The candidates gang up on Romney, the L-dotters gang up on McCain

Sampling some of the articles at Real Clear Politics yesterday on the current state of the presidential race, I was struck by the unrelentingly negative take on Romney from every quarter. Everyone is acting as though his loss to Huckabee in Iowa virtually ends his candidacy, McCain is leading in New Hampshire, if Romney loses there, he’s finished, etc. The main effect of the commentary is to cast an aura of doom over Romney’s campaign and negativity toward Romney as a person.

Then there was last night’s GOP debate. See this remarkable piece on it by Jonathan Martin at Politico: “Everyone gangs up on Romney at debate.” Of course, they’re all ganging up on him because they all have to gain from his demise. McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, even Thompson. But if Romney’s campaign is derailed, who is left to emerge as a plausible front-runner? I’ll discuss that in a later entry.

Now here’s a tough piece by Byron York at NRO which begins:

If you think things got a bit testy between John McCain and Mitt Romney during the ABC News debate here at St. Anselm College Saturday night, you didn’t see the half of it. After the debate, when top campaign aides and surrogates came to the Spin Room to tout their candidates’ performances, members of the Romney and McCain camps said the things their bosses might have been thinking but did not dare utter onstage.

York reports that Romney during a heated exchange with McCain denied that a Romney ad said McCain had supported amnesty. York says the McCain people were stunned by Romney’s remark. York points to various Romney ads and statements saying that McCain supported amnesty. Assuming York’s facts are correct, why in the world would Romney falsely deny he had said McCain supports amnesty, instead of truly claiming that McCain supports amnesty? I’ll put if off to a momentary lapse due to the fact that everyone was attacking him at once.

The commenters at Lucianne.com responding to York’s article come down very hard on McCain and mostly defend Romney. I enjoy reading the L-dotters’s expressions of disdain for McCain, since I have regarded him as an unbearable phony for as long as I’ve been aware of him, going back to the ’80s up to his all-out support for the Comprehensive Black Death Act last spring, when he would repeatedly and contemptuously deny that amnesty was amnesty.

However, some L-dotters feel that Romney is wimpy, complaining about people attacking him after he’s attacked them. Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner saysRomney is wimpy because he weakly protested the attacks on him instead of striking back. K-Lo, a long time admirer of Romney, agrees, saying: “If Mitt Romney can’t fight for himself, why would you trust him to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? I certainly have thought he has it in him. If you do, Governor, go for it. It’s now or never. And there’s an opening for a rallying leader with a principled core. If that’s you, show it.” (There are many other interesting observations about the debate at the Corner.)

Ok, Romney is not a rock-solid figure. How does that flaw compare to having Hillary or Obama or Rudy or McCain in the White House?

Also, see the below comment from Powerline which presents a must more positive take on Romney’s performance in the debate than Jonathan Martin’s.

Here are the first 30 or so comments in the Lucianne thread:

Reply 1—Posted by: StormCnter, 1/6/2008 8:03:22 AM

It’s amnesty, Senator McCain, regardless of whether or not Romney used the word. It’s amnesty, got that? Amnesty!!!

Reply 2—Posted by: micsak, 1/6/2008 8:04:41 AM

McCain is out of his mind if he thinks he can shake the amnesty shamnesty with the Republican voters. And he thinks we are idiots for not supporting the amnesty bill. He is a condescending, mean old man. Not much contrast with Hillary. I guess that’s why they get along so well.

Reply 3—Posted by: dches, 1/6/2008 8:14:59 AM

Democrat McPain has a lot of nerve thinking he can run away from the amnesty issue. He got beat over the head with it just a few months ago. I guess he’s counting on the really stupid people out there not picking up on this. I said McQueeg was a phony in 2000 and he’s a bigger phony now. I live in NH and I am very disgusted with many of the idiots in this state who call themselves Republicans and will vote for this bogus hack next Tuesday. I did not understand it in 2000 and I really don’t understand it now. He is not a Republican, period. Never has been, never will be. And after all of that, even if he pulls it off in NH, it will not mean a thing, as it didn’t in 2000. NH picks a lot of losers in the Presidential Primary and this year looks true to form, especially on the Republican side.

Reply 4—Posted by: liberty girl, 1/6/2008 8:17:33 AM

Romney nailed him. Pure and simple. The part I liked the best was while McCain kept trying to tapdance around and say it wasn’t amnesty Romney repeatedly asked him if he would send these people (illegals) back home. McCain, of course, couldn’t answer that direct question.

I got a new respect for Romney last night because of this.

Reply 5—Posted by: jhp, 1/6/2008 8:27:11 AM

Fred did well on the amnesty question also. The main point is this….If the penalty for breaking in is deportation then anything less is amnesty from this penalty.

You can dress it up and put lipstick on it and take it to the prom if you like, but if the punishment for the crime is changed and another “punishment” is substituted, the person has been granted amnesty from the original crime.

Secure the border, remove sanctuary policies, punish employers, change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and they will start for the border. Those that dont will eventually stick out like sore thumbs…deport as necessary.

McCain, and Rudy simply don’t get it!

Reply 6—Posted by: kanphil, 1/6/2008 8:34:23 AM

Romney/Thompson. That’s my choice and I’m sticking with it. And Senator McCain, talk about flip-flopping. Everybody in the country remembers your fifty-dollar an hour lettuce pickers and you did proprose amnesty.

Reply 7—Posted by: MsCharlotteVale, 1/6/2008 8:42:21 AM

I was amazed at McCain’s spin-my-head-around spin at the amnesty question. I wanted to throw my Webster’s upside his head. We all know what amnesty means. And, although I’m as civil as they come, all these candidates schmoozing each other made me gag.

Reply 8—Posted by: Intentional, 1/6/2008 8:51:18 AM

FTA: The first was the solid performance of Fred Thompson. He was sharp and focused, making his own points effectively as well as sometimes picking apart his opponents’ positions.

I like Fred’s position on amnesty. I’ve been reading his white papers on his website and I like what he has to say.

Neither McCain nor Romney resonate with me. McCain has too much disappointing and contentious history. Romney seems too plastic.

So I’ll vote for Fred in February and then hold my nose and vote for whoever the nominee is in November. Hopefully it will be Fred!

Reply 9—Posted by: stealthy, 1/6/2008 8:55:22 AM

I thought McCain came off as petty. He was being a snide jerk. I even thought Thompson came off as a jerk a couple of times and that’s who I’ve been for. Mitt won by being attacked from all sides and dealing with it.

The questions were stupid leftwing perspective crap.

They had better all learn that there’s a lot of us out here who don’t want “change”, or to hear the Bush Presidency bashed.

Reply 10—Posted by: Avikingman, 1/6/2008 9:12:12 AM

I don’t get it. Romney is good looking, moral, successful, presidential, and smart. He worked miracles in MA, a liberal snake pit, through tough negotiating, and a handy veto pen. These are superb qualities for a Republican candidate. Yet he’s viewed as ken doll, plastic, etc.?

I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I’d be very happy w Romney as the candidate.

Reply 11—Posted by: jinx, 1/6/2008 9:13:11 AM

McCain never saw a Dimwit proposal he didn’t like. He is for amnesty even as he tries to confuse the issue with Romney. Rudy and Thompson are coming on strong and strenth is what we need in a President, not a whiner. Grow up or shut up, Sen. McCain. Your time is up.

Reply 12—Posted by: tnmartin, 1/6/2008 9:23:01 AM

He didn’t just come off as a petty, snide, jerk. He really is a petty, snide, jerk. It’s not just an impression, it’s the reality. Time for him to go home.

Reply 13—Posted by: Sooner, 1/6/2008 9:30:36 AM

Fred and impressed me most. However, the ganging up on Romney by McCain and Huckabee seems to have backfired. This morning’s polls show McCain losing some points and Romney gaining some. At this point, I’d like to see a Guiliani and Thompson ticket.

Reply 14—Posted by: morejs, 1/6/2008 9:33:23 AM

McCain sure turned me off last night. His snide comments about Romney, his dodging around on the amnesty question, and his constant interruptions when Mitt was pointing out his errors just proved what I’ve often seen written about him. He doesn’t handle opposition well, can’t take criticism and views disagreement as a personal attack….

Reply 15—Posted by: GRWeicheld, 1/6/2008 9:42:46 AM

McCain looked mean and petty,the snide expression showed loud and clear! The base does not like him or trust him. He is the plaything of the Media and he has not a clue.

Reply 16—Posted by: RepublicanGopher, 1/6/2008 9:46:46 AM

The real cheap-shot artist on the Republican side is Mitt. He doesn’t stick to just the facts when he’s describing his opponents. He has to give everything the most negative interpretation, and ascribe the worst motives to everything. That may win him a victory, but it’ll be a hollow victory, with not much respect from his peers—something he’s already losing fast, it seems.

Reply 17—Posted by: Supersid, 1/6/2008 9:51:29 AM

Romney seems to believe in the George Costanza dictum: it is not a lie if the speaker believes what he is saying. So he lies, and when called upon it, feels offended.

Reply 18—Posted by: navybrat, 1/6/2008 9:54:42 AM

McCain is a mean and vicious old man. I have no respect for someone who wants to take away my right to speak (McCain-Feingold), raise my taxes and flood the country with illegals. And I will not forget the Keating 5.

He should go home with his rich trophy wife and shut up.

Reply 19—Posted by: wavynavy, 1/6/2008 9:55:00 AM

I didn’t see the debate, but I read this article. And apparently Romney denies that he called McCain’s policies *amnesty* in his ads. And apparently, he did just that. So why deny it on national TV? And why not press the point that McCain’s stance is *amnesty*?

And why is McCain denying that it is amnesty, when it surely is?

I just don’t get why these guys can’t just say what they think and believe without trying to dance around the points. I think that they are trying to be all things to all voters. With that approach they will fail to attract my vote and probably many others as well.

Reply 20—Posted by: mikkins2, 1/6/2008 9:57:19 AM

I’m see it the same way as you do #16. He cant keep his story straight, just like his positions.

I am no fan of McCain but Romney crying about personal attacks is a hoot. Whiners don’t look Presidential to me. Especially after they spend millions doing the exact same thing.

Reply 21—Posted by: chriseh, 1/6/2008 10:07:39 AM

Another reason McCain is yesterday’s news. Not to mention his view on climate warming. Go Rudy!

Reply 22—Posted by: IGWTrust, 1/6/2008 10:08:33 AM

Agree with #10

Now if Mitt would get one of those monk hairdos like Huck you others might find him believable.

Reply 23—Posted by: starboard, 1/6/2008 10:09:40 AM

Attention Republican women from NH, I hope you are listening to Mr mean and pushy John McCain. I say women because he is brittle and authoritative and reminds me of a militaristic general who won’t be budged over admitting his flaws and mistakes…missing strawberries/amnesty comes to mind. Women don’t respond to this type of man. There’s no warmth there whatsoever.

As for Mitt Romney, the next time McCain gets testy with him, all Mitt has to do is deliver a Robert DeNiro line and say “Are talking to me?” Turn nasty into funny.

Go Mitt!

Reply 24—Posted by: proud member of vrwc, 1/6/2008 10:09:44 AM

Mitt was presidential last night. In-fighting tolerance is part of the job description. He did it well.

McCain showed considerably less ability to deal with these issues.

Reply 25—Posted by: mollybob, 1/6/2008 10:16:14 AM

I am no fan of John McCain, but good grief! When the Romney-ites put “good looking” at the top of their list of qualifications for th Presidency, it really says it all. I find Mitt Romney very off-putting as a candidate because of the shallow, Prom King nature of his campaign, his defensive responses to religious questions and the certainty that his policies will not reflect conservative principles but a consensus of advisors from all over the political map. No thanks!!

Reply 26—Posted by: gone2pot, 1/6/2008 10:19:34 AM

What #1 said. I wonder what McCain would call it if he passed gas in church.

Reply 27—Posted by: poof, 1/6/2008 10:30:14 AM

Holy smoke perhaps?

Reply 28—Posted by: Blackeagle, 1/6/2008 10:31:35 AM

Well, he certainly wouldn’t call it amnesty.

Reply 29—Posted by: nevernaught, 1/6/2008 10:31:36 AM

OK another perspective. I thought McAmnesty knew the subjects and questions beforehand. Who does the seventy year old think he’s kidding, denying the proposal was outright Amnesty. It was, is, and always will be. Now the health care subject. They all dropped the ball on the inflationary part of medical costs. The first words out of someone/anyone’s mouth should have been how lawsuits and trial lawyers are driving up the costs of medical care. A good shot across the bow of the Breck Girl here would have been appropriate.

Mostly I was disappointed they have given so much authority to the media in the debates. They should set all of the rules, not ABC.

Reply 30—Posted by: proud member of vrwc, 1/6/2008 10:32:31 AM

These conversations are wonderful. The day after Romney was elected GOV in MA, I was sitting at the front desk in camapign headquarters when he came in. I asked, ‘Sir, what do we call you?” He replied, “Mitt.”

He is a very honest, conservative, and exceptional man. I trust him and I hope others will too.

Reply 31—Posted by: nightvision, 1/6/2008 10:35:51 AM

IMHO, the real winner last night was Rudy.

When they get to the bigger states, McCain and Huckster will fall by the wayside, in spite of the media fluffers’ attempts to ‘prop them up’.

That will leave Rudy, Romney and maybe Thompson.

Go, Rudy!

Reply 32—Posted by: starboard, 1/6/2008 10:36:50 AM

#26 He would do a Democrat thing and say it was the other guy or he would say Mitt Romney did it.

* * *

Here is a very different view of the debate and the “gang-up” on Romney, from John of Powerline:

Romney: I thought Romney was the clear winner, most of all in demeanor and general impact. I’ve been critical of Mitt’s television communication skills in the past, but last night he was Presidential and effective. A viewer who knew nothing about the status of the race would have assumed, I think, that Romney was the front-runner and perhaps the candidate with the most stature. Headlines suggest that the other candidates were ganging up on Romney. I think that is overblown; it happened on only a couple of occasions. On those occasions, I thought Romney came across as the candidate who is trying to rise above pettiness and focus on policy. McCain’s anger toward Romney backfired, I thought. On a number of issues—health care and energy, and even national defense—Romney showed impressive command.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 06, 2008 02:25 PM | Send