John McCain is set to endorse Mitt Romney today, and I’m sure there will be plenty of platitudes.
But the McCain endorsement comes with baggage, like this:
“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig,” Senator John McCain said in New Hampshire this month after reporters asked him about Mr. Romney. “You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
Mike Huckabee’s pugilistic campaign chairman, Ed Rollins, appeared to stop just short of threatening Mr. Romney with physical violence at one point. “What I have to do is make sure that my anger with a guy like Romney, whose teeth I want to knock out, doesn’t get in the way of my thought process,” Mr. Rollins said.
Campaign insiders and outside strategists point to several factors driving the ill will, most notably, Mr. Romney’s attacks on opponents in television commercials, the perception of him as an ideological panderer and resentment about his seemingly unlimited resources as others have struggled to raise cash.
And the ads McCain successfully ran against Romney in response to Romney’s attack ads were brutally effective, and could be used by Obama almost off the shelf:
All of that will be forgotten, or will it?
Update: Hmmm…. Gingrich super PAC uses McCain ’08 Web ad ‘Two Mitts’ to slam Romney:
On Wednesday, a super PAC backing Gingrich welcomed McCain’s endorsement of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) by seizing on a Web ad, “Two Mitts,” that the Arizona Republican had run against Romney during the 2008 GOP nominating battle.
The spot juxtaposes clips of Mitt Romney stating contrasting positions on issues including abortion rights and gun control throughout his political career.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“…ads McCain successfully ran against Romney in response to Romney’s attack ads were brutally effective, and could be used by Obama almost off the shelf”
OR by Gingrich!
How sweet-it-is to anticipate Newt coming out with barrels blazing… it’s about time
Newt claims Willard actually changed his voter registration to “Democrat” so he could vote for Tsongas. One of Willard’s sisters campaigned heavily for Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown last cycle. Willard’s father was a liberal Republican.
That it looks like he’s going to be the Republican nominee seems like a Twilight Zone episode. I just don’t know how we can trust him.
Not to be overly cruel to the doddering old man, but who the #%!! cares what McCain has to say?
Could even be a negative for some conservatives.
Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is already using the words in the ads.
Another Dem was derisive of Romney’s win considering the millions spent.
No,it will not be forgotten.
The important thing will be for conservatives/the Repulican candidate/whoever to focus on the Obama/Democrat/union/ACORN/legislative shenanigan record and baggage. Heck, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin gave Obama the biggest fights he had in 2008; as the nominee he faced no real threat from Mr. nice-guy McCain and and the cowardly, frightened Republican estalishment. Add to this the blind backing of the entire cohort of Democrat rubber-stamp establishments. If the Republican nominee isn’t going to use Obama’s track record and shrouded, murkey past against him, he should accept as a gift from those who will everything they throw up against Obama.
It will be a mean, dirty, nasty, fight. Above all else, the nominee must be prepared and willing to fight. He must be 1) able to take a punch and anticipate low blows; 2) he must be able and willing to punch aggresively, on offense, not just as a reaction. He must make the fight, take it to the Democrats, unapoligetically, without remorse. All else aside these are characteristics that distinguish Gingrich. And while he has other notable strengths, if the remaining Republican candidates were force ranked by this characteristic alone, Romney would be at the bottom of the list.
Speaking of the General Election, you say (my emphasis added):
Well, would you please explain that to Newt Gingrich, who came in back in fourth place in Iowa last night? He seems to feel that all of his troubles were directly attributable to the machinations of the relentless Romney attack machine.
If Mitt is the least capable of taking on Obama, then how come Newt complains that Mitt was so successful at marginalizing Newt in Iowa?
Funny how Ed Rollins has suddenly taken on such cred here!
Gee, it hasn’t always been that way — I remember all the talk here about Ed Rollins the Palin-basher!
So could someone please explain how Ed Rollins’ anger at Mitt Romney four years ago, is now baggage for Mitt Romney?
Is it just the “enemy of my enemy …” cliché?
Or, is this all a part of the convenient, but ultimately risible conspiracy theory, floated by Ed Rollins, that Michelle Bachmann had secretly cut a deal with Romney for the Vice-Presidential nod by concentrating her attacks on the former Speaker?
Ed Rollins has no credibility! He says outrageous things to provoke controversy, and has even done so to the detriment of his client! For example, he made racially-charged comments back in 1993 just after a close gubernatorial race (Whitman v. Florio), comments that caused a huge uproar and a lengthy official investigation in New Jersey, and set back the newly elected governor’s efforts to even begin her Administration. And lest you think that was a good thing, her first order of business was a large tax cut.
It all ended up with the conclusion that Ed Rollins had simply lied about the matter — he made the story up.
Now that my preferred candidate has left, I’ll have to decide whom to vote for come the Colorado primary.
As I’ve said before, I dont see a whole lot of difference between Perry, Gingrich, or Romney (other than stylistically); all have had troubling non-conservative positions, all have had a predisposition towards big government solutions.
This site has gone after Mitt for his negative adds, yet for the past weeks most of what I’ve read here is essentially the same thing – going negative on Mitt. This site, and all of the commentors here blasting Mitt (and Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann) are not giving me any reason to vote for Newt.
While I agree with much of what you said, above, I think you will find that an actual debate does take place here. And, for the most part, it does not turn too personal, as it decidedly does on some other sites!
However, over the course of the past several weeks, I would say that the tone has become increasingly and quite personally anti-Romney . . . not just pro-Gingrich.
Well, I happen to be a supporter of Mitt Romney because I believe he is by far the best Republican candidate this year. I settled on that view for this cycle quite recently, even though I did initially supported Mitt back in 2008. When John McCain got the nomination, I supported him against Barack Obama.
In the course of recent postings I have made either defending Mitt’s positions, or attacking the positions of the former Speaker, or others, I’m sure I have either disappointed or angered some of the diehard supporters of Newt, or others. Newt supporters do tend to be in the majority at this site. That’s natural because the blog owner has been as well.
Hey . . . nobody’s perfect, and that definitely includes me!
I just hope that when Newt Gingrich cools off a little, and has a few days to think about it, that he will express a broader sense of perspective than that which is pretty obviously driving him right now.
Newt made some serious mistakes in Iowa (and elsewhere – VA) that no candidate should make, but right now his focus sounds like what he really wants is revenge. And if you look at a few comments on this thread, you might get the sense that it is on the minds of a few commenters as well — one handy way to identify them is the name-calling.
In my book, that’s called taking your eye off the ball.
I don’t recall anyone here claiming that they would not attack Mittens on his flip-flops, his politics of convienence, or his nose in the air supperiority complex. If McCain, the so called “Maverick” moderate, wants to lend his willingness to go liberal to Romney’s already questionable conservative bona fides then let him. I say they are both cut from the same cloth.
Isn’t the McCain endorsement about as valuable as the Jimmy Carter endorsement?
Gingrich’s early $$$ problems wouldn’t allow him to counter the relentless Romney and Paul attack ads. A new PAC is about to change that. Let’s not forget how early this thing is.
GOP polls for January 4, 2008:
Guliani 20.2%
McCain 17.4%
Huckabee 17%
Romney 14.8%
Tompson 11.4%
Paul 4%
I’m curious about whose poll that was for January 4, 2008. I assume it was a national poll published on the day of the Iowa caucuses — so that it did not reflect any of the “winnowing” effect for the weak finishers that inevitably takes place based on the outcome of those caucuses.
None of the major polls listed on RCP in and around that specific point in time show a Guiliani listing.
His slide had begun in September ’07 and with the Kerik revelations and indictment, he was never able to look back, with both Huckabee and McCain catching and surpassing him at some time in early to mid-December of ’07.
Fox showed him at “20” points on Dec. 7th, tied with two others, but he had permanently dropped below both Huckabee and McCain by very late December and early January.
He only got 9% of the NH vote on January 8th, and he dropped out by the end of the month when he lost Florida.
I think Rush summed it up appropriately today when he said “the guy who couldn’t beat Obama in 2008 endorsed the guy who couldn’t beat McCain in 2008.”
Frankly, I am surprised McCain could swallow his arrogant pride and endorse Romney but McCain’s endorsement is utterly irrelevant to me. I knew I would never vote for McCain back in 2003 when he started pushing McCain-Feingold!
[…] Huntsman said it didn’t matter and a Pro-Newt Gingrich PAC is now attacking Romney with a McCain ad from 2008. Just the way it should […]
My 1st thought then I saw Romney/McCain on the same stage…great 2 losers sharing a stage. McCain was a terrible candidate 4 years ago…and Mitt is a terrible one today.
Vote “none of the above” (Watch “Brewsters Millions”).