Thompson. He will get a puff now but should fade as the campaign develops and emphasis shifts to money, ground game and ad wars.
As far as attacks from Dems are concerned Thompson the lobbist is a sitting duck on numerous fronts if he gets the nomination. For that matter so are Rudy and McCain on various issues. |
|
|
as soon as Fred Thompson enters he'll get all the negative MSM attention as the only real conservative. |
|
I just watched a video of Jim Cramer (stock Guru) in an interview on Hardball. Romney needs to take cuts from this video and make it into an commercial. Cramer has made the best case yet that I have seen for Romney as an economic conservative.
This is a Romney strength. He needs to focus on the economy. He will get so real traction. He is the only real business man in the race and can speak with authority. |
|
...think like a Democrat, if he doesn't see how the Democrats will attack Romney.
Political attacks don't have to be true to be effective. The Dems are masters at this stuff. They just have to play on some existing bias in the population. If Romney's the nominee, they're going to turn Mitt into the fattest of the "crooked" fat cats. Mitt better tell his own story of business success in ads (and not just depend on Hugh's book) before MoveOn.org tells Mitt's story (in ads) for him. They're all set to go I'm sure.
|
|
While I believe Hugh to be incredibly arrogent, smug and well, wrong, he obviously listens to someone. How else would you explain the fact that he has not brought up Thompson's cancer since earlier in the week. You remember don't you? the glee, joy and anticipation as he asked anyone within ear shot what the reoccurance percentage of Thompson's cancer was and would it, "hee hee hee" (in dirk dastardly like voice) would it, shouldn't it disqualify him from the race. Oh but remember Romney is not Hugh's man as he keeps telling us, oh no, all this free ad time and cheerleading couldn't possibly mean that could it.
Seriously this blog and radio show is the best train wreck going right now. What will the spin be when Romney is shown to be the fake plastic tree he really is and the nomination goes elsewhere? oh, I forgot, that is built in too, all of us unbelievers, why we must be mormon bigots. I guess I got to work on that. |
|
Notice who took the biggest overnight hit.
2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 25.1 25.3 25.3 88141 +0.1
2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY Gov Mitt Romney to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 22.1 23.0 22.1 70770 -1.7
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F) Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 25.3 25.4 25.5 21062 +1.4
2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN John McCain to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 16.9 17.0 17.2 87029 -0.8
|
|
Hey guys, Hugh's whole point is that the MSM (and others) will keep mentioning Romney in a negative light when they see him as a threat. So, they're seeing him as a threat more and more, they're writing about him more and more, so expect more and more of it to show up here, too.
Now, in my view those of you who continue with the "flip-flip" or "run to the right" routine on Romney need to dig a little deeper. Don't be satisfied with a YouTube blip or a couple of lines in an article. If you're serious about finding a good candidate to support, then you'd better do in-depth research on *all* of them. That's what Hugh was saying to Joe Klein in his interview yesterday. Romney is not a shallow person--those who say he is are showing that they are shallow themselves. Read up on how he does business--he surrounds himself with people with all kinds of views on an issue so he can come to a good conclusion on that issue.
OK, for the Romney flip-flop crowd (well, anyone, really), take a look at these two links and you'll see that the only issue Romney has flipped on is abortion. And, if you look carefully at how it happened, it wasn't an easy thing for him to do. Here's the two links:
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/05/desperate-times-call-for-desperate.asp
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/saying_all_the_right_things.php |
|
McCain says "there is no plan B in Iraq". What does that mean? Sounds like he has already blamed Bush for the upcoming "cut and run" and will use it to wash his hands of the issue. We better have a plan B. The Pakistan regime is on the verge of being toppled by Islamist extremists, and thay already have nukes.
Why I am wasting my time. McCain is done. |
|
|
|
The MSM and liberal democrats don't like the idea of someone who will reduce taxes and cut government funding. It means less cash in their socialistic coffers. Less cash means less control. They are blinded as to what's good for America by their own greed and lust for power. Romney is perhaps the best qualified candidates in many years. I find it sad that so many have bought into the MSM's label of Mitt being a flip-flopper. A flip-flopper is someone who goes back and forth. A reasoned change of mind is not only promising, but healthy in all our politicians. I doubt that there are many among conservatives who have not changed their views as they hear more or different arguments on various subjects. Unless you know everything at 21 years old, you'd better be ready to change your views occasionally.
|
|
Hugh,
You wrote:
"In short, Klein delivers another example of exactly what Mirengoff pointed too four months ago --a collective shudder among the MSM at the prospect of yet another conservative GOP nominee who could keep the White House in Republican hands"
Supporting Mitt Romney is fine well and good. But please do not pretend that he is really all that conservative. If you view and watch these three clips...
Looks & Sounds Like Romney - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Abortion - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&mode=related&search=
Weird, I thought he was against campaign-finance reform? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktH1FpNqlOc
...you can only come to two conclusions. He believed the things he said in each of these clips and thus is far more liberal than conservative, or he did not believe them and has, yes, positions and not principals. Positions that, conveniently enough, change depending upon the office he is seeking.
Mitt Romney has been spectacularly successful in much of what he has pursued in life, and for that he deservers to be given a ton of credit. He also seems to be a very good person as well, but he is not the slam-dunk nominee that you would have us believe he is, and John McCain is not the absolute screw up you are portraying him as.
Over the last four years there has not been any elected republican, certainly not President Bush, that has done a better job of defending the war in Iraq than John McCain. Do you really think the 2008 election should be about anything other than Iraq and attacking the Islamic fascists that hope to destroy us? If you agree that the GWOT should be the focus, than do you really think McCain should be given no consideration?
You talk and write about John McCain in much the same way you do Joe Biden? In my opinion he deserves far, far better than that. Give credit where credit is due. |
|
Talk about close minded. Klein lost me with his dismissal of folks like Victor Davis Hanson, Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn. Of course, John McCain is in full agreement with those three on Iraq (which just shows that closed mindedness is not just a condition of the left).
I am of the school that Iraq War was the correct decision and a winable situation that was sqaundered for three or four years, and now we have to fix it (or at least mitigate the damage). Others were for the war but now that it is getting hard want to run away. Others were against the war from the get, but only a few are honest or realistic enough to accept that we need to deal with this issue. Due to world wide dependance on oil, neither Democrat or Republican will fully abandon the region. |
|
There is some similarity between Edwards and Romney--if only physically. They are both youngish looking attractive middle age guys, with attractive families. They are, of course, very different on policy--but the right has been gunning for Edwards and the left (now that Romney's star is rising a bit) is gunning for him.
Some of it is about kicking out a challenger who might become dangerous later on. The right assumes that Barak "Hussein" Obama cannot win (I disagree with that, Obama is much more of a threat than Edwards, but that is a general belief). Given Hillary's high unfavorables, they perceive Edwards as the bigger threat. Look at Dean Barnett. He is on an Edwards jihad.
Some of it is just low hanging fruit. Edwards was stupid enough to build a mega-mansion and then get a $400 haircut.
Similarily, Romney's march to the right has left a number of past quotes from his past (convienently available on YouTube) that just keeps fueling the "flip flop" meme. |
|
|
|
|
But I'll say it anyway. This blog has become a parody of itself with this constant Romney coverage. And I say that as a Romney supporter. |
|
|
|