There’s been some back and forth through email among several Mitt bloggers about the NYT article on McCain’s connections to lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Both McCain and Iseman have denied the story. I am no McCain apologist, but in this battle of credibility McCain wins. The NYT has proven sufficiently unreliable in reporting about issues with a partisan element. McCain has also proven unreliable in telling the truth, but less so than the NYT. Obviously, I don’t feel overly confident in either source, so both sides need to submit further evidence to bolster their claims.
As for McCain, you live by the MSM you die by the MSM. McCain tried to carry that snake down the mountain and then wonders why he got bit. You should have known better, Johnny. Should have known better.
Ann, as usual, does a great job of breaking down the McCain-Feingold issues into vividly colored commentary. Here are the money lines:
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media’s picks! It’s uncanny — almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media — which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn’t have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a “maverick” 1 billion times a year.
It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don’t run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.
You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.
Even after, what was it, $35M of his own money, Mitt Romney couldn’t beat what the MSM was going to shove under our noses no matter how we all voted.
Yeah, I know, there are a lot of us, Mitt Romney included, who are telling us to get on the McCain train and vote the party line. I’m so disgusted by the current election system that it will be very hard for me to buy that. However, I made the mistake once, in my youthful naiveté, of throwing away my vote by opting for Ross Perot, thus helping to unseat Bush Sr. and installing a sex fiend in the Oval Office for the next eight years. Except, this year, after we lost the next Reagan (Romney) to a series of scattered, poorly run primaries and MSM chicanery, it’s so hard to just hold my nose and vote.
Someone, please, cheer me up about my “choices” somehow.
While Huckabee is trying to claim people want him to stay in the race, there are at least as many people who wish Romney was still in the race.
Here are the Washington results:
Thanks to reader Laurenda for the link.
From the Hotline’s Blogometer:
Conservative bloggers were pleased that Mitt Romney endorsed his former rival McCain:
Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff: “Romney casts himself in a good light with this move, proving that his personal feelings will not stand in the way of making the decision that’s in both his and the nation’s interest.”
Townhall‘s Hugh Hewitt: “If you believe Senators Obama and Clinton, they fundamentally fail to understand the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq or the contours of the menace in Iran. Neither appears to grasp the jihadist threat. Senator McCain does. Because Mitt Romney cares deeply about the safety and security of the country, he was certain to endorse Senator McCain. That he did so quickly is a testament to the starkness of the choice facing America, McCain’s complete commitment to victory, and Romney’s understanding of the stakes.”
Commentary‘s Jennifer Rubin: “On one level, Romney is making good on his pledge to unite the GOP and prevent the Democrats from taking the White House in perilous times. However, he is also amplifying the contrast between himself (high-minded GOP loyalist) with the man who may be his competition in 2012 or 2016, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee seems bent on pursuing his quixotic campaign, perhaps to build a political base or perhaps to enhance his speaking fees.”
Kathryn Jean Lopez talks a little bit about her man (politically speaking), and the culture of political cynicism that was ever suspicious of him:
What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes.
And I’ll go one step further. I worry about a political culture that is a little too suspicious of a scandal-less, all-American-gee-whiz-this-is-the-American-dream-in-overdrive package. We should be glad that good people — who, while well-off, are not without their share of painful crosses — are willing to subject themselves to the ugliness that politics can inflict. We should be grateful that good families will make the sacrifices necessary to serve — and make those sacrifices with no guarantees they’ll succeed.
Rebecca Hagelin has an important column out today revisiting the issue of faith and in particular our man Mitt.
Hagelin refers to the excellent documentary by Brian Hall called Article VI which examines the nexus of politics and religion in great detail:
Part of what makes “Article VI” such a compelling film is that Hall and Donaldson give us historical context. They remind us, for example, that there’s a shameful tradition of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. When Al Smith ran for president against Herbert Hoover in 1928, he was pilloried for his Catholic faith. It was denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical — not in tune with American institutions. And there’s also an appalling tradition of prejudice against those of the Jewish faith who seek high office. Remember the horrible questions the press asked of Sen. Joseph Lieberman when he ran for president? Some things never change. For many in the media, it seems, Mormonism is the new anti-semitism.
I attended a private viewing of the documentary a few weeks ago and found the subject both compelling and unnerving. Hagelin continues:
Whether it’s Mitt Romney speaking boldly of his Mormon faith, Mike Huckabee as an ordained Baptist minister, or Barack Obama taking the pulpit in churches across the country, the personal practice of deep faith by our would-be leaders must be passionately protected. As Kennedy told the Houston ministers: “Today, I may be the victim. But tomorrow, it may be you.”
In my own opinion Mormonism did indeed play a role in Mitt Romney’s defeat which is sad and unfortunate. I hope, like Kennedy’s faith that we can overcome these prejudices.
AP broke the news a few minutes ago.
Discussions on Fox News are saying that this makes Romney a favorite for VP (helps with unifying the right and talk-radio folks, helps in Michigan and the west, helps with potenially drawing upon Romney’s money).
Also speculation that Romney’s delagate going to McCain get him close to the magic 1191 that will be when Huckabee drops out . . . so this could be the move that makes Huck get out of the race . . . ah, sweet justice.
Look, she may be a little extreme, but she says what we all want to say in our heart of hearts. Coulter is still hammering McCain and praising Romney:
In fact, McCain and Romney are mirror opposites: As Romney had to tailor his conservative views to the liberal voters of Massachusetts, McCain has had to tailor his liberal views to the conservative voters of Arizona. While Romney’s record in a liberal bastion is as bad as it will ever be, McCain’s record from a conservative bastion is as good as it will ever be. Which isn’t very good.
In the immortal words of — well, me, actually: Always choose a strong conservative from a blue state over a lukewarm conservative from a red state.