Republican Rumble in California

Senator John Mccain and Mitt Romney engaged in a real barn-burner of a debate, with both engaging in charge and counter-charge over who is the real conservative and dealing with some real specifics. McCain charged Romney with raising taxes disguised as fees, tweaked him over the Herald endorsement, and essentially ridiculed his economic record as governor of Massachusetts. Romney highlighted some of the critical differences McCain has had with the Republican Party, including McCain-Finegold, McCain -Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, and highlighted the McCain endorsement by the New York Times. Some pretty good stuff as far as debates go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/wpniplayer_viral.swf?thisObj=fo102752&vid=013008-12v_title

This entry was posted in National News. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Republican Rumble in California

  1. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,
    If it’s a choice between McCain and Hillary, there isn’t a hair’s difference between them, except you are sure what Hillary will do to us.

    Got to wait this thing out. Maybe I’ll have better luck at the next election.

    Be prepared for 20 million new citizens. You Democrats will promise them the moon and they will take it.

    God help us.

    Jules

    Like

  2. Bill Manzi says:

    Jules,
    I know that immigration is a big issue, and McCain is not with the Republican mainstream on this, but I hardly think that they are identical. What about Iraq? Seems that there are big differences there. What about about abortion? What about tax policy? How about health care? I think the Republican right’s demand for absolute purity will help the Democratic Party back to the White House.

    Like

  3. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    Absolute purity???

    McCain Kennedy: Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. It took an popular write campaign (I was part of it) to stop that vote. They tried a sneaky back door attempt later with different catch phrases, but we stopped that too.

    McCain Feingold: restriction on free speech.

    Voted against Bush tax cut.

    These are Republican issues. No one believes the bipartisan legislation mentioned above were compromises at all. Feingold and Ted got their way. (It took more republicans to voted in.) The whole party is sliding to the left.

    Everyone has a Health care plan.

    As for Hillary, she won’t find it so easy to keep her promise to get out in 60 days (I think that’s the latest promise).

    No one is all one way, but John McCain is only slightly right of the left.
    While mcCain says he has seen the light on several matters, he also says, with pride, that he is a maverick. That means no one knows which way he will bounce.

    Both Hillary and Barak are pure left. You don’t seem to have a problem with that.

    Nice to talk to you again,

    Jules

    Like

  4. Bill Manzi says:

    I guess that I believe being a maverick is not a bad thing. Being locked into absolute ideological purity just has not served the country well. Wasn’t Obama criticized for praising Reagan? I agree that whatever the merits of the issues you raised McCain deviated from Republican orthodoxy. But that is why independents really like him, and that is why McCain as the Republican nominee has a real shot at winning. (The polling data bear that out.)Independents also like him because they know that he is a man of personal courage. I really believe the country needs to be less ideological and more results oriented. I also believe that I am in a vast minority on that question, with the “true believers” in each party demanding more confrontation and less compromise.

    Like

  5. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    As a conservative, I believe in the freedom of the individual, personal responsibility and charity to those who truly need it (mainly through local charities and organizations who truly care; not a huge government entity whose main concern is its own growth and power).

    I believe that government should provide for the safety of its citizens, providing everyone a proper life long education so they can pursue their dreams.

    To support that dream, the government must create and atmosphere of competition and allow for job growth. No special rules for special interests.

    There will be rich and there will be poor. No one in history has ever eliminated poverty. It is not up to the Government to redistribute wealth. Life long learning can raise the poor.

    As far as Independents are concerned, what do they believe?

    I know what Democrats believe in, and it leads to huge government, and the concentration of power. The Republican party, when it took power became panderers and became what McCain is today.

    If you don’t have an ideological platform how do you set goals and measure results.

    Having an ideology is not the problem (true believer). The problem is the size of the budget (3 billion dollars) and the drive to control as much of that budget as possible for power.

    The results (there you are, your honor, your results oriented condition) is similar to that which drives men to risk their freedom and lives in the drug trade. A sea of money.

    Now the electorate has found it can take part in this corruption by voting for those who pander to them. (John Adam feared this could happen after the Constitution was implemented.)

    This political war among our representatives will continue and grow worse as budgets grow with the expanding government.

    As far as McCain being a maverick, I see no benefit. He has already done the things I enumerated in a previous thread. I am not interested in having a maverick that wears a Republican hat with a Democratic heart.

    I worry about the future of the Republican party as it moves left towards the center.

    I agree with you, politicians need to be compromising to a degree.

    This is a test for compromise.

    Using abortion as an example, what is the compromise that would satisfy both sides?

    Nice to talk to you mayor.

    Jules

    Like

  6. Bill Manzi says:

    Jules,
    If one party were to achieve political domination (sixty Senate votes, the Presidency, and majority status in the House)then enacting of the program of that Party would be much simpler. My point is that the country for some time has given us divided government, and on that basis alone either we gridlock until the next set of elections or we try to achieve some movement by finding of some consensus where possible. Such areas could include meaningful attempts to restore a balanced budget, an attempt to provide a long term fix for Social Security, etc, etc. Abortion would not likely be amongst those items subject to brokering. Government is not all about ideology Jules. Just ask the residents of New Orleans, who suffered incompetence by both parties and by some major political figures. There IS a management component to governing, and for those who denigrate that concept just get ready for more incompetence.

    Like

  7. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    “The country has given us a divided government”. I thought the country has given us representative government, you know, democracy.

    We have an example of a one party dominated entity; it’s called Massachusetts. That doesn’t work that well either. I do believe that dysfunctional group has not helped you too much. I know, I just paid my property tax bill.

    Is that what you are hoping for at the next election, a Massachusetts type government?

    You mentioned the the country has given us a divided country. I disagree, they have given us constitutional representative with varying degrees of ideology. (ideology in my discussion is defined as “systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture” not some extreme religious or agnostic dogma.)

    The politics has become extreme. This extreme separation has resulted in the inability of the parties to reach compromises. The game has become one of defense; stop the other guy at all costs.

    For instance, choosing political friendly judges becomes critical to one party while vehemently opposed by the other.

    Social Security is a ticking time bomb. When it was suggested a minor portion of the contribution be voluntarily assigned to a private fund, the other party refused to even discuss it and demagogued it to death with propaganda.

    The extreme positions and a 3 trillion dollar revenue stream will continue to exacerbate the condition.

    We are in an era of confrontation and I don’t see an end. The electorate has become part of the problem.

    Jules

    Like

  8. RON PAUL 08! says:

    RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s