ROMNEY WINS FLORIDA DEBATE

My own angst against Romney isn't a secret, but he did have a good night tonight.  Thank goodness he finally realized that the GOP is working towards eventually running against the Democrats, not each other.  Ripping each other to shreds with millions of dollars in attack ads was just doing the DNC's work for them.  He did good.

One issue he didn't do good on... yet another flip-flop:

In tonight's debate on MSNBC Romney says he would not support any "new legislation" on guns, going completely against what he said just a couple months ago on supporting the Assault Weapons Ban...

But he still supports that...

But...

Well, I guess it's the same problem as ever... nobody knows what the hell this guy supports for certain.

From about a month ago:

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?

GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…

So he doesn't support it now? Or does he?

Oh and for our Mitt faithful, no he didn't have the support of the NRA, ever... that was a big fat lie, just like his lie about being a lifelong hunter. He signed up as a "life member" of the NRA prior to his announcement of running for president. I've been a "life member" of the NRA far longer than him. And I've never distanced myself from the NRA, Reagan, etc to suck up to voters when it was expedient for me.

To be fair, McCain totally flubbed on trying to deny a quote that isn't in dispute.  Every time he derails the "straight talk express" it makes him look like a totaly hypocrite.  With someone like Romney who has lied or deceived on every issue from Immigration to whether he and/or his dad marched with MLK to whether or not he supported gun bans just a few weeks before... well... if you lie about everything, people come to expect it.  When McCain does it, even on a minor issue, people take notice.

At least we can see why the Democrats fear Romney so much (y'know the same people that campaigned for him in Michigan and boosted his liberal support from 13% in NH to 33% in MI):

Yeah, you read that right... McCain actually polls well enough to beat all the Democrats now... Romney, as usual takes up the rear.  Depending on what year you catch him, "there's nothing wrong with that."

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

"It was the best  performance by a candidate in a debate ever."

I guess I'm glad you have a sense of humor about it.

"It was the best  performance by a candidate in a debate ever."

By any candidate?  Ever?

Are there no limits to the claims that Romney will make?

I am suspicious of some of the numbers in the above polling results (especially if you look at absolute relationships), but one important measure the GOP should note is that even though McCain's winning performance against the three Dem candidates generally falls within the polls' margins of error (+/- 3%, typically), Romney's performance against those same Dems is clearly feeble.

John... so double standards are bad, but selective standards are okay.  As much as a candidate's personal life seems irrelevant to me, I can see that it's important to you.  Romney's family record is stellar.  McCain's current relationship has lasted decades, but he was much rowdier in his younger days to be certain.  Perhaps his youthful indiscretions disqualify him for you... but did they for Bush's?  Are you holding a double standard here too?

Romney clearly has a better education.  It's one of his strong points.  Business and economics in the private sector as well.  McCain's strong points are with experience as opposed to education.  I can see why you left experience out, because that is one of Romney's weaker points as a one term governor with, at best, a mixed record.

Outside of criticizing McCain's military career and his youthful indiscretions with women, you don't seem to have anything from recent decades to impune his character or smarts.  As far as "presidential type qualification" none of these seem to apply much either.  The closest you came is with the Keating 5 scandal of which even John Glenn (orbiting the earth guy) got mixed up in, and didn't result in any findings of wrong doing by McCain just that he should have been more careful with accepting funding to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  Not much of deal breaker considering his career spans decades.

As far as the issues, McCain has some policy positions that people may or may not agree with and may or may not prioritize in a way that leads them to support him over other candidates.  That's pretty well up to each voter's position and importance placed on those issues.  McCain has been fairly consistent on his policy positions compared to most candidates in the race, whether people agree or not.  He hasn't been perfect obviously but none of the candidates have.

Romney on the issues is a mess.  He's flip-flopped on issues he swore he would never waver on.  When he did have epiphanies on the issues they seem to have come extremely close to the time when the Boston Globe reported he had his eye on the White House.  Less inspiring is even after some of these epiphanies he often continued contrary stances.  Like on abortion, even after becoming pro-life he still appointed a pro-choice judge.  He's gone from an anti-NRA candidate to becoming a member shortly before he announced his candidacy.  He supported regulations and standards on the auto industry that he claims to oppose while campaigning in Michigan.  He distanced himself from Reagan and now claims to embrace him, unless he's claiming to be the change candidate after the polling said that was popular.

His economic/job credentials are stellar in the private sector... but his single term as governor of Massachusetts shows economic/job growth was nearly stagnant while he was in office and far below the national average.  Some dismiss this as the fault of the liberal government but that would dismiss any record he has in government.  He pretty well dismissed it himself whenever he passed up the opportunity to comment on national issues with the excuse that isn't something a governor deals with.

Reagan was a Democrat once... and probably flip-flopped on many issues over the length of his career.  But before he got the Republican nomination he spent an extremely long time proving his conservative credentials in government first.  He sure as heck wasn't a recent convert to the cause just prior to a White House race.

If this comes off as having character (lots of them apparently) or presidential type qualifications (John Kerry?) to you then I'd love to see how.  To me it seems like he's trying to buy his way into the White House with attack ads and pandering a few short years after getting involved in government... with little record to show for it that doesn't greatly contrast with his current positions a couple years later.  I don't see how the Democrats couldn't easily tear him apart in the general and the match-up polling has continually showed this to be likely.

If you really can't stand McCain, there are some legitimate reasons to not like him, I'd strongly suggest looking at Rudy Giuliani now that Thompson is out of the game.  His record isn't stellar either, but at least his record on campaign promises is far better and you can be pretty sure he means to do what he says in spite of some of his flip-flops.  As a gun owner I'm not happy with Rudy's 2nd Amendment record, but at least he's flip-flopped on that subject and seems trustworthy on it.  Romney on the other hand still supports gun bans in spite of his unbelievable attempts to buddy up to us NRA folks.  McCain-Feingold was bad law, I agree, but Romney's 2nd Amendment views are worse on the 2nd.  I still can speak as freely as I want in any medium I want even with McCain-Feingold's absurdities.

Romney might make an excellent Secretary of Commerce... his executive and economics expertise would probably be best utilized there.  As far as governing, his record is poor, his policy views are untrustworthy, and he actually makes Rudy look like an exceptional candidate in comparison.  I didn't think I'd ever say that.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Run4... I never thought there'd be a GOP candidate I'd trust less than Rudy on 2nd Amendment issues.  I need to be careful who I talk to, they might make me eat my hat. 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed