Alarming News

January 30, 2008

There’s only one thing left to do–Let’s Go Mitt!

“Start looking hard at the numbers and put yourself in the discussions with Team Romney. It isn’t pretty, but it is far, far from over.”- Hugh Hewitt

I actually think it is over but as I wrote on Walter Olson’s Facebook wall, when we end up with McCain I won’t forgive myself for not agitating for Mitt.

Expect this site to be all-Mitt-love-all-the-time until the point when I will have to resolve myself to the fact that my Republican party picked the worst candidate of the whole damn bunch and start supporting, gag, John McCain. And make no mistake about it, I’ll support McCain when he’s the Republican nominee. No matter my problems with him, my problems with Hillary or Obama are so much deeper. Now is our last chance to get another candidate. If we fail to do that, McCain will have to be our guy and we will all have to get behind him. Even those of us who wrote multiple posts titled “Anybody But McCain.” Sigh.

Want to get involved with the Mitt campaign in your state and don’t know how? Drop me an email and I’ll figure it out for you. This is still doable. Not very doable but we must at least try. Go Mitt!

Posted by Karol at 10:35 AM |
Technorati Tags:

Mitt? Ugh. Well I guess a good number of my conservative friends will be supporting the guy given their distaste for McCain. I’m not sold on him (McCain), either, but I rather him working from conviction than Romney working from focus groups, or whatever it is he does.

Posted by: Claudio at January 30, 2008 at 12:00 pm

See, it’s hard for me to rip McCain right now with the idea that I’ll be supporting him within the month in the back of my mind. But, conviction? He supports tax cuts but voted against the Bush tax cut. He says he’s against amnesty, then pushed the amnesty plan. I mean, we just have no idea what McCain’s convictions actually are. He certainly speaks decisively, and then doesn’t act accordingly. Mitt’s only flip-flopped on abortion, really. And I was pro-choice until about 5 years ago too. People change as they age. Nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: Karol at January 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Screw Romney. He is a Bill Clinton/John Kerry in Republican clothing. A smart, but slimy lying liar. And flip-flopper.
Gun Control? He endorsed the Brady Bill. Then flip-flops in 2006, joined the NRA and pretended to be a life long hunter. He has Hunted twice in his life.
Immigration? Was for (2005), now against the McCain immigration plan.
Abortion? Left, Right, Left, Right…..
Dodged the Draft.
Taxes? Thinks a flat tax is unfair. Raised “fees” instead of “taxes.” Sounds a lot like “It depends on what ‘is’ means” ala Bill. Opposed bush tax cuts, now says he supports them.
Campaign Finance – Fought for spending limits, then flopped over to oppose McCain during past year.
He is obviously willing to say anything to get elected. Lean to the left for a Massachusetts election, lean to the right for a GOP presidential bid. I def have some problems with the Bush administration, but at least Bush et al are principled. Romney has no principals, and that really scares me.
Also, a Mormon might be unelectable. The evangelicals can’t stand Mormons.
Found a good link -
Go McCain!
Some other references.,2933,264026,00.html

Posted by: VinNay at January 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm

I expect you to campaign heartily for mcCain as well.

Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at January 30, 2008 at 12:32 pm

i would get involved, but kentucky’s primary is in late may so our vote never matters.
qoute of the day for me so far, from a friend on facebook: “my heart feels like its just been waterboarded by john mccain”.

Posted by: brent j. at January 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I’m at a point where I feel a real dilemma. I can’t stand any of the remaining R candidates, and I refuse to support either of the remaining D candidates. The independents are revolting, and there’s absolutely no one out there I want as President. I’m completely stuck with nowhere to go. This is worse than being trapped behind a table in a pub in FFXI (oy I’m a geek). And more frustrating.

Posted by: Kat at January 30, 2008 at 1:11 pm

There’s only one option for me: Ron Paul
Send a message this primary day and vote for the only candidate who cares about restoring America to the ideals which founded this country.
Say Yes! to Dr. No

Posted by: Marco at January 30, 2008 at 1:27 pm

we’re screwed

Posted by: Rachel at January 30, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I guess that’s where I differ from most here.
You couldn’t PAY me enough to vote for a candidate that didn’t represent the nation’s interests just to promote a party.

Posted by: hashfanatic at January 30, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I’ll mention once again that this isn’t over, but if it’s McCain, then I’m 90-95% voting Republican in Nov.
Who knows, maybe the Texas primary will actually be important.

Posted by: Shawn at January 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Hey Karol,
Check out Ryan Sager’s article in the NY Post today about McCain. At the end he identifies himself as a certified McCain hater, but then acknowledges that Romney is worse.
You sure your problems with McCain aren’t equally applicable to Romney?
Also, will you be providing us links to helping the McCain campaign? :)

Posted by: charlie at January 30, 2008 at 2:45 pm

McCain reminds me of Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon. Both said they were Republicans but both believed in activist Big Government.
McCain also reminds me of Clinton in that he will do anything to please the MSM and he has a terrible temper.
The only thing good about McCain is that he is not as bad as the Democrats.

Posted by: Jake at January 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm

VN, don’t forget Romney instituting forced health insurance in Massachusetts. That, to me, is his single unforgivable sin.
Not that I’m a McCain supporter, but Romney’s full of it to claim he has the “experience” for the American economy. Business and politics are hardly bedfellows, so let’s forget what Romney did in the private sector. We need to look at how he governed Massachusetts, and I just don’t see a good record.
Don’t discount my “fellow” evangelicals, who might warm to Romney by default. He’s trying to reassure mainstream Protestants that he belongs to a Christian faith. Ironically, now some Mormons (like my oldest friends in Utah) are beginning to see Romney as just a panderer, and a church brother in name only…

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Offering to figure out the Romney-boosting mechanics for people in other states is very generous and admirable of you. You aren’t just an activist — you are a hyperactivist.

Posted by: Todd Seavey at January 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I’m used to be one of those people who hold their nose and vote for the least horrible candidate. However this will be the first time since my 18th birthday that I will miss a vote for President. I will not support someone who refers to 80% of the American people as bigots like John McCain did. Immigration is not only a matter of right and wrong it’s a grave matter of national security. The will almost certainly be terrorist attacks carried out by people coming across the Mexican border and John McCain is worried about upsetting possible future voters. If the country is going to screwed up by a leftist politician I would rather Hillery or Obama get the blame. Sorry call me whatever you will but responsible for more so called bi-partisan drivel from John M. will not be one of them

Posted by: Stanley Arms at January 30, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Deciding who to vote for on the previous record of a candidate based on when he or she was Mayor or Governor is a hard to thing to do. Many times a politician, has to do things he or she does not like or what we like in order to get into the position. Would Rudy Guiliani, have been Mayor of New York City if he announced he was for guns for everyone, take a more liberal stand on Gay Rights or any other People’s Republic of New York City issue? Would Rudy have been allowed to accomplish with crime prevention and quality of life if he wasn’t Mayor?
I know Rudy isn’t in the election anymore but my thoughts aren’t about Rudy but what one has to do to get the job. Mitt Romney was Governor of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, some one else could have became Governor if he did not liberalize his stand for that particular state. Someone, will say, they are not standing on their principles and conservative values. True to some extent, but you have to do a little to accomplish a lot of better things. Perhaps what is good in one entity as Massachusetts is not good for the nation as a whole. Boise isn’t Boston.
I just know, I listen to what the candidate says what they will do. Not expecting every promise to be kept. It is my gut feeling as I add up about the candidate that counts. I ask myself, will this Candidate accomplish what I believe should be accomplished? Once President, there is no moving up (perhaps Pope?), you have to do some things perhaps you don’t like to get what is most important to you accomplished over all.

Posted by: StuLongIsland at January 30, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Oh, puh-lease, Huckabee is by far the worse candidate left standing, Ron Paul notwithstanding. And I agree with the consensus here that Romney is a toad in Prince’s clothing; if you’re going to vote for hair you might as well write in John Edwards; he’s at least as much of a Republican (and at least as principled) as Romney.
I’m a little shell-shocked that it will be McCain too. But it could have been worse.
BTW Karol, I owe you money. (Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, how did you screw this up so badly…..)

Posted by: Mark Poling at January 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm

BTW Karol, I owe you money.
I think a lot of people owe me money. I should’ve kept better track of the bets.

Posted by: Karol at January 30, 2008 at 8:25 pm

SECOND worst candidate of the whole damn bunch. You forget Huckabee.
Of course, Huck will probably be McCain’s VP choice.

Posted by: W.C. Varones at January 30, 2008 at 9:33 pm

I have no idea who the Republican VP candidate will be. My feeling is, it won’t be any of the drop outs. They have lost and over exposed. Someone who hasn’t been in the arena this “season”. Newt? wild guess.

Posted by: StuLongIsland at January 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm

well, once again Huck dominates the debate…while phony mitt and the old, angry, erratic mccain made each other look bad, the huckster was clear, passionate and progressive.
I’d like to point out that I’m not an evangelical…I’m not even a christian

Posted by: Larry at January 30, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Posted by: charlie at January 30, 2008 02:45 PM
Sager’s opinion is as worthless as Zimbabwe’s currency.
Don’t forget that this was the Giuliani booster who thought that Elliot Spitzer was going to be a “maverick” governor who would take on organized labor.
He still believes that the best way for the Republican Party to expand its base is to regularize 20-30 million socialists from south of the border, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in what he thinks.

Posted by: Gerard at January 31, 2008 at 2:03 am

Stu – Interesting. You just piqued my interest. If Newt ran as VP, I might be more willing to go ahead and vote. Even if the candidate does disgust me as much as the remaining three do.
Has anyone come across any polls saying how many Republicans are upset with the potential candidates remaining?

Posted by: Kat at January 31, 2008 at 10:40 am

“Many times a politician, has to do things he or she does not like or what we like in order to get into the position.”
Stu, it’s a fair point, but if a candidate is unwilling to reveal all his beliefs or is willing to temper them, then he’s merely the typical politican who sacrifices principles (or has none) for the sake of getting elected. Frederic Bastiat, my “patron saint,” described why it’s hard for men of principle to get elected, and why his consistent position confused the other elected officials. Similarly, Henry Clay, whatever you think of his politics, said that “I’d rather be right than President.” It’s joked that that’s from a man who ran four times for the presidency, but it also shows that he wanted to be elected because of his principles, not his pandering.
Now, I don’t think Giuliani is that kind. I see him as a straight-talker who never really believed in RKBA, and though I disagree with some of his politics, I give him lots of credit. Whatever he says, you can trust that it’s what he really believes.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 at 11:36 am

“Ironically, now some Mormons (like my oldest friends in Utah) are beginning to see Romney as just a panderer, and a church brother in name only…”
I’m seeing that, too, but mostly among Mormons who are not Republicans. (Yes, there are some.)
It happens that my best friend was a member of Romney’s ward (Mormon congregation) in Boston a few years back, and got to know him fairly well. He thinks the world of him. I have to wonder about my coreligionists who are willing to question Romney’s faith from afar.
I guess politics does that to people. Nasty business in almost every way.

Posted by: Kent G. Budge at January 31, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Kent, are you saying that because these Mormons aren’t Republicans, their opinions shouldn’t be considered? There are some Mormons, even in Utah, who are realizing that it’s not enough for a candidate to be Mormon, or GOP, or “a nice guy.” There has to be more substance than that.
I’m sure Romney is a nice guy and all, but that doesn’t qualify him to be president. I want to know how will defend my liberty. Will he do in the federal government what he did for Massachusetts’ fiscal policy and health care? Yeah, he probably will. His record is that of a worshipper of big government, masked with moral conservatism when it suits him.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 31, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Gerard, thanks for the feedback. Have you read his book “Elephant in the Room”? I thought it has a pretty insightful take on what’s happening to the party now.

Posted by: Charlie at January 31, 2008 at 5:23 pm

…it’s not enough for a candidate to be Mormon, or GOP, or “a nice guy.” There has to be more substance than that.
Substance like a candidate being a cranky, arrogant, stubborn old guy who panders to the New York Times?

Posted by: W.C. Varones at January 31, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Gerard? Is that Gerard Finneran?
You rock, man!

Posted by: W.C. Varones at January 31, 2008 at 10:54 pm

I’m not saying he doesn’t have some valuable insights with respect to certain subjects, e.g. the growth of the Democratic Party in the interior West/Mountain states, but in general I’m skeptical about his broader political prescience.
He spent the better part of a half-hour after a speech to the NYYR Club declaiming on the potential value of a Spitzer governership, which he implied would challenge the authority unions exercised over the Dem. Party, and we all know how that turned out.

Posted by: Gerard at February 1, 2008 at 12:33 am

W.C., that’s why I don’t like McCain either. He believes in global warming hysteria, and he doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 1, 2008 at 10:58 am

Why is it always the Irish?

Posted by: Gerard at February 1, 2008 at 11:23 am
Post a comment