WASHINGTON (CNN) – Republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee seemed to be working off the same playbook at Saturday's presidential debate, each hitting rival Mitt Romney for changing his position on key issues.
"Which one?" Huckabee interjected when Romney asked that he not try to characterize his position on the Iraq war.
"We disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree you are the candidate of change," McCain told Romney later in the debate, after the former Massachusetts governor said he was best able to change Washington.
Meanwhile, Romney's presidential campaign sent out press releases shortly after the comments attempting to show that Huckabee has changed his position on the troop surge in Iraq, and McCain has changed his stance on an amnesty policy.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Marti San Diego, CA,
Are you kidding me? I am an atheist and I hate Romney and he is the only candidate I hate. Sure I dislike Hillary Clinton, but I don't hate her. Romney lies and lies. He said just yesterday that he never called McCain's plan an amnesty, what a lie. He had two TV ads using exactly that particular words. He attacked Huckabee extremely unfairly in Iowa. He started the negative campaign weeks before Huckabee launched his, which is why McCain and Huckabee were not the only one attacked Romney. Everyone did. Guiliani did. Thompson did. Did you happen not to sleep during the debate?
Wake up! Contrast ads are attack ads. Where did you go to school? McCain also play an ads where Romney himself said foreign policy is not important for being the president. Of course that is an attack ads too.
By the way, I am an atheist. So even think this is about religion. Sure, some idiots may argue that Romney lost Iowa because Huckabee is a Baptist minister and Iowa has a large Christian population. However, not New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a very secular state. Romney's defeat in New Hampshire will have NOTHING to do religion, especially McCain who has a worse relation with Christian right than Romney.
In the debate, in addition to feigning innocence about his own attacks on Huckabee and McCain, Mitt Romney blamed the 47 million Americans without insurance for their unwillingness to participate in keeping the costs of health care down. Are you kidding me? Hey Mitt, 9 million of those slackers are children - but it's their fault they don't have health insurance?
At least it's good to know that Mitt has truly adopted the same "pro-life" banner of most politicians who flaunt it. Meaning, he'll now tell you he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, ostensibly for the sake of children, but when those kids are born to struggling parents who can't afford to insure them, he'll blame those same kids for the rising costs of health care. Give me a friggin' break.
I'm a Democrat, and fairly left-leaning, but I'll take a Bible-thumping Huckabee or war-mongering McCain over the snake-oil-salesman Romney any day. It's true that until quite recently, Romney has shared my liberal bent. Still, if a Republican is elected and I'm getting someone more conservative than myself anyway, I'll take the real thing, please.
Hey Richard –
Unless it's a direct quote, he didn't say it. His ads don't count as a direct quote. Contrast ads are not attack ads; there are different terms for different reasons, and if you had even a basic understanding of politics you might comprehend this.
McCain is too old. Period. Smart. Experienced. But TOO OLD!
So is Thompson.
Huckleberry doesn't have the strength or intelligence to battle Dem's or Jihadists. This isn't a church where we're electing a Pastor, it's a COUNTRY with multiple issues that need correcting and he has no idea how big this really is. He's Bush, verse 2 (or is that 3?).
Guiliani doesn't care about anyone but big city and being Pres isn't only about fighting Radical Islamic Terrorists, nor is the only one who can do so. He's a chunk short on Integrity too and would be eaten up by the Dem machine. He doesn't have the whole package. Period.
Paul has good ideas, but like Perot, is simply unelectable. Sad, but true.
Romney is the most viable candidate when looking at the whole package. He is extremely intelligent, able to keep his head when everyone is pouncing on him, has more integrity than the other 4 combined and is experienced at TRULY turning around huge problematic companies, organizations (Olympics) and Gov't (MA). Plus he can and wants to work with and for ALL citizens of this country.
Remember it's also about who can take the whippings from the Dem machine during the election, but then reach across the aisle while President. Romney '08.
In my last comment, I intended to say that Paul, tho' unelectable has integrity, as does Romney. Didn't want to leave that out. Perhaps Romney/Paul '08?
Mario January 6, 2008 12:54 pm ET
One is a washed up preacher (Hickupbee) the other a grmpy old man (McCain) who thinks the office of the president should be just given to him. Neither knows what he is talking about and would harm this country even more than it is already.
You can't trust a washed up old preacher and a grumpy old man would forget where he is or forget to take his meds before he goes to bed.
What about your hyprocrite, aka Willard Mitt Romney the lying flip flopper. I know the people of Massachusetts called him FEE FEE because he raised fees so much.
What's the difference in raising fees sky high and raising taxes. It still comes out of the tax payers pockets.
Those of you who decided to vote for Mitt Romney on the basis of watching a debate on TV are wrong. He has unlimited resources and a huge staff with which to prep him with debating points. Sophistry is the art of winning the argument regardless of what the truth may be. Before you settle on Romney, better to get a deeper understanding of his history by visiting the website TrueRomney.com. As one of his opponents said, if you aren't honest with the American people while trying to get the job, how can you be trusted to be honest with the American people after you have the job? Charlton Heston or Burt Lancaster would have made a great looking President, but that is not what it takes to run a country.
Romney will trounce that Napoleonic "psycho" McCain in Florida. He'll beat McCain in the Northeast, even if Ghouliani drops out as he's likely to and backs McCain in the process. The key now to a Romney win–as both Ghouliani and Suckabee will bow out and back McCain–is to get Thompson's and Hunter's endorsement. The endorsement of Romney by Thompson will be a huge slap in the face for McCain, his close friend. Policy and truth will win out over friendship. Another factor in Romney's battle with McCain will be Jeb Bush's endorsement. Will Romney get it? A Florida loss to Romney will all but sink McCain, because McCain has no chance to win the West (after getting trounced in Nevada today)–with strong Mormon support in Oregon and Utah. In fact, I can't see McCain winning California on Super Tuesday. The GOP debate next week is key.
McCain is much smarter than Romney in all aspects.