The Romney endorsement: “That’s like oil endorsing vinegar;” McCain: “Now we move forward;” Update: Huck – “I may get beat, but I’m not one to quit”
Waiting for the Romney endorsement of McCain. Shep Smith on Fox quips: “That’s like oil endorsing vinegar.”
Romney – oil.
McCain – vinegar.
What does that make Huckabee?
Stand by for the liveblog…
Romney: I am honored to give my support to John McCain…I’m officially endorsing his candidacy…asking his delegates to vote for him…In the thick of the fight, it’s easy to lose sight of your opponents’ finer qualities. But the truth of the matter is, I could never quite do that…The caliber of the man was apparent. Sen. McCain understands the war we’re in, the necessity of victory, and the consequences of surrender. For him, natl security is not just another agenda item. It is the abiding concern and responsibility of the nation…This is a man who has served and suffered for his country…
McCain’s statement: I thank Gov Romney for his endorsement. More than that, I thank him for the hard, intensive, fine, honorable campaign he ran for the nomination of our party. And I think it is also extremely important to me that I not only have his endorsement, but that we join together and travel together not only for my candidacy, but…all the other races…I’m grateful for the fact that Gov. Romney has served the state of Mass…and ran a campaign that made me become a better candidate…
Just noting: McCain looks so much more uncomfortable than Romney does…Gov. Romney, thank you…Now we move forward.
Reporter question to Romney: Are you saying all the other differences are “papered over.”
MR: I still have my views. He still has his…But as a party, we come together. What I said at CPAC a week ago was that we have to focus on where we have common ground…let’s make progress while Democrats are fighting…issue that matters most right now–global jihad–that is an issue where McCain see eye to eye…no question in my mind: this individual should be president of the United States, not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton….
Update: Huckabee on the phone with Neil Cavuto…”It’s one of those things we could all expect…I may get beat, but I’m not one to quit.” Assails “smoky, cigar-filled backrooms.”
“Right now, if I walk off the stage, people in Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Vermont…insult to those people.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Romney Endorses McCain.. Big Fat Whoop!
- So Its True: Romney Endorses McCain — The McCain Mutiny
- The TIW Blog » Blog Archive » JUST SAY NO TO McCAIN (a.k.a. McCain is a loser)
- Neocon News » Romney to Endorse McCain, how do the delegates add up? “Huckabee is being a pest”
- Sierra Faith
- Oblogatory Anecdotes - McCain Romney Ticket?
- Rhymes With Right
- American Street » Blog Archive » DC Puppet Theater
- American Street » Blog Archive » DC Puppet Theater
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain, Mitt Romney
Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyone
Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip clubLegal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesStop The ACLU
» Hasan Tried To Contact al Qaeda. Sounds Like A Jihadi To MeEd Driscoll
» Go Flag Yourself, Mr. President!JustOneMinute
» Stay Classy, Ezra!protein wisdom
» Quote of the Day [Darleen Click]
Reagan actually did say that to voters directly just once. look it up.
The concern of people sitting out the vote or voting a third party candidate is becoming less a concern by the day. People are seeing the common sense of voting the party ticket. A few can call it “falling into line”, and maybe that’s good. That’s what soldiers do and that’s what we patriots are – ballot box soldiers. Those who want to go AWOL have that right in this country. Just ask that long list of patriots from this thread alone listed above who will be doing their duty and voting their conscience by voting the Republican ticket knowing what the Democrats would do to the American people if elected next fall. Those patriots are good, solid, modest, well-spoken people who care more about their country than thmselves. That’s what made this country great and will continue to. Whereever he is, we can feel confident that Reagan is saluting them with a twinkle, a smile and a wink. As for the others? It’s easy to imagine a shrug and a short few words about doing what’s best for the country.
Cite, please.
Fear? Fear?!
There you go, out of nowhere being an obnoxious smartass, again, Ragsy. You just can’t help it, can you? It’s in your blood. Just another malicious troll.
Oops – there I go being a “bully” again, right Professor Ragsy? But that’s your smarmy way of things, isn’t it: strike first and then cry foul. What an obnoxious dope.
You’re being pretty pushy with the questions when you never answered mine ages ago. I’ll rephrase it so even you can get it, and then I’ll answer yours:
We know the Democrats are weak on terror. We know that republicans staying home or voting for a third party candidate”out of conscience” is more likely to get a democrat elected than would be otherwise true if those Republicans voted the Republican ticket (”Duh” is the operative word you’d understand, ragsy). If you don’t vote the Republican ticket, and a Democrat wins, and that liberal democrat, soft on terrorism and big on blame-America-first rhetoric, oversees policies and positions that weaken us, a dirty bomb is exploded in a major city and 80,000 innocent lives are lost – could you -knowing that contributed to the loss of life that otherwise would more likely have been prevented, be able to look yourself in the mirror and say “I did the right thing and I’d do it again.”
No posing and evasion again on this Professor, just a yes or no answer.
Yes or No
Step up to the plate this time, big-shot. Don’t expect a response back on this thread which is slowly going away if you can’t answer a simple yes or no question, smartass.
Reading Ragsy’s smart-ass remarks makes me want to salute those patriots on this little thread alone a second time. Quiet, simple, eloquent remarks od patriots on this thread alone from people who are true patriotic Americans.
Look at the great patriots on this board: whysoangry, jeanie, meatpieandtatters, Blind Mule, Always Right, graysonret, Milwaukee Mike, globmgmt, ajmontana, Paul-Cincy and others
What great, smart, brave people, yes brave, because it takes guts to do what you know needs to be done, as opposed to simply doing what you feel like doing. True patriots and yes, ballot-box soldiers. But they’re not alone. Most conservatives – yes, real Reagan conservatives who put America first have suddenly started expressing the need to do what’s right for their country and ensure defeat for the democrats. Wonderful.
Yes. We know that McCain is even more dangerously “weak on terror”, as well. We know that, by virtue of his POW credentials, he carries weight that no Dimocrate carries. That is why they love him so when he trashes America to Der Speigal, for instance, and why they wave McCain’s bloody shirt when “torture” is an issue. He’s their most powerful tool.
McCain is bellicose…he supports the war in Iraq. But at the same time, he supports those who oppose the larger GWOT in many different ways that materially undermine its prosecution, not just now but in the future.
True or false.
If we won the war in Iraq, but lost the war along our borders, would we have won the larger GWOT?
Yes or No, please.
I understand the word “tautology”. I also understand the term “Hobson’s Choice” (look it up). I further understand that rewarding awful performance will get you more, and more awful, performance that is awful.
True or False. (Duh.)
i.e., McCain…the guy who has twice in this decade flirted with BEING a Dimocrate,
True or false, please.
is soft on terrorism and big on blaming America (see his interview in Der Speigal)
After educating yourself, answer TRUE or FALSE, please.
My answer: As between McCain, and any fellow traveler put forward by the Dimocrate Party, I see no essential difference, except that the Dimocrate would be weaker and more easily opposed. So my answer is
YES! I did not vote for a FALSE label. I was not duped, and I didn’t suspend rational thought because I was afraid my country could not sustain my vote of conscience.
Geez, dude. Give me a hard question.
Now, Kitty, answer my questions.
Feel free to elaborate, but answer them as directly as have I, your professor. (I think it was perceptive of you to recognize our relative intellectual positions, at least.)
Your turn, kitty.
Again, I have to give you credit…
you have labeled me a “smart-ass”, which of course makes you the
dumb-ass.
It takes a big kitty to step up that way…
McCain takes great pride in being a “maverick”.
The origin of the word comes from cattle ranching in the 1800s – a “maverick” was an ornery, untrustworthy animal that was nothing but trouble.
The offices of Senator and President are supposed to serve the American people. McCain serves noone but himself.
McCain is arrogant, testy, cranky and old. It’d be a toss-up in an election between him and The Witch – which one is the least nasty?
Between McCain and the smooth Obama – McCain would look even older and more senile than he does now. Given the choice between the old and cranky and the young and dynamic, unfortunately Obama would win.
Well, Ragsy, it sounds like you’re whining about being called a smart-ass, again, boo hoo hoo, as though I have devalued an otherwise mature and intelligent conversation. Just don’t forget that you always start this crap when you appear to try to compensate for your shallow though-process with the snide little quip. So yes, you are a smartass. And you’re a whiney smartass to boot, because you strike first and then whine “foul” when someone calls you on it.
By the way, thanks for adopting my posting style with the “strong” feature; it allows me to skip over the BS and read the very few words worth reading in your post.
Now, to clarify an astounding confession on your part. Let me see if you got this straight, and stop the obfuscation because if you want me to answer your questions, you’ll have to answer mine straight up. You were “generous” to allow me to elaborate – a move I’m guessing was defensive because you, yourself, clearly decided not to answer my question “Yes or No” as asked.
I don’t know why I’m bothering with this dope, I really don’t….
I’m asking for clarification because you appear to have stated that you would sacrifice the lives of 80,000 of your fellow citizens for what seems to be a matter of personal ego (unbeleiebaly unconscionable and I’ll take you at your word) followed by
What appears to be a lazy rationalization for copping out. Reagan never spoke of the nation being able to absorn the absent votes of dweebs. Reagan said just the opposite:
But just as important as how we vote is that we vote. Every vote cast on election day means that we the people have taken a hand in shaping our nation’s future.”
He didn’t say anything about copping out and letting Democrats into power and ruin our nation out of “not being duped”.
I campaigned for Ronald Reagan, I voted for Ronald Reagan, and Ragsy-boy, you’re no Ronald Reagan!
There’s anotherone thing of which I’m sure for you few ambulance-chasers out there still reading this thread: this poser is no lawyer. I know lawyers. I have a close friend (who makes almost half a mil a year as a senior partner) who’s a lawyer and lawyers, at least good ones, don’t express themselves like our pal Ragsy-Boy.
Anyway, please answer the question as asked, Yes or No, and stop the grandstanding, because it seems like you’re spiraling off into madness, not to mention hyperventilating evasion, as well as being an intolerable smart-ass.
Once again and for the last time, for clarification (your yes or no only gets mine)
We know the Democrats are weak on terror. We know that republicans staying home or voting for a third party candidate”out of conscience” is more likely to get a democrat elected than would be otherwise true if those Republicans voted the Republican ticket (”Duh” is the operative word you’d understand, Ragsy). If you don’t vote the Republican ticket, and a Democrat wins, and that liberal democrat, soft on terrorism and big on blame-America-first rhetoric, oversees policies and positions that weaken us, a dirty bomb is exploded in a major city and 80,000 innocent lives are lost – could you -knowing that contributed to the loss of life that otherwise would more likely have been prevented, be able to look yourself in the mirror and say “I did the right thing and I’d do it again.”
No posing and evasion again on this Professor, just a yes or no answer.
Yes or No
You’ll be surprised to learn, though perhaps shouldn’t be, that the only things I disagree with you about are one or two conclusions.
Yes.
Perhaps but that’s irrelevant in context. Lots of words come from unexpected sources. Reagan appeared to brutally slap a woman in a movie. None of that matters, with all due respect.
Sort-of. He really does both. Most senators on the right do both, the only question is one of degree. Nancy pelosi, running out for personal business when FIMA is ticking down, more meets your description, I think.
I agree 100%. Though neither of us know him personally, something we should perhaps bear in mind more often, in general that’s my take on him, too.
Now here is where we part company. Hillary would put far-left judges and sign far-left legislation form Reid and Pelosi and do so happily to appease her base. If McCain wants a second term, and his very nature as you have described it – doing things for himself – would make it clear that he needs at least part of his base (they all don’t listen to rush or come here), he can’t stray nearly as far from his base as Hillary would go left to appease hers. i think we can agree that this is a likely reality. His pandering now essentially proves it. Nor has he shown to be nearly as far-left on abortion and nowhere near as far-left on judicial pick opinion and the war or terror as Hillary.
Bottom line, McCain is not nearly as bad as Hillary. Really, when you think of what a strident, true-believer, how could he be? How could anyone?
Possibly. or elder statesmen as – God save me for making the comparison – Reagan did.
Or it becomes a perceptive choice between wizen, sage statesman or young, wet-behind-the-ears form drug trafficker. One of these days Obama is going to have to answer with substance – he can’t fly on appearance forever.
Quite frankly though, given how Hillary or Obama would ruin this country with judicial appointments alone, I don’t see how anyone could even make a comparison.
Cat, you miss the point.
The comparison was made – The Hildebeest vs. McNasty – or The Magic Negro vs. Old Cranky White Man – to try to frame it as the overall American public will see it. As is often said, 40% will vote DemocRAT, 40% Pubby no matter what – it’s the 20% undecided who will determine the winner. They often do not judge by what’s good for the country. There is no real analysis, it’s based on appearance and how they make them feel – and not so much what they say, but how they say it.
McCain as “sage statesman” – ha ha you have a GREAT sense of humor and the absurd!
I really think the election is already lost with McCain as the nominee.
Either the ‘RATs will win outright, or McCain will pull out a narrow victory with no ‘mandate’ and the only way he will be able to govern at all is to essentially adopt a Dem agenda – in other words he will continue to be a RINO (what did you expect?) who has few fixed conservative principles. Even if he were to change his spots and nominate conservative judges, they’d never get through the Dem-controlled approval process/filibusters.
I think the best we can hope for is to elect enough REAL Republicans/conservatives in the House and Senate who will fight hard to have as much gridlock as possible – we are all safe (except for the WOT), and will keep more of our own money, if we can let them do as little as possible.
Of course noone is safe as long as Congress is in session. But at least they would be able to chip away at our freedoms only a little at a time, addressing momentous issues such as how much water our toilets should be allowed to flush and investigating steroid use in MLB.
Longbow,
Don’t misinterpret what I’m about to say as a personal slight, but every one of those statements is grounded in a pessimistic view. You may turn out to be right, for all we know, but it isn’t a certainty, and one thing is for sure: if we believe it without a fight it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We make it happen.
Our founding fathers, whom Reagan quoted often, made it clear we have to fight for freedom every day. Now we have the internet instead of the town crier, TV instead of Franklin’s written essays, and cell phones and e-mail instead of the courier on horseback. But the battle is the same. Our founding Fathers would see the analogy very clearly: we on the right are them and the liberals are the redcoats. You can tick off a list of socio-political views between the two and the analogy is quite valid.
Reagan didn’t say to vote when the odds were in our favor. He never said throw up your hands because things looked grim. If there was ever a man who embodied the diametrical opposition of those notions it was Reagan. Indeed, if he embraced half of the basic mindset you’re demonstrating (I’m try to say this without it sounding personal), he never would have been Ronald Reagan.
No. We fight with what we have, like Reagan and the founding fathers did. We do it to win. We must, really, the stakes are too high to gamble on armchair analysis of the complex political realities by people who have never run a campaign, let alone win one.
I’d just like to comment on something which is where alot of this is coming from. not from you, necessarily, but in the aggregate:
Rush was a great commentator. I say was because as his audience numbers show, he’s down to half of what he once was. granted, there are more options than 25 years ago, but there are also more people. I don’t know if it’s the drug addiction or what, but he’s skating into a dangerous kind of la la land. This, despite the fact that while he was once a good commentator (we owe him a huge dept) he was never a strategist. Not really. And if he was, then he continues to be, and our currently dispiriting situation shows that whatever he’s doing isn’t helping. And the idea of treating conservatism like a religion instead of like a set of values that exist only to benefit people manifestly is just plain getting weird. he and people who say the country would be better to regroup as conservatives under a Hillary Clinton Presidency are clearly in some desperate way disconnected to reality. The judicial appointments alone would be cataclysmic for all we hold dear for, probably, the rest of our lives.
Yeah, I know what you’re saying, but as someone who’s been in the media professionally for over 25 years, I can say that while the notion seems absurd to those of us who pat attention year ’round, it’s not impossible to project this perception onto the average audience. Clinton convinced alot of Americans that oral sex was not sex. Hillary is supported by more numbers than we would have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Yes, McCain can be perceived by voters as statesmanlike. He must be, and we must help him in that no matter how distasteful because we must win this thing. Period.
Then, when he’s the President, we can pile on like an avalanche and remind him every day that if we wants the nod for the second term, he’ll have to fall in line with us. Either way, it’s 100 times better than Clinton or Obama. Those are our choices. We better cut the crap in this party about idealism and get down to winning this thing.
I answered you.
You don’t get to re-frame my answer.
Anyone here who can read can see one of us (me) making a reasoned argument, predicated on empirical facts.
They can read you ad hominem attacks.
Your attempt to force an answer to your polemical sophistry of a question was met with a discourse illuminating my position (again), with segmented counter-questions you cannot summon the balls to answer.
You are pathetic.
Like I said…it is your turn to answer.
The absence of a direct, rational response will tell the tale…again.
Poor Kitty.
Ragsy! You snotty little sh*t, it’s go to see you again! I thought you had given up being obnoxious for a minute.
No, you don’t get to re-frame my question, creep.
We know the Democrats are weak on terror. We know that republicans staying home or voting for a third party candidate”out of conscience” is more likely to get a democrat elected than would be otherwise true if those Republicans voted the Republican ticket (”Duh” is the operative word you’d understand, Ragsy). If you don’t vote the Republican ticket, and a Democrat wins, and that liberal democrat, soft on terrorism and big on blame-America-first rhetoric, oversees policies and positions that weaken us, a dirty bomb is exploded in a major city and 80,000 innocent lives are lost – could you -knowing that contributed to the loss of life that otherwise would more likely have been prevented, be able to look yourself in the mirror and say “I did the right thing and I’d do it again.”
“Yes” or “no”, wise guy.
Can’t do it straight up, can you, smart ass?
By the way, Ragsy, look at the great pro-action voting patriots on this thread alone: whysoangry, jeanie, meatpieandtatters, Blind Mule, Always Right, graysonret, Milwaukee Mike, globmgmt, ajmontana, Paul-Cincy and others
Look at the nice chat I had with Longbow even though we disagree, or Dakin or others. Why can’t you be more like them? Why do you have to be such an relentless j*rk-off?
See…???
Another object lesson complete!
Thank for your cooperation, and predictability.
Resorting to naming supposed syncophantes…really, how junior high school can by get?
Til next demonstration…buh bye
Superior posturing doesn’t wear well on a troll like you, Ragsy. Just another excuse for not being able to answer a yes or no question while whing about being victimized after you struck first.
Sheesh, what an assh*le.