McCain a Less Risky Choice Than Romney
Filed under: 2008 elections, Republican Party — Alan Stewart Carl on January 25, 2008 @ 5:08 pm CET
Mitt Romney is gaining in the Republican polls and that’s simply not something I understand. Yes, I know John McCain is not well-loved in his party but it takes some serious mental contortions to believe Romney is a better choice.
Let’s leave aside the fact that McCain is vastly more qualified and has shown a level of courage and leadership far surpassing whatever sits inside the well-tailored suit of Romney. Let’s also leave aside electability, which also greatly favors McCain. Let’s just look at what makes both these candidates unacceptable for Republicans.
McCain: Has repeatedly and often proudly committed the sin of ideological independence. While I find this to be a sign of strong character and mental acuity, I understand why pure-blooded Republicans see it as tantamount to apostasy.
Romney: Has committed the sin of flip floppery. The man held one set of beliefs when governor of Massachusetts and now holds a whole different set. He hasn’t merely had one or two opinions evolve over time, he’s had a whole grab bag full of opinions change overnight.
So, this is the choice facing Republicans. They can choose a man who, while holding some heretical beliefs, is known as a decisive leader who will keep conservativism alive if not pristine. We know where McCain stands and we know he won’t shift and slide with every new wind.
OR, Republicans can choose a man whose true beliefs are an absolute mystery. Sure, he says all the right conservative things now but will he make dramatic course changes the moment a poll shows public opinion is against him? Haven’t Republicans been telling us for the last seven years that what makes Bush so great is that you always know where he stands and that you know he won’t falter? Now Republicans want a guy who could very well fall over at the first mild breeze.
Obviously, the choices before Republicans are not perfect. But it’s not like free-spending, amnesty-pushing, McCain-Feingold signing, federal-power expanding George Bush has exactly been a good steward of conservativism. If a return to Reaganism is impossible (and it is), then shouldn’t Republicans pick the candidate likely to do the least damage to their beliefs?
McCain is essentially just a few inches to Bush’s left. Romney? Who knows. And who really wants to take the risk?
1 Jim
January 25, 2008 @ 5:37 pm CETWhy Romney is less risky:1) While he HAS changed is views on abortion, it’s his god-given right to do so. In so doing, he likely alienated a large portion of moderate and independent voters only to receive suspicion and criticism.2)As governor of a liberal state, he ran conservative policies. He was against gay marriage (as he always has been), lowered spending, shrank the government, reversed a deficit, all while not raising taxes.Quite frankly, your article doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Why knock " free-spending, amnesty-pushing, McCain-Feingold signing, federal-power expanding" George Bush when you’ve got a grandstanding, attention-grabbing, credit-taking, amnesty-pushing, McCain-Feingold MAKING angry old senator? Where is the much touted consistency about supporting taxes when rejecting the Bush Tax Cuts because they "only favor the rich" to use his words. He’s said himself that he doesn’t know much about the economy, even as recently as last month "I don’t know much about the economy…I have Greenspan’s book…" Please, the so-called "straight talk express" has long since been derailed. What some refer to as being a Maverick I see as a flip-flopper in the making as McCain lamely tries to assert that he was really acting as a conservative the whole time. Please, if you’re going to try to assign the label "flip-flopper," you’d better not be supporting another politician. They ALL do it.
2 Mark
January 25, 2008 @ 5:44 pm CETI have spent about the entire past year studying Romney’s record and his statements he makes now. Honestly…. Gov. Romney has really only changed 1 or 2 positions. He’s not this impulsive flip-flopper that the media has been portraying himself as. Sure, if you skim the surface you may find some questionable things but what I find that the media REFUSES to do is listen to Romney’s explanations. I have listened to them and understand them and he has NOT changed positions on all of these issues. I’d like the writer of this article to point out all of the "flip-flops" Romney has made and we can address them one by one. The label doesn’t belong on Romney because they’re simply superficial and contain no substance.
3 Jay
January 25, 2008 @ 5:51 pm CETThis is pretty shameful reporting. Romney has "had a whole grab bag full of opinions change overnight"? I like how you can say that, but you can’t take the time to name them. However, McCain has never done this??? Wrong!
MacFlops -(a little bit of paraphrasing)
Tax cuts - "I’m against tax cuts….until Florida comes along, so now I’m all for tax cuts, never mind that I voted against them twice"
Jobs - "I’m gonna be frank with you and tell you that these jobs aren’t coming back here…..er, wait! I can get other jobs and retrain you since Romney is gonna at least give it a try."
Conservatism - "I’m a maverick, I vote how I vote…..er, I mean, I am proud to always be in line with my party, now that everyone has picked up on the fact that my wins come thanks to independent voters in open primaries."
Economy - "I wish I knew more about the economy….er, I mean I’m an economic genius uniquely suited to pull us through this crisis."
4 Trey
January 25, 2008 @ 5:54 pm CET"Vastly more qualified"? What!? are you serious, qualified in politics by years yes, But John McCain has done nothing in the senate that Mitt did not do as governor of MA. Then add to the fact that Mitt has an impeccable private sector history which John does not have and you have one of the, if not the most qualified candidate in the entire race, Republican or Democrat.
5 Jay
January 25, 2008 @ 5:56 pm CETWhy Romney is less risky - He has succeeded in everything he has done in life. Family, Business, NFP (2002 Olympics), Massachusetts turnaround.
McCain has votes yes, no, or present. That has been his job for 25 years. His second job has been to court democrats and introduce some of the worst legislation ever seen…
McCain/Feingold - Campaing Finance Reform (hurt free speech)
McCain/Kennedy - Amnesty
McCain/Lieberman - Mandates designed to lessen impact of man made global warming. Mandates that will blow another whole in the already sinking economy.
Why is McCain even a choice?
6 Lomi
January 25, 2008 @ 6:02 pm CETAccording to Mark Levine, Mclame is really dangerous. He is no republican. And I believe that! Haven’t you heard Mclame Feingold, Mclame amnesty Kennedy and of course his outburst when confronted with opposing views? Hardly a statesman! He thinks we owe him the position of POTUS because he was a war hero. Yes, he was a war hero and that’s about it. I don’t trust with our immigration and economy. Romney can unite the conservative base of our party. All sides of our party. And Mclame can’t do that.
7 Craig Loveland
January 25, 2008 @ 6:04 pm CETRomney’s record as Governor is consistent with his message today: pro-life, lower-taxes, improved education and overall integrity. He did change his position on abortion or we should say in Government’s role in controlling access to abortions. This change was early in his term as Governer–and since he has voted consistently and speaks consistently. Best of all he is intelligent and the hardest working candidate of the bunch. He would make a great president and can win it all.
8 Rudi666
January 25, 2008 @ 6:17 pm CETCarl -You have angered the Romneybots.
9 Brock
January 25, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CETThanks for your participation, Mr. McCain. You can meet Fred, Rudy, and Huckabee in the consolation round for VP at the Republican Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul come September.
10 Romney » McCain a Less Risky Choice Than Romney
January 25, 2008 @ 6:25 pm CET[…] Alan Stewart Carl wrote an interesting post today on McCain a Less Risky Choice Than RomneyHere’s a quick excerptMitt Romney is gaining in the Republican polls and that’s simply not something I understand. Yes, I know John McCain is not well-loved in his party but it takes some serious mental contortions to believe Romney is a better choice. … […]
11 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 6:40 pm CETLOL. It’s really too bad that the GOP isn’t showing it’s usual discipline; normally it’s the Dems who implode with infighting and since they’re going at it like mad right now, the GOP could sit back and watch the election be handed to them. Instead, we have to have our own Jerry Springer show.
12 Alan Stewart Carl
January 25, 2008 @ 6:42 pm CETSince running for Senate in 1994, Romney has gone from a center-left or center-right position to a solidly right position on all these issues:
abortion
gay rights
gun control
immigration
climate change
taxes
Candidates can evolve. They can change their positions. That’s fine. But Romney’s positions don’t seem to evolve naturally, they change when it’s politically convenient for them to change. He wanted to be governor of a blue state so he was a RINO. Now he wants to get the Republican nominee for president, so he’s a conservative. If he gets the nomination who’s to say what his positions on major issues will be next? What guides his ideology? Personal conviction or public polls?
McCain ain’t perfect but his position changes have been within the norm for politicians.
13 Nevadagirl
January 25, 2008 @ 6:47 pm CETThese comments are a far cry from angry, irrational and emotion-laden Jerry Springets. Hey, if Romneybots are all as smart, articulate, objective and well-spoken as those who have left these impressive comments here - count me in and sign me up!
14 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 6:48 pm CETYou nailed it in comment #12 on why I prefer McCain to Romney too (though I’ll definitely vote for either one without a whole lot of reservation.)
Add to that the way Romney’s going to each state and telling them what they want to hear (he’ll bring jobs and send federal aid to Michigan, he’ll support another pool of assistance for hurricane insurance for FL- though I think he’s somehow claiming he can do this without taxing other states, but I’ve no idea how he plans to do that.)
15 wj
January 25, 2008 @ 6:54 pm CETRomneybot: n. (Based on their behavior here) A former Ron Paul fanatic, who needs a new cause to rant about. The actual beliefs involved are, apparently, irrelevant.
I realize that these may be an entirely different set of people. But the tone of their comments just sounds so, so familiar.
16 Rudi666
January 25, 2008 @ 7:23 pm CETwj - The two bots are different groups, but display the same behaviour. What I find interesting is the smackdown of the Paulbots by these very same Romneybots here at PoilG.
CS - Even I would support McCain over Billary, probably even vote for the "old fart". Isn’t some of Romney’s positions the same triangulation that the Clinton’s practise?
17 michaelreynolds
January 25, 2008 @ 7:36 pm CETI just don’t think this country is ready for his kind. I just don’t think we are ready to elect a reptile.
18 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 7:41 pm CETYes, and that’s what troubles me. I think the GOP has already gone Dem lite on economic issues- Bush’s SOTU sound like Dems with laundry lists of new programs. Romney’s either lying in his campaign promises or he’ll do the same thing.
I think fiscal cons have become so fixated on tax cuts and have ignored spending problems- so I guess that’s why they aren’t objecting to Romney’s left leaning economic promises.
19 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 7:52 pm CETRudi: Imagine, you and I might be supporting the same candidate. Who’dathunkit?
20 Rudi666
January 25, 2008 @ 7:54 pm CETCS - How about this "Axis of
EvilTriangulation" - Romney, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Being from Michigan, I thought Mitter’s pandering compared to McCain’s truthfulness was a joke. The auto industry is going through the changes that the steel industry suffered in the 1980’s. To promise the moon was a slap in the face of his fathers history.21 Tully
January 25, 2008 @ 8:06 pm CETI just don’t think we are ready to elect a reptile.
That’s never stopped us before….
22 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 8:21 pm CETYeah, the anti-reptile bigotry has really gone down in recent years; it’s almost as though it’s not an issue anymore.
23 Lee
January 25, 2008 @ 8:23 pm CETMcCain a less risky choice? Your exactly right. A less risky liberal choice, because he panders to the liberals. You liberal media main streams love McCain, based on his record rightfully so. The thing about Romney that you despise is his ability to get the truth out. When you fabricate another flip-flop Romney falsehood, he simply counters by buying advertising time to set the record start. Now I think I am starting to understand why you are the way you are. My vote and, based on the article I just read, now my money is going behind Romney. Thanks for getting me off the fence.
24 Nate
January 25, 2008 @ 8:25 pm CETThis article lost my interest in the first paragraph when you could see the author’s blatant bias towards McCain. "Let’s leave aside the fact that McCain is vastly more qualified and has shown a level of courage and leadership far surpassing whatever sits inside the well-tailored suit of Romney. Let’s also leave aside electability, which also greatly favors McCain. Let’s just look at what makes both these candidates unacceptable for Republicans. " This is very poor persuasive writing unless the author is trying to appeal to only McCain fans and liberals; which in that case the author wouldn’t be persuading anyone at all.
25 Rudi666
January 25, 2008 @ 8:28 pm CETCS - If my favorite Michigan governor endorses McCain, he can’t be all bad. But Milliken’s endorsement is a kiss of death for McCain and the Republican base. The above Bill is a favorite mine , not Billary’s husband. But the old Moderate/Liberal Republicans died in Michigan with Engler, who did Rovian things before W was even a politician.
26 Michael van der Galien
January 25, 2008 @ 8:45 pm CETBlahblah. Dude: I’m the owner of this website and I’ve endorsed Romney.
27 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 8:49 pm CETAdmit it, Michael, that was just a trick to keep people from realizing that your blog is actually part of the liberal MSM. You know, the same liberal MSM that likes McCain so much because he gets 80-90% approval ratings from conservative interest groups.
You guys think you’re so clever but we’re on to you.
28 trailman101
January 25, 2008 @ 9:06 pm CETTake a closer look at Romney. He has not radically changed his position on many issues. Conversely, McCain has changed on just as many fundamentally important issues and is far more irritated when he is forced to acknowledge or explain his flipflops. Romney’s explanations are even and believable. Risky? Looking at McCain’s actual record on conservative issues, you can pretty well expect him to become a near-democrat once elected as president. On the other hand, Romney’s actual record in Mass. plus the past 40 years of his life demonstrate that he does not change core values and that these govern his whole life in a far more dependable way. He is not capricious. McCain has shown that he can be. McCain’s propensity to be the "Maverick" prevents him from leading. It is more important to him to sound independent than to govern according to values. Romney will seek compromise and cooperation but will not abandon his party and it’s beliefs. Don’t listen to Huckasoundbites or McCaingripes. Instead, look at Romney’s performance in Mass., the Olympics and Bain very closely. You will like what you see.
29 Mark Fieltry
January 25, 2008 @ 9:10 pm CETMcCain is funded by Joe DioGuardi’s Albanian Heroin lobby and by the Bananas crime family and you say he is less risky?
30 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 9:18 pm CETtrailman: It’s so funny how different people interpret things so very differently. For you, Romney’s changes of position are more acceptable because they’re ‘even and believable’ (I don’t really understand what that means, but anyway…) while McCain gets angry when he has to explain a change in position. To me, the latter is actually one thing I find refreshing; he’s not trying to spin, in many cases (though lately there’s been a bit of that); generally he will acknowledge when his position didn’t have enough support and he’s had to come around. Like on the border fence; he still says he doesn’t think it’s the most efficient way to stem illegal immigration (and he’s right) but he’s willing to give in and support the fence and he says he’s heard the message that the people sent to him.
To me, that’s much more respectable than someone who adopted more liberal views on social issues out of convenience to get elected in a liberal state, but now wants everyone to believe that his more conservative positions are his real ones.
31 Steven
January 25, 2008 @ 9:19 pm CETWhen McCain changes his mind on an issue it is "ideological independence." When Romney changes his mind on an issue, it is flip floppery.
Vanderbilt University did a study on why the flip flop label is used against Romney and not McCain. They rigorously demonstrated that those who use the flip flop label use it to obfuscate their real issue, which is that Romney does not belong to the approved religion.Accusing someone of being a flip-flopper is thought to sound as though the critic is being ideologically consistent, though if he accepts the flip flops of others, obviously he is not. But accusing someone of not belonging to the preferred church sounds narrow minded all the time, everywhere. So they pick flip-flopper, though what they mean is that Romney is not a Baptist.
32 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 9:24 pm CETGot a link to that research? Sounds rather fishy to me, and I’d like to see that rigorous methodology.
It seems more likely to me that people who say that all opposition to Romney is based on anti-Mormon bigotry are the ones who are doing the obfuscation. It’s far more honest to admit that some people see real problems with his record, and then debate on the merits of that- if you feel his record stands up to scrutiny, then defend it rather than trying to call all of your opponents bigots.
33 casualobserver
January 25, 2008 @ 9:27 pm CEThe still says he doesn’t think it’s the most efficient way to stem illegal immigration (and he’s right)
Now there’s a good set-up line for a snappy retort, but I’ll probably get hanged by the PC police…….
34 Alvin
January 25, 2008 @ 9:32 pm CETLiberals are getting into a rut with this John McCain worship. Since when are they so concerned about conservatives making the right choice for the Republican nominee? Hmmm, could it be that the thought of running against Romney terrifies them? True conservatives take note: When Democrats and the liberal press (including the New York Times) favor a candidate (McCain) it is a clear indication that Romney is the candidate they fear.
35 Steven
January 25, 2008 @ 9:33 pm CETNow I’m not saying that ALL opposition to Romney is based upon religious bigotry. Good people have differences upon issues. But there are strong indications that those who use the flip-flop label do so to cover up their religious bigotry.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases/2008/1/18/vanderbilt-poll-explains-why-romneys-flip-flopper-label-sticks-political-scientist-says-anti-mormon-bias-finds-cover
36 Alan Stewart Carl
January 25, 2008 @ 9:37 pm CETSteven,
I actually read that study when writing this piece (I’m sure it’s a shock to some critics here that I actually did some research and didn’t just pull ideas from McCain talking points). The Vanderbilt study poses an interesting theory and is likely true in some cases. However, I certainly have no issue with his religion and imagine many others don’t either. It’s improper to assume all critiques of Romney’s flip flopping are based on religious bigotry.
The real issue isn’t whether or not he’s changed positions, but whether those changes were honest or whether they were opportunistic. I see them as opportunistic and thus I have a lot of trouble trusting him. If he gets the nomination, I’ll give him a fair hearing. But for the primaries, I’d prefer McCain.
Which answers someone else’s comment about me being blantantly pro McCain. This is an opinion piece so my bias should be acceptable. In fact, it would have been dishonest of me to pretend I’m on the fence. I’m not. I prefer McCain and I wrote this piece to demonstrate one reason why.
37 Alan Stewart Carl
January 25, 2008 @ 9:44 pm CETThree more things…
1) I’m glad that after 24 hours of being at PoliGazette I’m now a member of the MSM. Horray for me. Where do I pick up my membership card?
2) Why are some assuming I’m liberal? I’m actually more likely to vote for Romney than Clinton. What does that mean?
3) I would like to know how many Republicans who are defending Romney for his position changes were screaming "flip flop!" at John Kerry 4 years ago. Why were Kerry’s less dramatic flops more disqualifying than Romney’s flops?
38 Michael
January 25, 2008 @ 9:51 pm CETYou want to talk about a flip flopper? John McCain is the Flip flopper. Look at his record. Who knows where he stands as far as illegal immigration is concerned. The "straight talk express" man was one of the only two republican cannidates to vote against the Bush Tax cuts! Now he says that he supports them and wants to make them permenant. The man is as weezly as any politician as I know. He doesn’t represent the Republican party…just ask his mom.
Romney is the only cannidate I feel has a chance of winning this election. He will have my vote on super tuesday!
39 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 9:54 pm CETMust be anti-Catholic bigotry.
Steven, having now glanced at the study, it seems they admit that they oversampled the one group that would tend to have anti-Mormon bias, evangelicals.
So it doesn’t logically follow that this says much of anything about the general pool of people who oppose Romney on the basis of being considering him a flip flopper.
40 Henry
January 25, 2008 @ 10:00 pm CETMitt Romney will be the kind of President this country hasn’t seen in a long time - smart and moral. I’m voting for Mitt.
41 C Stanley
January 25, 2008 @ 10:04 pm CETHenry: your comment is one that I can’t argue with. If he becomes the nominee, I’ll vote for him even though he’s not my choice in the primaries.
42 Shay
January 25, 2008 @ 10:20 pm CETThe statement that McCain is more qualified destroys the credibility of the article. Did you know that you need no training or education to be a reporter? That shows here.
43 utsu
January 25, 2008 @ 10:23 pm CETRomney supporters - "Paulites: The Returning!!"
44 Tap
January 25, 2008 @ 10:48 pm CETAll the name-calling strikes me as pretty gratuitous and self-serving. I’m not a big fan of either of these guys, but to lable Romney supporters as Romney-bots even as they are asking you to look at the records and discuss specifics strikes me as pretty lame. No need to bother debating ‘bots, though, eh?
I’d venture to say that both groups have made up their minds and now see what they want to see in the candidates changing positions.
45 Alan Stewart Carl
January 25, 2008 @ 10:56 pm CETFor the record, I didn’t say Romney was unqualified. He’s more qualified than Obama or Edwards and argurably Hillary. But McCain’s significant foreign policy experience (particularly the fact that he was right on the need for an Iraq surge two years before anyone else) makes him, in my opinion, more qualified than Romney, who has no real foreign policy experience. The use of "vastly" was probably taking it too far.
For the record, I’m not a reporter. I’m a blogger, which means I need even LESS training and education.
46 casualobserver
January 25, 2008 @ 11:18 pm CEThttp://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/01/psst-he-raised.html
Speaking of Romney, this one is a bit embarassing.
47 Michael van der Galien
January 25, 2008 @ 11:19 pm CETNormally we would delete comments like that, but I’ll leave them up. Just to make a point. Especially in contrast with Alan’s very reasonable and articulate comments in response to the personal attacks he has had to accept.
48 Michael van der Galien
January 25, 2008 @ 11:20 pm CETFor Russert yeah.
Only idiots would believe that romney was being coached there. Quite pathetic.
49 michaelreynolds
January 26, 2008 @ 1:53 am CETSome of you people might want to follow this link for useful information on your condition:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies
50 Tap
January 26, 2008 @ 2:42 am CETMaybe they are really all the same anyway…go take a look at this and watch it until the end!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEaS-K3j3M8
51 Michael van der Galien
January 26, 2008 @ 9:14 am CETmichael: i’ve got a sneaky suspicion that they’re actually Paulbots who pretend they’re supporting Romney
52 Jed Merrill, ConservativeRepublicans.com
January 26, 2008 @ 10:48 pm CETJohn McCain has already peaked, while Romney hasn’t. Imagine a debate between Obama and Romney, or Hillary and Romney. Just as Mitt outshines his rivals in the Republican race, he will tear apart the Democrats. Truth hurts. Romney will also benefit when Huckabee drops out. McCain’s moderate base is fine in a crowded field, but eventually it has to narrow, and then he will be in the shallow end of the voting pool. Maybe you need to study Romney more. There are hundreds of articles at:
http://www.conservativerepublicans.com
53 brougarman
January 26, 2008 @ 11:00 pm CETIf anyone has evidence of Romney flip flopping on anything other than abortion, I would appreciate seeing it. I’ve seen Romney address the accusations that he shifted his views on gun control, immigration, taxes, and gay rights. His explanations have adequately addressed the false claims that he flip-flopped on those issues. He didn’t. The comparison between Romney and John Kerry is laughable. Romney changed his opinion from telling Massachussets voters he would not take away abortion privileges to being pro-life, where he has stayed. Kerry went back and forth and back and forth on taxes and Iraq. The equivalent would be Romney going back to pro-choice now, and then back to pro-life at some later point in the future, and then claiming that he never changed, and then later admitting that he did change, only to later say he never did.
54 Wendi
January 27, 2008 @ 12:48 am CETI find the accusation that McCain is willing to face his "flips" an somehow Romney won’t to be amusing. When Romney was on Meet the Press with Russert he was confronted with most of his flips and he gave his reasoning for it. He also faced head on that he’s changed his mind. Frankly the abortion issue needs to be dropped. He’s made it clear he could not go on being pro choice when he had to deal with that bill that would have made cloning human embryos for experimentation legal. I think that was a pretty substantial reason to switch opinions.
Now I can understand some of the other stuff like his NRA membership and such that he clearly did to make himself more acceptable to the type of republicans you have in Iowa and such and how that can be cynically looked at. But every politician does that. McCain has been saying for months that the Bush tax cuts need to be gone and now in florida he changes his tune. When Iraq and our safety was primary issues, he wasn’t worried about admitting that he’s not an economic genius. Won’t find him doing that now… boy did he switch fast. As if sitting on a committee means you understand all about the economy over someone who had to start or retool business after business after business.
Independants fell in love with McCain when he was the reasonable voice against the evangelical pandering of Bush. And I think much of his success stems from that love affair. I know I appreciated him letting Jon Stewarts group to talk to him and even be the butt of a few jokes. Made him more human and less stuffy politician. But I have since been disillusioned when I saw him do a 180 and praise Bush during the republican convention for the very things he talked against Bush about while on the campaign trail. Made me wonder what deal had been struck.
Also think the claim against Romney "buying" the election is hypocritical. Hillary and Obama have twice the money of any Republican yet they aren’t accused of buying the election. And if any of the other Republicans had their hands on that kind of cash, personal or donation, you’d find their fans going on about how that lets their favorite stay in the game and trounce everyone else. Lets be real here… one standard will do just fine.
55 AdamAnt
January 28, 2008 @ 5:25 pm CETRomney has portrayed himself as so far right, I seriously doubt he can defeat Billary in the general election. You can win the battle but lose the war. Remember the Dems have registered untold millions this year and if you can’t draw out the Independants you are not going anywhere, Its about time we had someone who can cross the isle to get some work done unlike the last 8 years!