Rally for Romney
Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.By Mark R. Levin
I have spent nearly four decades in the conservative movement  from precinct worker to the Reagan White House. I campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. I served in several top positions during the Reagan administration, including chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese. I have been an active conservative when conservatism was not in high favor.
I remember in 1976, as a 19-year-old in Pennsylvania working the polls for Reagan against the sitting Republican president, Gerald Ford, I was demeaned for supporting a candidate who was said to be an extremist B-actor who couldn’t win a general election, and opposing a sitting president. And at the time Reagan wasn’t even on the ballot in Pennsylvania because he decided to focus his limited resources on other states. I tried to convince voter after voter to write-in Reagan’s name on the ballot. In the end, Reagan received about five percent of the Republican vote as a write-in candidate.
Hannity looks nicer in person
.jpg)
Thank God for the Great One and talk radio! I don’t see anything wrong with continuing to fight. Just because the media and political junkies keep pushing their opinions and polls doesn’t mean we have to give up and throw in the towel. Heck, if we’d gone by what exit polls and media reports have given us as done deals before, we’d have had a President “Gore” and “Kerry” – God help us!! If arrogant politicians like McCain and his flunkie, Crist there in Florida keep treating conservatives as the “enemy” by avoiding appearing on talk shows or shrugging off concerned questioning, they sure aren’t doing themselves any favors.
Well that about sums it up. The MSM is doing the same thing they did with Ford. They are propping up McCain as they did Ford in order to make sure the more Conservative candidate loses and the Democrat takes the White House. It really scares me that most Americans fall for this type of political crap.
I could not agree more with TGO’s analysis of this primary race. I’ve just spent over an hour reading Victor Davis Hanson’s column, (Democrats Want to Lose… But Republicans Don’t want to Win) over at Townhall.com, as well as all of the almost 150 comments that followed, and my head hurts already.
I know for sure that I don’t want Hillary or Obama to win, yet the mere thought of McCain as our president, with all of his wrongheaded ideas on so many very important policies, is something that I fear almost as much as a Democrat win in ’08. Perhaps even more, because then it will be the Republicans who will be held responsible for the bad stuff.
So I agree with Mark. I think we really do need to do whatever we can to support and rally behind Mitt Romney, and hope that we succeed in getting him the nomination. If McCain ends up getting it instead, I’m not sure what I’ll do. Writing Romney’s name in keeps coming to mind. I’ll have to see how I feel if and when (hopefully never) I’m faced with that decision.
Any advice or words of comfort from you guys would be greatly appreciated. I think we all feel pretty much the same way right about now.
I know in my case since it’s looking more and more like our nominee is going to be less than inspiring, I’m going to look beyond just the presidential nominations and also look at and support republicans running for Congress during this cycle. Conventional wisdom is touting that democrats are going to pick up more seats in the House and the Senate. I find this horrifying because regardless of whether we get a republican in the White House, a solid democrat Congress will be his undoing anyway. Worst than what’s going on now. Reid & Pelosi staying in the shadows hoping no one notices. We need to get more republicans in the Congress because that way we can protect ourselves against the unfortunate possibility of a President McCain and they can vote down any ghastly bills he may put forth. Also, it would be a small consolation knowing that there are enough republicans in the Congress to go against a President Hillary or Obama, if that horrible scenario comes true. Make their life a living hell.
Would it do any good to tell Republicans that McCain cannot possibly win in November against either Clinton or Obama? I doubt it. In fact, McCain as the nominee is probably a good thing, given the evident mania on the part of the general electorate to elect—regardless of qualifications—either a woman or an African-American (or both?). Safe to say, it doesn’t matter in our current political climate whether McCain or Romney is the nominee—either will lose to the Democrat nominee. The ensuing disaster will pave the way for a 2012 win by the Republican (probably Romney) candidate.
The unofficial word is that McCain could beat Hillary or Obama in the Presidential race because of the support offered by conservative and moderate Democrats that gave Reagan his victory. Polls exist that show McCain with a seven to eight point advantage. There is some substance to this because many in the left are as dissatisfied with Hillary as we are with McCain and I have spoken to several California liberals that are of this ant- Hillary mindset. Rush Limbaugh described his cocktail party liberal associates as being in love with McCain as well.
Although the above may be true at this point in time it has zero relevance to the general election where the liberal issues will be well articulated by their candidate for many long months before the election. Remember these same Democrats, with a McCain affection today, are the same people that hate GW. Do they like McCain because he disagrees with Bush? Probably, but consider that the main issue for which they dislike GW is the war and McCain represents himself as GW on steroids in his zest for the war. How long will it be before they discover that they are getting Bush all over again on the main issues they care about? So what real advantage does McCain represent in the final months, weeks, days and hours before the general election? Can he sell the war better than Bush or Romney to carry over Democrats? No. The MSM will not let him. Democrats will vote for Democrats and not a Democrat impersonator. That leaves McCain in need of all Republican voters anxious to stand on line to beat either Hillary of Obama. There is the rub. When our candidate cannot be distinguished from the other candidate many Conservatives will stay home. Not all but enough to very much endanger a McCain victory.
The entire McCain strategy, to win over Conservatives and Moderates, is to say to us that no matter how much we despise him we should nevertheless stand behind him in the general election because we despise Hillary even more. I’ve got news for the McCain people. That may convince Moderates to think that is what Conservatives will do but they are being duped and McCain has duped himself in the process. I don’t need a heavyweight Conservative to vote for but I am not convinced that a mal tempered, stubborn liberal with a long history of anti-Republican legislation is somehow going to have an epiphany and finally, after 71 years, act like even a moderate Republican, let alone a Conservative. I don’t buy it. He needs Democrats that he will not get or he needs all Republicans that he will not get.
Another thing. McCain says that he is the most qualified to lead this Country in the War on Terror yet look at his immigration record regarding border security. What good does it do to have an army protecting the front door of your house when you take the back door off the hinges and throw it into the garden? His laxity on controlling the Southern border is abysmal. Worst of all is that the man doesn’t come from Massachusetts where Romney was Governor. Not surprisingly he comes from a relevant border State where he did absolutely nothing to discourage illegals from using his State as a portal to the rest of the Country. This is exactly the location any terrorist would attempt entry. For a man so conscious of the war he cannot see the danger he allowed to persist in his own State during his entire Senate career yet he proposes that he will accomplish a correction when he becomes President. And we should believe him?
I was so mad last night after the debate that I wrote this letter to Senator John McCain:
Senator McCain,
Over the years I have been an admirer of your courage as a POW. I have also been impressed when it seemed that you were a man of integrity in the Senate, in spite of your opposition to many Republican and conservative positions. However, during the course of the current campaign, I have become convinced that I was wrong to think so highly of you. I no longer recognize you as the hero who long ago stood up to your Vietnamese captors and defended what was right. Let me explain why.
I have observed your recent debates and political posturing, including your dishonest attacks on Governor Mitt Romney’s position on Iraq. I say dishonest because I have read the entire transcript and watched the video of Romney’s April 2006 Good Morning America interview, upon which you based your attack. Frankly, I do not see how any honest observer could conclude that Romney ever supported the Democrats’ proposed legislation imposing a timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq. In that interview Romney specifically stated that as president he would veto any such proposal. What part of veto did you not understand? Romney went on at some length to explain exactly why he would veto that type of “timeline for surrender”. Romney did also discuss some private timelines and benchmarks that he would apply in dealing with the Iraqi government. Haven’t President Bush, General Patreus and even you also supported such plans as part of our war strategy? You even said that if your benchmarks were not met you would withdraw the troops. Couldn’t that be misconstrued as your own timeline for withdrawal? Your continued attacks on Romney on this phony issue say nothing about Romney, but do raise troubling questions as to your own honesty, character and intellect.
Why is this all so important to me? It goes far beyond an honest debate on Iraq policy or mere election year politics. It goes directly to the character issues that I believe are of utmost importance in selecting a president. I know that you never attended Harvard Law School, but most Americans know, either from jury duty or from inherent good sense, that a person who is intentionally untruthful on one important matter may be distrusted on all others. If you can look the American people in the eye and blatantly lie about Romney’s Iraq position, how can we trust you on other important issues facing our country? Frankly, your campaign tactics reek of Clinton-style ethics.
Beyond your lack of honesty, I am concerned by your pathological inability to concede any error in political judgment. Your lie about Romney is just one example where you stubbornly cling to a position even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that you were wrong. You somehow believe that you are always right, even when your current position has changed 180 degrees from what your have said in the past. On the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill, which the American people rejected so vehemently, you now say that you support securing the border first. But, if you can’t admit that you were wrong previously on amnesty, how can we believe your election year conversion to border security? In fact, on Meet the Press on January 27, 2008, you told Tim Russert that, if given the opportunity as president, you would sign the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill. So, how can we know which is the real McCain policy?
On the issue of the Bush tax cuts that you voted against, you have changed your public justification for your votes. Do you think that we don’t remember what you said at the time about “tax cuts for the rich”? Why should we believe you when you say that your real reason for voting against the tax cuts was because spending was not being controlled? Inexplicably, you also say now that you support making the same tax cuts permanent. Were you wrong before, or do you think that spending is suddenly under control? If Romney took such inconsistent and illogical positions you would deride him as a “flip-flopper”.
Your choices on campaign tactics, amnesty and tax cuts show that your judgment is seriously flawed. Your inability to even recognize such errors is itself a flaw in character. What is it about your psyche that prevents you from saying, “I was wrong.”? Integrity is not believing you are never wrong. Humility is not weakness. Stubborn adherence to a known mistake is simply foolish. As president, how could you objectively deal with complex legal, diplomatic and economic issues if you ignore the plain facts and only see what you want to see? In a time of crisis, will you misconstrue a foreign leader’s words to fit your own preconceived notions or to justify your own past mistakes? Where will that lead us?
It is now clear to me that you lack the personal integrity, judgment and intellect the presidency requires. I cannot support you in the primary, and I will not vote for you if you are nominated. You are manifestly unfit for office. You may not like to hear it, but that is straight talk.
Sincerely,
Concerned Voter
That IS “Straight Talk” – and if you managed to get to say it to his stroke-prone reddening face, he would likely curse and threaten you with bodily mayhem. He IS “manifestly unfit for office”!! Amen, Kaanapali! (Are you on Maui?) Mahalo!
Watching the debate last night it I was reminded of how differently the two parties are treated by the media. Journalists coddle Democrats; Republicans get thoroughly grilled. Democrats in office do not need to explain policy decisions to the electorate—they have the mainstream media to do that for them. The MSM dutifully delivers the propaganda with alacrity. Republican administrations, however, confront an inimical press that portrays Republican policy in a negative, and usually dishonest, manner. Such a state of affairs makes it imperative that any given Republican administration directly, and thoroughly, inform the electorate of policy. This routinely does not happen, though. A case in point will illustrate.
On the evening of January 31, 2008, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer moderated the final Democratic debate before Super Tuesday. Journalists from the Los Angeles Times and POLITICO asked Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama questions that were, with a couple of possible exceptions, softballs. During one of his responses to a question regarding withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama scolded the Bush administration for meddling in another country’s affairs in the first place. His view is that we had no business being involved in a military conflict that Iraq should have been able to handle by itself. No one on the panel of journalists asked him how it is possible for an unaided Iraq to successfully defend itself against, not simply an aggressor nation, but rather a determined, globally-based enemy that purchases state-of-the-art weaponry from, and is logistically supported by, such countries as Iran, Russia, and China. Neither did anyone on the panel of journalists ask him to explain why a defeat of the Iraqis would not directly and immediately affect the security of the United States. The effect of such a defeat has been described in chilling detail by more that one military expert.
Here is yet another opportunity—in a long list of (missed) opportunities—for the Republican administration to defend itself against the Democrats’ (and their MSM propaganda arm’s) unfairness. I believe it is safe to say, though, that this most recent opportunity will also not be taken advantage of (and yet, from what I’ve seen so far, I believe a Romney administration WOULD take advantage of such an opportunity). How can this be? Why do Republican administrations typically wallow in idle passivity when attacked? It’s maddening. Such cluelessness reminds me of George H.W. Bush’s consternation toward the end of his one-term presidency when confronted with his plummeting approval ratings. Bewildered at his political demise, he asked a staffer (within earshot of a reporter) “What the hell is going on out there?” That one incident is as good an example as any of the mindset of the patrician Republican establishment. They live in a bubble. Apparently, it doesn’t occur to them that they should counterattack the Left. Sadly, we know all too well the consequences.
If there is one person that I can count upon to be a mental sluggard incapable of the fast-footed responses necessary to deliver the intellectual thunder required to cripple and remove the opposition candidate along with their MSM support team it is John McCain. I have complete confidence in either of the two Democrat hopeful dunces trouncing the McCain nomination dunce without even breaking a sweat. In fact all they need to do is allow McCain to demolish himself by virtue of his own intemperance. No class act here. He cannot articulate upon Conservative issues because he is not one and they can better articulate for the social misconceptions far better than he can argue against them. This guy is a slam-dunk loser that will soon be debunked after he sets us on the straight course express to defeat where reverse is no longer an option.
McCain has begun asserting his true Conservative credentials, and has even aligned himself with the Reagan Conservative Revolution.
But,
>> McCain entertained the idea of being John Kerry’s running mate as VP in 2004. Not only merely entertaining, but took steps to approach Kerry’s team on this idea.
>> McCain, as a pro-lifer, supports embryonic stem cell research.
McCain’s mother on TV, has said on air, that Conservatives will be FORCED to vote for McCain in the Nationals. She meant Conservatives do not have a choice but to vote McCain!
As task said above – McCain has consistently championed for open borders (and AMNESTY) as a would-be Commander in Chief who brags about his leadership on National Security.
MIT ROMNEY deserves better from the GOP, and from the Conservative base! Rally behind him before we lose him! He can come in as Commander In Chief and start removing the deadwood of Pubicanism and Rinoism, that have accumulated, and strangulated the true Conservative voice of the GOP. And start repairing and rebuilding the Conservative foundations of the Party.