McCain Brings Romney Along for Western Fundraisers

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:42:18 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Charlie Crist (all tags)

Share This:

Mitt Romney won the primary/caucuses in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Nevada. Today, John McCain held some fundraisers in Utah and Colorado. In Colorado, Romney beat McCain 59% to 19%, winning rural and urban areas and even in Denver. Who did McCain bring along today? Mitt Romney.

Millions of Republicans supported him and voted for him," McCain said of the former Massachusetts governor at a press conference at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver.

Romney, whom some speculate is on McCain's short list of vice-presidential candidates, said McCain is "tested and proven."

The Washington Post has more. McCain and Romney were pretty contentious during the Republican debates. Looks like they've patched up their differences. Expect more of Romney on the campaign trail: [More...]

Their joint appearances indicated that Romney will be a player in the GOP's Western strategy. "Colorado will be a battleground state and we will work hard here, and I have every confidence that I can win in the state of Colorado," said McCain, flanked by Romney, U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer and the state Republican Congressional delegation: U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard and Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn.

Who will be more effective as a VP candidate for McCain nationally? Romney or Charlie Crist?

< Tomorrow's View Today: Obama on Wright | Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain Brings Romney Along for Western Fundraisers | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Romney (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by jes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST

I don't think Crist will play well in the west.

Oh, and typo (natinally) in the last sentence.

I hope he's the GOP VP nominee (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM EST

Just for the Letterman jokes..."this guy looks like he'd be selling fruit dehydrators on cable", "He looks like a cosmetic surgeon who gets ambushed on '60 Minutes", "He looks like the photo that comes with the frame".

I think you'll all JUST LOVE THIS (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by ObamaMaMa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM EST

From Ben Smith @ Politico:

"The University of Chicago Law School has now posted a statement declaring his claims semantically sound: "The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as 'Senior Lecturer.' From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.""

Hopefully, (none / 0) (#1)
by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:48:15 PM EST

if we can wrap up this primary in a way that honors both sides, we can get the whole gang on the campaign trail stumping for the Dem nominee.

: Not if Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#36)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:31:16 AM EST

as he has knee-capped our best vote-getter, Bill Clinton, and many others by Obama calling them racist. It just won't work to put them on the campaign trail, as all the media attention would be to the charges that they're racist instead of to what they would have to say about Obama as a candidate.
This is another reason that I disagree with BTD on Obama's "electability." If Gore had used Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Gore could have won in 2000. Obama can't use Bill Clinton -- and maybe not Hillary Clinton, either, with all the Obama smears on her -- or Ferraro or others who can get out the constituencies with whom Obama is doing poorly.
I.e., Gore and Kerry both got 41-42% of the white vote and couldn't win in sufficient numbers (that is, Gore won the popular vote but not enough to win the electoral college). Obama is getting little more than 35% of the white vote. It's not enough -- and with the the Wright problems that will continue throughout the campaign, clearly, it's not going to be enough for Obama to win.
Not without the big-name Dems he needs, and Obama can't use them now, because of his racism smears. That means because of his short-sighted strategy to win the primary, which would lose the general election.

[ Parent ]

I almost can't keep up (none / 0) (#2)
by Lil on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:55:46 PM EST

with the news tonight. Hardly can tell who is whose ally anymore.

Well, (none / 0) (#4)
by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST

If I vote repulican, at least I know what I'm getting into! So Sad!

[ Parent ]

Speaking of McCain (none / 0) (#17)
by RalphB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:55:38 AM EST

that whole 100 years of war in Iraq was based on the same kind of partial quotes that started the Clinton racist junk.

NYTimes Fact Check

Actually seems pretty reasonable for a change.

[ Parent ]

: Except that his analogy was wrong. (none / 0) (#26)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:11:00 AM EST

Maybe a hundred," Mr. McCain interjected, almost cavalierly. "We've been in South Korea. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me.
This ain't south Korea or Japan. There was/is no organized insurgency in those countries. We have stayed in those two countries by invitation and people are not shooting at us.
The Iraqi government is being propped up by US troops. We aren't really there with the consent of the Iraqis and people are shooting at us. This sounds familiar. Very familiar.
The analogy McCain (and the GOP) is avoiding is Vietnam.
Once you realize that, if McCain does not understand the problem, then result will be 100 years in Iraq and therefore the criticism is correct. As for the NY Times, their reporting on the war has, in a word, sucked. They are in the tank with McCain as is most of the MSM.
McCain admits he doesn't understand economics, and he is either lying to us or doesn't understand the war. More of the Same McCain is an apt sobriquet.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

I don't think McCain would want to risk (none / 0) (#5)
by tigercourse on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST

angering the base by picking Crist. I'm sure Romney would be more aceptable to them. But there are better choices. Someone from Pennsylvania or Michigan for example. Tom Ridge might be too tightly bound to the Bush administration, but he would assure McCain a victory in Penn. And Michigan has a congresswoman - Candace Miller - who won the Sec. of state office by nearly a million votes. She'd have a good shot at delivering the state for him.

Trial marriage? (none / 0) (#6)
by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:44:44 PM EST

Rove has been pushing it...

It would be nice (none / 0) (#7)
by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:48:20 PM EST

to paint McSame and Romney with the same as brush as flip-floppers.

One of the stronger lines of attack against McCain is that he is a "maverick" only as long as it is politically convenient. Romney's candidacy has embodied this.

[ Parent ]

For Charile Crist? (none / 0) (#27)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:11:59 AM EST

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

: I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by white n az on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:44:30 AM EST

what you meant to say...
for the love of Crist

[ Parent ]

MY WORST NIGHTMARE (none / 0) (#8)
by scorbs on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:05:10 PM EST

Romney somewhere on the ticket was my worst nightmare. He's known as a financial fixer, though he actually has a less than stellar track record in Massachusetts. But with McCain at top, he needs someone strong economically who suggests he can fix the economy. Romney might be that. However, i wouldn't vote republican -- both will be too constrained by the nutwing part of that party and won't be able to do anything that would help middle-income people. So no matter what, no repubs in the executive branch please. Obama would be a disaster as well. He has no ideas that are original to himself and no track record of getting anything done. No leadership there.

What a horrible mess without Hill.

It's obvious (none / 0) (#9)
by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:38 PM EST

McCain/Romney. Romney will then have the 2012 open for him, cause McCain only wants one term, it's an ego thing. Duh, this is so obvious. McCain needs Romney for the "economic" bits that Romney blanks out on. Only problem, is Romney was on the wrong economic game plan, but I think he can adjust.

also please god (none / 0) (#12)
by english teacher on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:34 AM EST

i hate to even mention the name of jeb bush. let's not forget that he is out there, he would unify all the elements of the republican base, and he would easily carry florida. my fear is that if obama is the nominee and mccain should falter, jeb will be drafted. the only reason he hasn't made a move yet, imho, is that repug internals show he can't beat hillary, and might not even carry florida against her. of course this is all speculation, but it is the ugly worst case scenario, so i thought i'd throw it out there. he is not someone to be taken lightly. the only question is how long before he makes his move. i'm pretty sure he could beat obama this year if he got in.

Race-baiting comments (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM EST

deleted.

How was I race baiting? (none / 0) (#15)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:50:07 AM EST

I was making what I think is a fair, political, and left-wing point. Wright (which is posted on highly here) is attacked for racism. Obama's credentials are challened because of his decision to stay in a "racist" church. The exact same claim can be made, if not better, about Romney. What am I baiting?

[ Parent ]

I didn't read your deleted comment (none / 0) (#33)
by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:43 AM EST

and you make a valid point.
But do you think the Dems will attack the Mormon Church and indirectly - Sen. Harry Reid and the other Mormons in Congress?

[ Parent ]

: They dont have to attack... (none / 0) (#39)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:42:52 AM EST

They can just say, "Perhaps Mitt Romney can explain to 'random 527 group' the reasons for staying in a church that you sometimes strongly disagree with. THere are many reasons for participating in an organized faith, even if you don't support everything that is taught. Politicians and citizens throughout the country should understand this. Certainly VP candidate Romney can understand Obama's loyalty to his church."
You don't play the negative side. You spin it positively.

[ Parent ]

don't delude yourself (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM EST

into thinking a mccain/romney ticket would obviate the wright issue, it won't. the official republican campaign needn't say a thing, except "tut-tut, we don't do that sort of thing." after the 527's savage obama (should he be the dem. nominee). of course, the damage will already have been done.

maybe lieberman was busy, so romney went instead, to correct what are sure to be many flubs by mccain?

So you put up a side-by-side ad... (none / 0) (#16)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:51:17 AM EST

Have Rev. Wright speak, and then read the official statements of the LDS church pre-1978. It's a VERY easy case to make.

[ Parent ]

The problem is the Western swing states (none / 0) (#28)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:15:33 AM EST

I don't think demonizing the LDS would work there. And it would be wrong. (Gawd I am quoting Milhous again).

"you're just as bad" (none / 0) (#32)
by Nasarius on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:45:31 AM EST

Is rarely an effective argument. It puts you on the defensive, it reminds everyone of the original attack, and it just looks petty.

[ Parent ]

: No... (none / 0) (#40)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST

You say, "You're just as good." It's actually a line Obama basically already used - that most religious folk don't agree with everything said or taught by their church. They can just say that Romney as much as anyone should get this.

[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman (none / 0) (#24)
by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:06:51 AM EST

I think he sat out while Romney took up the western jaunt because Romney did well in the west. He also has his Utah following and I think also NV with a chunk through CA. Lieberman is more east (they were in Fla), Romney west for fund raising, i think. Rudy will show up for the northeast {gag}

I think McCain will prob go Christian on the VP since he still is shaky with the more conservative side of the party. A couple of over the top religious endorsements prob aren't convincing enough. His numbers may take a dip after the Dem is decided on. He needs/needs to keep the base vote.

my take anyway :)

[ Parent ]

: McCain doesn't need Lieberman (none / 0) (#35)
by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:56:58 AM EST

If Obama's the Dem nominee, the hardcore Jewish vote will not go for him in any event. The Jewish newspapers have been all over the Wright story, the Farrakhan endorsement and Obama's statement that he will speak with Ahmadinejad.

[ Parent ]

These were not just statements... (none / 0) (#19)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01:08 AM EST

this was official church doctrine - even down to the origin of the Black race. Romney stayed in the church and his wife converted when the church still taught HIGHLY offensive things officially, and not incidentally.

Now, as I said in the post that was deleted, I understand that Romney disagreed with his church here. Just like I understand that Obama disagreed with his. Fact of the matter is, they are mirror incidents.

No, they aren't (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:41 AM EST

which is probably why you got deleted. There's a HUGE difference between 30-year-old religious doctrine and one over-the-top minister of one church.

If you look carefully at almost any official religion, there are unappealing things in its official doctrine. Catholics routinely ignore aspects of official church teaching yet remain Catholics, as do Jews and Muslims and probably Hindus.

And in political terms, there's no comparison at all. Nobody is going to run ads slamming a mainstream religion, which Mormonism is. Running ads slamming an individual pastor is another thing entirely.

[ Parent ]

I think that just the opposite is true... (none / 0) (#23)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:20:39 AM EST

the institutional and official nature is what is shocking to me. This isn't like homosxuality even where people make distinctions, "This is a sin, but we love the people, etc." This was institutionally teaching that blacks were ontologically inferior. Mormons no longer teach that (and no doubt offer various interpretations of controversial passages now) but staying in THAT church for 31 years can very easily be trouble for Romney. The fact that it happened a long time ago doesn't change anything in reality.

NOw maybe you are right and it won't play as well, but the baseline arguments are all the same.

[ Parent ]

you may well be right. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM EST

most likely, you aren't. mormon doctrine's been around for 150 years (actually more), but they had to clean up their act somewhat for utah to become a state. however, the racial issue is going to be the least of the wright problem, it's the anti-american rants that will be the focus of attention for the 527's. that was just recently.

the last time i checked, no mormon preacher was screeching "god d*mn america".

perhaps the dems. could focus in on that "special" mormon underwear. :)

[ Parent ]

Hah... (none / 0) (#41)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:31 AM EST

For the "anti-American" stuff, they just need to show the video in context. His central theme is "governments can change." In context it seems WAY less offensive. We can fight that one. There will be people who never get OK with it, but they'll be the same ones who think Obama is secretly a Muslim or is actually a communist, etc.

The comments I think will get Obama, if anything, will be the blatantly political and shocking stuff about Hillary. I can defend most of what Wright said, but I will say nothing to defend his pulpit-humping and his abuse of the pulpit as a political lecture stand. I don't like it when pastors in my neck of the woods preach for George Bush, and I don't like it when Wright preaches for Obama.

[ Parent ]

ok, let me try one more time (none / 0) (#44)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST

to explain this to you, in as simple terms as possible:

the 527 is not going to play wright's statements in "context". that would be self-defeating, a huge waste of time and money.

why you think they would is a mystery. for obama to then have to explain, in "context" what wright "really" meant is a win-win for the republican ticket: keeps the issue alive, and diverts scarce allocable resources from being used against them.

[ Parent ]

: Sorry... (none / 0) (#45)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST

by "they" I meant Obama's team. Or an Obama 527.

[ Parent ]

1978 is 30 years ago (none / 0) (#20)
by RalphB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:10:16 AM EST

the Wright stuff is in the past few years, practically up to the present. is that so hard to discern as a bit different?

[ Parent ]

: Absolutely... (none / 0) (#21)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:59 AM EST

the core issue - of staying in a controversial church - is precisely the same.
Plus, the Book of Mormon still has these passages...
2 Nephi 5:21
21 And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."
3 Nephi 2:14-15
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
Again, this is a mirror. Of course, Romney can disagree or offere a different understanding of those passages and that is fair in the exact same way that Obama's response to Wright is fair.
Romney makes Wright a wash for Obama because they handled the situation the same way. They distanced themselves from the controversy and helped to reinterpret the teachings in light of larger issues.

[ Parent ]

Just remember (none / 0) (#38)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST

The Repubicans turned Kerry into, essentially, a traitor even though he actually served in Vietnam, all the while we all had doubts that their guy Bush even showed up for his champaign corps drills to protect the skies of Texas for Democracy.

When you make the argument that "Republicans did it too," I say so what? There are "Republican rules," just as there are Clinton rules and Obama rules. Republicans get away with anything and everything.

[ Parent ]

: That's true... (none / 0) (#42)
by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM EST

But Kerry could barely talk his way out of a paper bag, and Kerry had predicated much of his run on his service. Even for voters who got that the SwiftBoat stuff was kind of non-sense I think eventually became uncomfortable with the facade that Kerry presented in the "reporting for duty" bit.
I think Obama can handle the "swift boating" better because he can speak to it compellingly, he has a central message (new governance) that allows him to condemn that kind of stuff, and Wright isn't a central piece of his campaign like the military was for Kerry.

[ Parent ]

Charlie Crist? (none / 0) (#25)
by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:06:50 AM EST

Although his homosexuality hasn't been officially substantiated (obviously!) Dems wouldn't make a big deal about Republicans hypocrisy on that issue, but the anti-gay Repub base may reject Crist.

: But! But! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:50:09 AM EST

Charlie Crist has a new girlfriend! He can't possibly be gay!

[ Parent ]

Dharma & Greg (none / 0) (#43)
by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST

If anyone is familiar with that television show, there was an episode when Greg was running for Congress and is caught in the back seat of the car with his wife. One of the lines was..."that's the first time a politician has ever been caught in bed with his own wife"

This is about what Charlie Crist would need to be considered a viable VP candidate. The GOP will have nothing to do with him on a national scale as he is maybe the only politician that would benefit from being caught in bed with a woman.