Mark Levin gets too dizzy spinning for Romney (Part II)

Having spent quite a bit of verbiage correcting Levin’s errors on the McCain-Romney-Iraq argument, I’ll use this post to set McCain’s overall record straight.

This is how Levin describes it in NR:

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule — McCain-Feingold (restrictions on political speech), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal aliens), McCain-Kennedy-Edwards (trial lawyers’ bill of rights), McCain-Lieberman (global warming legislation), Gang of 14 (obstructing change to the filibuster rule for judicial nominations), the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. This is a record any liberal Democrat would proudly run on. Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

I’ll start by answering Levin’s question at the end: No, you shouldn’t overlook a candidate’s record.  Thus, Levin should not have overlooked McCain’s support for requiring a 2/3 Senate majority for any spending increases (vote), his opposition to the bloated, ever-expanding Medicare Part D (both votes), his support for a permanent end to the death tax (vote), his support for a ban on lawsuits against gun makers (vote), his vote to cap government spending at 2006 levels (vote), his opposition to habeas corpus for enemy combatants (vote), and his support for increased funding for the Border Patrol (yes, you read that last one right – not only did he vote for it, he sponsored it).

I’d be surprised to see a liberal Democrat running on that record.

However, it we’re going to play this little game, what about the candidate who supports an assault weapons ban, government-mandated health care, an industrial policy for the automobile industry (NR), and the aforementioned and infamous Medicare Part D?

Who is that candidate, you ask?  Why, it’s Mitt Romney.  No, not the Mitt Romney of 1994, or 2002, or 2004, it’s the Mitt Romney who’s running for President.

Now, I could mention that those old Romneys included a fellow who wanted to tax political contributions and put a cap on the amount of money a candidate could spend on himself (oh, the irony – Concord Monitor), a Governor who also opposed the Bush Tax cuts (Thompson for President via SCHotline) and had high praise for McCain’s anti-restrictionist stance on illegal immigration (Boston Globe), and a guy who insisted that the pre-Roe abortion laws killed a relative and made him firmly “pro-choice” (Boston Globe).  However, I think Romney version 3.5 is bad enough.

Levin does get one thing right: “Let’s face it, none of the candidates are perfect.”  Indeed, they’re not.  Yet John McCain is far better than Mark lets on, and Mitt Romney (past or present) is far worse.

Mark Levin gets too dizzy spinning for Romney (Part I)

It really hurts for me to write this.  I’ve liked Mark Levin from the moment he went on the air, for he is just about the only talk radio host who notices the danger from Communist China.  However, I have to respond to the erroneous (and I’m being generous) attack Levin launched against John McCain in his spin-laden endorsement of Mitt Romney in National Review.

I’ll start with the worst one – Levin’s insistence that McCain “lied” about what Romney said on Iraq back in April.  Here’s Levin’s paragraph on the subject:

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Out of the eight sentences written there, seven are incorrect.  Let’s take them one at a time.

Levin: “Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq.”  Me: How so, Mark?  McCain claims that Mitt Romney once supported a date for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.  What did Romney say?  Well, for what will now be the fifth time, I give you Romney’s answer below (ABC, emphasis added):

When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

Now, what do timetables include?  Dates.  So when McCain insists Romney supported a pull-out date for American troops in Iraq, he was right.  That Romney would rather the date be leaked to the New York Times by an scheming bureaucrat instead of broadcast from the White House is a distinction without a difference.

Levin: “As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq.”  Me: See above.

Levin: “The evidence is irrefutable.”  Me: The evidence, in fact, refutes your assertion.

Levin: “And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury.”  Me: Let’s see, McCain referred to a timetable for withdrawal as – wait for it! - a timetable for withdrawal.  Then again, McCain just took Romney at his word – which as we all know is not the best way to figure out what Mitt’s thinking.

Levin:  “The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth.”  Me: Putting aside Mark’s sudden admiration for the Times, Mark seems to ignore that not everyone is in lockstep with him on this.  His own NR colleague Byron York had this to say:

I think it’s fair to conclude that Romney was saying he was in favor of Bush and Maliki setting a secret timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal . . . Certainly people who were listening took it that way; 

Perhaps Mark wasn’t listening back then, but that’s not my problem.

Levin: “So, last night, he lied about it again.” Me: Again?  He hasn’t even lied once.

Levin: “This isn’t open to interpretation.” Me: Perhaps I’m missing what Mark means by “isn’t.”

Levin: “But it does give us a window into who he is.” Me: Indeed, it does, but not in the way Mark thinks.  If McCain were really all about pleasing MSM, he would have run away from this last night.  Instead, he alienate his only supposed constituency, and stuck to his guns. That tells me he takes the WBK War very seriously – and will not let wafflers slide.

I guess I should leave the spin part to another post, lest this one run too long.  The fact is this: Romney supported a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – meaning he supported a withdrawal date.  The only thing he can say is that he wouldn’t want it to be public, which in the sieve that is Washington, DC, is meaningless.

McCain was right.  Romney is fudging, and Levin lost his balance spinning for him.

On tonight’s debate (and the reaction to it)

I confess, I missed the debate last night, and as we approach 1AM on the East Coast, I really should be in bed.

Still, I thought I’d get out some last-minute commentary on the debate before I caught the z’s.

For starters, the debate itself won’t be the story; the reaction will, and I’m guessing it will all be about the confrontation over Romney’s “timetables” comment.  Romney insisted he wasn’t talking about a withdrawal; McCain insists he (Romney) was.  Each had a line-of-the-night moment (CNN transcript).

McCain’s line: “Timetables” was the buzzword for the . . .withdrawal”  (Romney interrupted him).

Romney’s line: “How is it that you’re the expert on my position?”

From my vantage point (reading afterwords), McCain won on points, but Romney had the better style.

Romney also demanded the entire quote be read out – which is largely the defense Sean Hannity uses on his behalf.  More pertinent, in my view, is to include the question Romney was answering (ABC, emphasis added):

When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

Thus, Romney’s insistence during the debate that the timetables were about “progress” rings hollow.  Besides, if the timetables were that innocuous, why would Romney want them kept secret?  Meanwhile, Romney was more than happy to mention the slew of folks who hit McCain over this, but he ignored Duncan Hunter, who at the time gave Romney the what-for:

Secret timetables are bad because in the end they all become public and the enemy uses them to estimate the limit on America’s endurance.

Exactly.

Meanwhile, how is it that none of the candidates – not even Ron Paul – was willing to say they disagreed with Governor Schwarzenegger’s global warming malarkey?  I understand the federalist ideal of letting state have wide latitude to set policies, but can’t you criticize it in the process?  This is the state that wanted the right to set your thermostat (Washington Times, although I think this was independent from what the Bush Administration shot down).  I know my guy is bad on “climate change,” but he sure didn’t look as bad as he could have relative to everyone else.

Finally, when McCain said this about the subprime loan situation – “I think that there’s some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished” – he was referring to this (NY Newsday):

But on Tuesday, an FBI official in its Washington headquarters announced that the bureau also has launched significant investigations into 14 companies directly involved in mortgage loans made to numerous borrowers with weak credit, or in the marketing of securities backed by those mortgage loans. Among the possible crimes being investigated are various accounting frauds and insider trading, in which holders of subprime-backed securities may have sold their stake before the public became aware of problems in the industry.

Still, McCain might have helped himself if he referred specifically to the case.

All in all, we really won’t know if this debate will have an impact until the end of the week.  Tomorrow’s Democratic debate will be much more important – and should be more entertaining.

As for me, I’m off to bed.

Edwards is out, but . . .

With John Edwards out of the race (Fox News), I figured my Clinton-Obama-Florida-Michigan fracas scenario was also out the door.

Then I saw this (Gallup via Jim Geraghty):

Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points . . . Clinton’s lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama’s 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race today after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support.

Then I saw this (Geraghty, emphasis added):

I think the pundit class is probably giving Hillary too much credit for winning Florida — although as I said yesterday, she’s clearly going to try to force the seating of Michigan and Florida’s delegates, and it’s not unthinkable that they’ll make the difference.

Last night Cam (Cameron of Fox News) mentioned he had heard that Hillary’s threatened to take the DNC to court.

Again, if the race ends up close enough to make a difference, and if Clinton can convince a judge to seat the delegates against the Committee’s will, my fracas scenario will be much nastier.  But those are planet-size “ifs.”

I fear I must launch a preemptive strike against Rush, Sean, and Mark

I feel a little weird writing this, as I like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin immensely (especially Levin), but I think I can see (or hear) what’s coming, and since I’ll be out of pocket for the rest of the day, I thought it best to comment on it now. 

Unless I miss my guess, the hours of noon to 8PM will be filled with invective hurled against John McCain for his insistence that Mitt Romney supported timetables for an Iraq withdrawal.  I haven’t heard Rush yet, but Sean Hannity all but called McCain a liar last night on TV, and Mark Levin explicitly insists McCain lied.

The trouble is, Romney really did support a timetable for withdrawal.

I’ve noted this before, twice, but here again is Romney’s statement from last April (ABC, emphasis added):

When asked by ABC News’ Robin Roberts on “Good Morning America” if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, Romney replied, “Well, there’s no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn’t be for public pronouncement.”

The fact that Romney would not support a public timetable (you’ll hear Romney’s pledge to veto a timetable by Congress over and over again – keep that little detail in mind), doesn’t mean he opposed any timetable. 

Additionally, let’s not forget how well secrets are kept in Washington.  Does anyone really think Bush and al-Maliki have ever discussed a timetable?  It would have made the New York Times in days.  Romney should have known this – and I suspect he did, and was trying to hedge his bets.

The point is, John McCain was right; Mitt Romney did support a withdrawal timetable, no matter how loud his new friends in talk radio deny it.

Romney goes after McCain for – opposing the expansion of Medicare? (Updated)

UPDATE: Romney has disavowed this robocall (The Corner). 

Anyone who has turned on a radio or read National Review is well aware that most of the political right has latched on the Romney as the anti-McCain.  At present, I know of two Virginia bloggers (including myself) who backed McCain before today.  Romney is supposedly the choice for economic conservatives.

For those who really believe that, kindly explain this (Politico, from three days ago):

Mitt Romney’s campaign is sending out automated phone calls to Florida Republicans attacking John McCain on taxes and Social Security, an aide to the former governor confirms.  

A Florida Republican up in the Panhandle received a robo today suggesting he “take a hard look at John McCain’s record.”

“John McCain voted against the AARP-backed Medicare prescription drug program,” the call notes, in an obvious effort to give seniors pause about the senator.

This upsets me on two levels.  The first, of course, being that Romney, the supposedly “conservative” choice, is ripping McCain over what is arguably McCain’s finest moment not involving Iraq in over a decade.  Philip Klein at American Spectator put it best (emphasis added):

First, McCain should be praised by all conservatives for being one of the few Republican Senators to oppose the multi-trillion dollar boondoggle, which has become the poster child for the party’s betrayal of small government principles.

Second, in last Thursday’s debate, Romney correctly noted that, “the earmarks and the pork barrel spending and the bridge to nowhere, that’s an easy one to take a shot at. But the big one is entitlements and reining in entitlement costs. And that’s where the big dollars are.” Yet just days after Romney made that statement, we find out that his campaign is attacking McCain for opposing legislation that, by some estimates, added $16.2 trillion to our long-term entitlements deficit.

. . .

 If the conservative movement, so desperate to rally around Romney, gives him a free pass on this scurrilous attack on fiscal conservatism, it would be an utter disgrace.

That, in and of itself, is bad enough.

The other problem is in reference to Romney’s particular campaign in Florida.  Like in Michigan, Romney seemed to base his campaign on what the voters in Florida wanted, and pushed it with no concern for what the rest of the country wanted.  In corporate America – where Romney reminds everyone that he learned all he needed to be President – this is called “niche marketing.”

But in politics, its pandering – and Romney’s is making it clear he’s ready to do it fifty different ways – with the taxpayers’ money every time.

McCain, by contrast, is a national candidate.  He is one who recognize the danger of our of control spending.  It is abundantly clear he understands this farbetter than Romney, who’s “economic conservatism” allows for, as Klein put it above, “the multi-trillion dollar boondoggle.”

John McCain’s nomination is inevitable – until tomorrow

It looks like the GOP went for McCain, not Romney.  I’ll admit, I’m surprised.

 I’m even more surprised that Rudy is backing out and endorsing McCain.  I figured most of Rudy’s vote would go to Romney, but that’s far less likely now.

So McCain is the clear front-runner.  He is in a commanding position for Super Tuesday – at least he is today.  However, there is still a week between now and February 5, plenty of time for what I call the “second look effect.”  That’s what I call that moment when a candidate appears “inevitable.”  Two things happen: undecided voters (some, not all) move to the second place candidate (whoever that is) while some supporters of the front-runner take a step back just to make sure they’re making the right move.

The two effects lead to a drop in support for the front-runner and a gain for the second place candidate.  Typically, things drift back to normal after a few days, but this race already has a history of unpredictability.

Moreover, there is the Huckabee question.  The Huckster probably figured he was in perfect position to get the Veep slot by deflecting Romney’s criticism, then backing out in McCain’s favor at just the right time to make McCain inevitable.  If I’m right, Giuliani just blew up Huck’s plans.  If I’m wrong, Huckabee’s presidential ambitions (like Romney’s) are dependent on McCain stumbling.

In either case, Huckabee’s political calculus is far different today than it was yesterday.  The only chance he has at either spot on the ticket is a deadlocked convention.  There’s a very good chance Huck will end his shielding for McCain.  We’ll see what Huck chooses to do a tomorrow’s debate.

Again, this shouldn’t be enough to derail the Straight Talk Express, but (a) my viewpoint is biased, and (b) as I said earlier, the unpredictable has been a frequent guest this year.  So I’ll only go as far as the title: McCain’s nomination is inevitable – until tomorrow.

How Michigan and Florida could change American politics – forever

Those aren’t my words (I now stick to calling her Senator Clinton); they are the words of Jim Geraghty of National Review.  Here’s his logic:

I can’t believe I’m writing this, but the Democratic nomination may come down to whether or not the delegates from Michigan and Florida are seated at the national convention.

According to CNN, right now Hillary’s ahead in the delegate count, 230 to to 152. The winner needs 2,025. But Hillary’s lead is almost entirely already-committed superdelegates, as the contests so far have been all near-ties in terms of delegates: Both she and Obama got 18 out of Iowa, CNN gives Obama one more delegate out of New Hampshire (a sort-of explanation here), they split Nevada 14 each, and Obama won South Carolina’s, 26 to 14.

 . . .

States on the Democrat side are proportional. And it’s easy to see a lot of 50some percent to 40some percent finishes, with John Edwards perhaps not hitting that 15 percent threshold to collect any delegates. But Edwards still has a decent pile (58 delegates) and should hit the 15 percent threshold in his at least his most friendly states (North Carolina).

. . .  

While it’s possible we could see a big sweep on Super Tuesday and beyond, it’s more likely that Hillary will win some, Obama will win some, and because of proportional delegate rules, neither one builds up a big lead in the delegate race.

If both Hillary and Obama are short of the majority necessary, there will be 156 delegates from Michigan and 210 delegates from Florida, most of which will be for Hillary, sitting on the sidelines. The Clintons will fight tooth and nail to get those into the count.

Under that scenario, the Obama camp and their supporters will be able to legitimately charge that yes, they did have the nomination stolen from them. The DNC ruled that those states forfeited their delegates by holding their primary before February 5. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. He followed the rules; what he didn’t realize was that the Clintons would get the rules changed.

Suddenly, John Edwards’ limping campaign makes a lot more sense.  Unless I seriously miss my guess, the Michigan and Florida issues will be settled by the delegates on the floor of the convention.  If Obama or Clinton has a sizeable majority, the point is moot (and the delegates will be seated).

However, if there is nomajority on the floor, it’s all up in the air: Clinton’s delegates will likely vote to seat the delegations, while Obama’s delegates will oppose it.

Who decides?  John Edwards.

Republicans had something similar to this in 1952, about which I wrote earlier.  In that race, a similar argument over delegate seating determined whether or not Dwight Eisenhower had a majority on the first ballot.  Earl Warren (who ran as California’s “favorite son”) and Harold Stassen (who ran as an actual candidate) held the balance of power.  They supported seating Eisenhower’s delegates over that of his chief opponent (Robert Taft).  Ike went on to win the nomination and the election.  Perhaps by coincidence (how should I know?  I wasn’t aline in 1952), Warren became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Stassen became a cabinet-rank official in the Eisenhower Administration.

If these delegates in Michigan and Florida could give Clinton an otherwise unattainable majority (and that’s one big “if”).  It would be Edwards who delivers the goods.  He could ask for anything, including another try on the bottom of the ticket.  I’m guessing he’ll side with Obama, on account of Obama being in a better position to give him the VP nomination.

That said, if Edwards should side with Hillary in this scenario – look out.  I agree with Geraghty: “the Obama camp and their supporters will be able to legitimately charge that yes, they did have the nomination stolen from them.”  There will be massive outrage, especially if Clinton follows through and picks Edwards for the second slot.  She could just drop him after the vote is safely over and pick Obama instead – but even that would leave some sore feelings behind, and I’m guessing Obama wouldn’t go for it.

One other thing: the GOP convention will begin four days after the Democratic one ends.  So odds are any attempt at “healing” will still be in the early (and unproductive) stages when the GOP nominee (whoever it is) can shake things up even further by picking an African-American running mate (say, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele or former Congressman J.C. Watts).

That’s at least three titanic “ifs,” but should they all hold up, we could be headed for a realignment election of earth-shattering proportions.

Florida predictions

First the easy part: Clinton will win the delegate-less Democratic primary, because no one else cares.

Now for the hard one: the Republicans.  Up until this point, my support for Duncan Hunter made me relatively neutral among the major candidates.  Now that I’m backing John McCain, I have a “horse in the race,” which usually means I let wishful thinking get the better of me.  In fact, with the race as close as it is, I’d likely say that Giuliani and Huckabee’s falls will make voters switch to McCain and give him the win at the last minute.

However, Florida has early and absentee voting, meaning most of Giuliani’s voters have already voted for him (Rudy’s campaign was very particular about that).  So, I’m going to call it for Romney by a nose, not enough to build serious momentum, but perhaps enough to coalesce the anti-Romney vote behind McCain on Super Duper Tuesday.

 See what I mean by wishful thinking?

What Gilmore said about the surge on June 18, 2007 (part ???)

Once again, Spank That Donkey has tried to twist Gilmore’s Washington Post op-ed into a statement of support for the President’s Iraq policy last year, when it clearly was anything but.  STD goes into detail in the comments here, but he’s not the first person who’s tried this, so I thought a post would be required to respond.

STD thinks he has me with Gilmore’s opening line:

As you know from my public statements, I have supported your increase in troops in Iraq in the belief that a new initiative was necessary to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion.

To STD, this meant Gilmore’s column was one of support for the President.  However, if that’s what Gilmore really meant, he would have used the present tense (“I support”).  Instead, he used the present perfect tense (“I have supported”) – meaning he backed the surge before June 18, 2007, but not necessarily on June 18.

To look at what Gilmore thought of the surge onthe 18th of June, we need to look at the rest of the op-ed.  This is where STD’s logic train runs off the track.  Here’s paragraph 3, in its entirety for context (emphasis added):

Like you, I reject the Democrats’ policy of an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal on a timetable. Unfortunately, they are playing to the polls to obtain political advantage at home, to the detriment of the United States. But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy. We must find a third way.

With all due respect to STD et al, one cannot support the surge and look for a “third way” at the same time.  Gilmore’s next paragraph reveals a something even more problematic, a spectacularly bad analysis of the situation on the ground:

First, I urge that we stop thinking it is our responsibility to solve the Iraq conflict. It is not.

As he was writing this, the evidence that the “Iraq conflict” was actually a de facto foreign infiltration was pouring in.  Gilmore either ignored the information or was unaware of it – neither of which reassures me.

However, it is the final paragraph that contains the coup de grace (emphasis added):

American interests come down to protection of our national security, protection of Israel’s right to exist, and averting, if possible, a general war in the Middle East, nuclear or otherwise. Our present conduct in Iraq distracts from or is detrimental to those goals. I urge you to refocus American policy toward Iraq to further these strategic goals.

Supporter for the surge?  I don’t think so.

Still, I’ll make this offer to STD et al; I agree with them that Gilmore supported the surge before June 18, 2007.  Will they acknowledge that Gilmore opposed it on and after that date?