Come on Illinois!!!
California is going for Mitt---come on Illinois!!
The Trend is Real: Conservatives Rally
The Trend is Real: Conservatives Rally
Very Close
Today, Romney for President launched its newest web ad, "Very Close."
In 2008, the Republican Party needs a nominee who can debate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on the important issues confronting our nation today. "Very Close" highlights how Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Clinton actually agree on more issues than not. We need "a full-spectrum conservative" like Governor Mitt Romney who can provide a clear conservative contrast with Sen. Clinton.
Script For "Very Close" (WEB:30):
Script For "Very Close" (WEB:30):
ANNOUNCER: "Is John McCain really the heart and soul of the Republican Party?
"Imagine a debate between McCain and Hillary Clinton.
"On amnesty for illegal immigrants, they agree.
"On voting against President Bush's tax cuts, they agree.
"On imposing an additional 50 cents a gallon cost on gasoline, they agree.
"On blocking conservative judges, they agree.
"Even Bill Clinton says…"
"Imagine a debate between McCain and Hillary Clinton.
"On amnesty for illegal immigrants, they agree.
"On voting against President Bush's tax cuts, they agree.
"On imposing an additional 50 cents a gallon cost on gasoline, they agree.
"On blocking conservative judges, they agree.
"Even Bill Clinton says…"
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: " 'She and John McCain are very close.'"
ANNOUNCER: "Don't we need a leader who agrees with conservatives?"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
AD FACTS For "Very Close" (WEB:30):
ANNOUNCER: "Is John McCain really the heart and soul of the Republican Party? Imagine a debate between McCain and Hillary Clinton. On amnesty for illegal immigrants, they agree."
Sen. McCain And Sen. Clinton Both Voted For The 2006 Senate Amnesty Bill. "Passage of the bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration policies and offer a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country. It would subdivide illegal immigrants into three groups based on how long they had been in the United States. Illegal immigrants in the country more than five years would be able to stay and earn citizenship; those here between two and five years would have three years to file paperwork for a temporary work visa, after which they would be eligible for permanent legal residency; and those here less than two years would have to return to their native country and go through normal channels if they want to return. It would create a guest worker program that could accommodate an additional 200,000 immigrants a year. It also would authorize increased border security and enforcement provisions, including a requirement for businesses to verify documents of all prospective employees through an electronic system managed by the Department of Homeland Security." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #157: Passed 62-36: R 23-32; D 38-4; I 1-0, 5/25/06, McCain And Clinton Voted Yea)
Sen. Clinton: Immigration Legislation Must Have A "Path To Legalization" For The 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Here. "Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said she was disappointed that the Senate did not move forward with its immigration bill and that the cornerstone of any future measure must be a 'path to legalization' for the 12 million undocumented immigrants already here." (Eunice Moscoso, "Democrats Promise Immigration Reform," Cox News Service, 6/30/07)
Sen. McCain Still Supports His Immigration Plan For A "Path To Citizenship." QUESTION: "But fundamentally, I'm wondering, don't you still have the same plan for a path to citizenship that you fundamentally held months ago?" MCCAIN: "Sure." (ABC/WMUR, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 1/5/08; www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LbTSe6uLqI)
ANNOUNCER: "On voting against President Bush's tax cuts, they agree."
In 2001, Sen. McCain And Sen. Clinton Both Voted Against The $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain And Clinton Voted Nay)
In 2003, Sen. McCain And Sen. Clinton Each Cast Two Votes Against The $350 Billion Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain And Clinton Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain And Clinton Voted Nay)
ANNOUNCER: "On imposing an additional 50 cents a gallon cost on gasoline, they agree."
McCain-Lieberman Would Dramatically Raise Taxes On All Carbon-Based Fuels, Like Gas For Your Car And Home Heating Oil. "What is not widely understood is that [Sen. McCain] is currently sponsoring legislation that, in the name of fighting global warming, would dramatically raise the tax on all carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil, coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas." (Roy Cordato, "McCain's Costly Tax On Energy," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, Posted 1/10/08)
American Council For Capital Formation Study: McCain-Lieberman Could Hike Gasoline Prices By 50 Cents Per Gallon. "A study by an economic research institute, the American Council for Capital Formation, underscored these findings, estimating that under S. 139: … By 2020, gasoline prices would increase 30 to 50 cents per gallon." (H. Sterling Burnett, "Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions," National Center For Policy Analysis, 11/18/04)
Sen. Hillary Clinton Has Co-Sponsored McCain-Lieberman. CLINTON: "And we were debating the McCain-Lieberman Bill, which I'm a proud co-sponsor, to try and do something with CO2." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The 17th Annual Energy Efficiency Forum, Washington, DC, 6/14/06)
ANNOUNCER: "On blocking conservative judges, they agree."
Sen. McCain Joined Democrats In The Gang Of 14 And Stopped Sen. Bill Frist From Banning Filibusters. "An effort that started as little more than hallway talk and phone conversations led to a last-minute deal May 23 that stopped Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plans to engineer a ruling the next day to bar filibusters of judicial nominations. A group that became known as the 'gang of 14' – seven Republicans and seven Democrats promised to vote against any such change as long as Democrats swore off future judicial filibusters in all but extraordinary cases. That unified promise had the effect of denying Frist the votes he needed to ban the practice altogether." (David Nather, "Senate Races Against The Nuclear Clock On Judges," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 5/28/05)
Sen. Clinton Was "Certainly Supportive" Of The Gang Of 14. CNN'S JUDY WOODRUFF: "Some people have noted that you chose not to be part of the group that announced the compromise, that worked on the compromise. The Gang of 14. Should somebody make anything of that?" CLINTON: "No. I think that this was a process that a couple of my colleagues started, you know, some weeks ago after Senator Reid could not reach any understanding with Senator Frist. And I thought they were pursuing a noble effort. I didn't know whether they would be successful or not, but I was, you know, certainly supportive of their efforts to try." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 5/26/05)
ANNOUNCER: "Even Bill Clinton says…" FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "'She and John McCain are very close.'" ANNOUNCER: "Don't we need a leader who agrees with conservatives?" GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
Former President Clinton: Sens. Clinton And McCain "Are Very Close." "'She and John McCain are very close,' [President Bill] Clinton said. 'They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they're afraid they'd put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.'" (Alexander Mooney, "Bill Clinton: John McCain And Hillary Are 'Very Close'," CNN's Political Ticker, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, Posted 1/25/08)
Power
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019710.php
One excerpt:
But voting on the basis of electability is often a fool's errand. Right now, Romney looks like a long-shot in November. He should be an attractive candidate -- smart, knowledgeable, good looking, extremely articulate -- but he's run into voter resistance even among conservatives because of his flip-flops, possibly his religion, and a general failure to connect. If he overcomes these problems and defeats McCain the rest of the way, then he'll have done enough to establish his potential electability to my satisfaction. If he doesn't, the issue will be moot.
Meanwhile, Republicans should not take too much comfort from McCain's performance in polls against Clinton and Obama this far from November. The McCain I saw in the California debate last week didn't look particularly electable. With the economy emerging as the overwhelmingly central issue in the campaign, with McCain's nasty streak increasingly on display, and with his reputation for straight-talk diminishing before our eyes, I'm not prepared to base a vote for the Senator on electability.
The decision thus comes down to policy and effectiveness. I give Romney the edge on both counts.
![[Leadership+Index0001.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSjXiXmkvCuJEfUWgivEk03uS6CO2U7SGcSK8omu_kG5ITLAngZgsn_y9ctmokHc5aMKqNY-rYGt4lTcpKYBlvJiHu2PudSIF979nzyaPyKiuxWOYqErXRhW1uoE2LTsFU46t9DA/s1600/Leadership+Index0001.jpg)
From Havs
Did you guys catch the Townhall blog about this, by Novak? http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/02/02/bush_against_romney This is something we need to push far and wide. Bush says he isn't happy with Romney because he's too tough on the border. One of the commentors at Michelle Malkin's blog said that Romney should say this in response:
This would be huge if we could get this out. For people who hate the illegal immigration plan that Bush, McCain, and Kennedy tried to shove down our throats this summer (which was a full 70% of the population of the US) this is as good as it gets. Bush doesn't like him because he was against granting amnesty to millions? Hallelujah, I want him!
Havs
"I found out today that President Bush may not support my candidacy, and the reason specifically is because I don't share his liberal views on immigration amnesty. He wants to make it easy on illegal immigrants to stay in the this country, as does Senator McCain who proved it with his amnesty bill in the senate, and I'm a strict reconstructionist on the issue of this country's sovereignty and right to keep its borders secure."
This would be huge if we could get this out. For people who hate the illegal immigration plan that Bush, McCain, and Kennedy tried to shove down our throats this summer (which was a full 70% of the population of the US) this is as good as it gets. Bush doesn't like him because he was against granting amnesty to millions? Hallelujah, I want him!
Havs
Don't let them tell you Main was uncontested!
JOHN MCCAIN 2008 MAINE LEADERSHIP TEAM
Honorary Chair
Former Governor John R. McKernan
Co-Chairs
United Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
United States Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine)
Vice Chair
State Representative Josh Tardy (R-Newport)
Legislative Team
Representative James Annis (R-Dover-Foxcroft)
Representative Rich Cebra (R-Naples)
Representative Kathy Chase (R-Wells)
Representative Dean Cray (R-Palmyra)
Representative Phil Curtis (R-Madison)
Representative Harold Ian Emery (R-Cutler)
Representative Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield)
Representative Ken Fletcher (R-Winslow)
Representative Jeff Gifford (R-Lincoln)
Representative John McDonough (R-Scarborough)
Representative Everett McLeod (R-Lee)
Representative H. Sawin Millett (R-Waterford)
Representative Gary Moore (R-Standish)
Representative Kerri Prescott (R-Topsham)
Representative John Robinson (R-Raymond)
Representative David Richardson (R-Carmel)
Representative Wes Richardson (R-Warren)
Representative David Savage (R-Falmouth)
Representative Thomas Saviello (U-Wilton)
Representative Joseph Tibbetts (R-Columbia)
Representative Windol Weaver (R-York)
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/25da61b1-7b70-4732-901a-642c966e1077.htm
Honorary Chair
Former Governor John R. McKernan
Co-Chairs
United Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
United States Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine)
Vice Chair
State Representative Josh Tardy (R-Newport)
Legislative Team
Representative James Annis (R-Dover-Foxcroft)
Representative Rich Cebra (R-Naples)
Representative Kathy Chase (R-Wells)
Representative Dean Cray (R-Palmyra)
Representative Phil Curtis (R-Madison)
Representative Harold Ian Emery (R-Cutler)
Representative Stacey Fitts (R-Pittsfield)
Representative Ken Fletcher (R-Winslow)
Representative Jeff Gifford (R-Lincoln)
Representative John McDonough (R-Scarborough)
Representative Everett McLeod (R-Lee)
Representative H. Sawin Millett (R-Waterford)
Representative Gary Moore (R-Standish)
Representative Kerri Prescott (R-Topsham)
Representative John Robinson (R-Raymond)
Representative David Richardson (R-Carmel)
Representative Wes Richardson (R-Warren)
Representative David Savage (R-Falmouth)
Representative Thomas Saviello (U-Wilton)
Representative Joseph Tibbetts (R-Columbia)
Representative Windol Weaver (R-York)
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/25da61b1-7b70-4732-901a-642c966e1077.htm
Too Much Bunker Mentality
Forgive me - I don't step up in this group very often. For the Article 6 blog to be maximally effective, it requires a certain aloofness.
But as I am reading through the blogs this morning, I am sensing too much resignation, too much sense that the rest of the nation just does not get it when it comes to Mitt, too much going through the motions. In the emails there is too much talk of commitment and not enough talk of winning - fighting for the cause.
Friends, this is not over, Mitt Romney is not a loser and neither are his supporters. Mitt Romney is THE inheritor of the Reagan legacy, and many of you are too young to really remember Ronald Reagan, but one thing overwhelmingly marked him - confidence and optimism. Ronald Reagan simply knew that the American people would resonate to his message, and they did. He even knew that when Gerry Ford beat him.
The Romney candidacy remains the leader and it is not playing catch-up. The Romney candidacy carries the torch for greatest political coalition this nation has ever seen.. That my friends is a winner and as the supporters of that banner we should act and think like winners.
I hope you are not in this because of "commitments" - I hope you are in this because it is what is best, and if anything marks the United States it is her ability to somehow muddle into the best.
Fight hard - play fair - act like the winners you are.
Mitt On Demand
Well Mitt's got his work cut out for him going forward. And we are committed to help out in anyway we can. To that end, we've just released our new book "Mitt On Demand" which is a compilation of selected speeches, quotes and sayings by Mitt Romney. The 143 page softbound book lays out in a condensed format Mitt's policy positions, etc. We really want to see a surge of grass roots support for Mitt before Super Tuesday and think this book could be a good way to generate some needed excitement that the race is not over yet! We would be pleased if you would feature the book and this link (www.MittOnDemand.com) on your Mittannica site and encourage your lists to buy the book or e-book and/or share it with any undecided's in your circles (or better yet) any McCain supporter.
Boyd & Holly
Trust
I've been trying to get down a series of posts that address the most common attacks on Mitt (flip-flopper, chameleon, can't be trusted, etc.). These charges have not only been the biggest drag on Mitt's campaign, they seem to have become the a priori assumption whenever anyone talks about Mitt. "Yeah, he's a flip-flopper, but he's still..." This DRIVES ME INSANE.
So, pardon my not holding a candle to the other excellent writers who blog for Romney, but I've tried to make a few posts that people can easily point at when these charges are made. It may be good if someone with a little more expertise and better familiarity with primary sources could do something similar. I know Romney's campaign makes it a rule to ignore these charges because you don't want to let others define you, but I sense we're past that. They've defined him, and there needs to be a more aggressive response. What do you think?
Here's my post from today:
Have a look at the earlier posts in this series: 1, 2, 3, 4.
This post is about lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's about rhetoric, spin, and semantics. It's about the differences between saying something untrue, conveying something untrue, and plain old lying. It's about intentions, accusations, and hypocrisy.
The game of politics centers around "campaigning." This is just how it is. It's how it's always been. Some take issue with the process of touting your pluses and minimizing your minuses, but it's within the expected rules of the game. However, occasionally someone says something untrue. This can be anything from a genuine mistake to a boldfaced lie, but I suspect that it's usually less diabolical than people tend to play it.
Let me give you a list of some of the issues where Romney has gotten a lot of bad press. Most recently there was a tiff with an AP reporter in which Romney is said to have lied about having lobbyists in his campaign. There is the time Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. There is the time Romney bragged about the NRA endorsing him (and don't forget his self-characterization as a "lifelong hunter"!). All of these have something in common: Romney was right to bring up his record, a record that supports his candidacy and his positions, but lost the chance to receive his due credit on the issues as the chattering focused more and more on a literal dissection of what he said rather than the substance of why he was saying it.
I could go down a laundry list of the times Romney's been blasted for misspeaking (often being labeled a liar rather than merely having made a mistake), but bickering about the actual words he used and their literal versus figurative definitions, the proper versus common use of words like endorse, and the like, will never arrive at the truth.
The truth is much simpler.
No matter how many lobbyists rub shoulders with Romney, his campaign is simply not dependent on them for cash or expertise in the way the other campaigns are (although both are accepted). Romney's family has long supported the civil rights movement. Romney had demonstrable approval from the NRA (whether officially or not) during his Massachusetts campaign and supports the importance of protecting the second amendment.
Is he guilty of exaggeration? Is he guilty of misstatements? Is he guilty of carelessness? Perhaps yes. But is he guilty of lying? Of outright deception? Of claiming to hold one position when he effectively holds another? No, despite that the media would much rather malign a candidate for his errors than honestly acknowledge that his record and positions have consistently supported the message he was trying to deliver.
This is not spin. This is not apologetics. This is just an assessment of the actual positions Romney holds, and his fallibility as a candidate who makes honest mistakes. The mistakes are honest because they have never changed his message one hundred and eighty degrees.
There is one more layer to this communication thing that demands mention. Romney has been criticized over the last few days by McCain for supposedly supporting a timetable of withdrawal from Iraq. McCain has also attacked him for supposedly supporting amnesty before he opposed it, as well as a big Michigan "bailout". Romney's positions on these issues differ from McCain's not just in substance but in style. Romney's message is always sophisticated and nuanced, as our Commander in Chief's understanding must be. McCain's message plays to the media with dogmatic oversimplification. It fits him well, because that's how he thinks. So, when Romney has had the courage to make careful distinctions, he has sometimes been attacked for "reversals" or for spinning things. Again, Romney's message has consistently been for responsible action by the U.S. in Iraq and in regard to illegal immigration, and no out-of-context testimonial by McCain can change that. The economic stimulus in Michigan is not a "bailout", but rather shows McCain's inability to understand the concept of research investment. Romney hardly needs a testimonial to his investment understanding.
At the end of the character assassination and name calling, Romney's key rebuttal to Huckabee's charges of dishonesty in a recent debate ring true: "facts are stubborn things." The truth is that in every case Romney has been accused of lying, the message he was intending to convey was based on the bedrock of record and fact.
It's the economy...
Today, Governor Mitt Romney addressed members of the media about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) McCain-Lieberman bill and the economic burdens this bill would put on Florida families. Below are Governor Romney's remarks as delivered:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCain-Lieberman_1.28
"On a very different topic, we're at a gas station. And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida. By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law. And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent. The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.
"And what's particularly troubling about the bill is that the effect on the global environment would be negligible, and that's because the bill does not require other nations to participate in order for the regulation to be promulgated. And the effect of that would be that high emitting industries would simply move from a country like ours that had these limits to a country like China that did not. And the net effect would be that emissions had just moved from one country to another and also jobs had moved from one country to another. And what is left behind in our country would be the burden of paying for the entire cost of this symbolic act.
"There's no question that symbols have value. But a symbol that costs a family of four $1,000 in Florida is a symbol far too rich and is not something which makes common sense.
"I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation. I think all of them were badly flawed. And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top. McCain-Feingold has not reduced the impact of money in politics, it has made it worse. McCain-Kennedy is viewed by virtually all as an amnesty bill. And McCain-Lieberman would cost the families of America as much as $1,000 a piece. All three are bills which evidence a lack of understanding of our economy, the very lack of understanding which Senator McCain has admitted on numerous occasions."
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/McCain-Lieberman_1.28
"On a very different topic, we're at a gas station. And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida. By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law. And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent. The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.
"And what's particularly troubling about the bill is that the effect on the global environment would be negligible, and that's because the bill does not require other nations to participate in order for the regulation to be promulgated. And the effect of that would be that high emitting industries would simply move from a country like ours that had these limits to a country like China that did not. And the net effect would be that emissions had just moved from one country to another and also jobs had moved from one country to another. And what is left behind in our country would be the burden of paying for the entire cost of this symbolic act.
"There's no question that symbols have value. But a symbol that costs a family of four $1,000 in Florida is a symbol far too rich and is not something which makes common sense.
"I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation. I think all of them were badly flawed. And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top. McCain-Feingold has not reduced the impact of money in politics, it has made it worse. McCain-Kennedy is viewed by virtually all as an amnesty bill. And McCain-Lieberman would cost the families of America as much as $1,000 a piece. All three are bills which evidence a lack of understanding of our economy, the very lack of understanding which Senator McCain has admitted on numerous occasions."
From Sean
I disagree with Senator McCain's dishonest characterization of Governor Romney's previous comments regarding Iraq and future plans. It is too easy, and transparently cynical, to twist and distort someone's words or record.
I should note that Senator McCain himself has not always been wholly committed to keeping American troops in the field under combat conditions. Although under differing circumstances, note his clear, public record comments below on Haiti and Somalia:
1994 — "The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives."
1993 — "Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible."
"Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not." -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93
"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93
I will only suggest that perhaps Senator McCain needs to be careful about how he portrays others, as his own words could be subject to distortion also.
May we now focus on the great issues that lie before us?
I should note that Senator McCain himself has not always been wholly committed to keeping American troops in the field under combat conditions. Although under differing circumstances, note his clear, public record comments below on Haiti and Somalia:
1994 — "The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives."
1993 — "Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible."
"Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not." -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93
"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.
Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.
I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.
Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .
I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.
I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.
We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.
I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93
I will only suggest that perhaps Senator McCain needs to be careful about how he portrays others, as his own words could be subject to distortion also.
May we now focus on the great issues that lie before us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)