Why Supply-Siders Will Rally to McCain

There is only 1 clear choice for our GOP nominee this year...Mitt. McCain pales in so many ways to Romney. Mitt has the smarts, the awesome family, the record of conservatism, and has no "favors to repay" when it comes to serving in Washington. Mitt is a true gentleman, and doesn't make personal assaults on his fellow campaigners. McCain is a tempermental, angry old man who thinks the presidency will complete his life. Mitt wants only to serve....he doesn't need any more money, limelight or prestige. Mitt has it all. When will this nation see the truth?

Ruthie of @ Feb 04, 2008 23:09:25 PM

To the poster below.

I thought Comparitive Advantage was Ricardo (working off of Smith's Absolute Advantage concept).

of NC @ Feb 04, 2008 22:46:07 PM

Let's take Romney to November

Based on what I have seen in the debates (and I have watched them all), if John McCain gets the GOP nomination, either Clinton or Obama will eat his lunch come November.

I think it is easy to get lost in the polls and, as Chris has said above, it is a shame. I hope that people vote on the candidate which reflects their own principles & beliefs and at the same time the candidate that is the most qualified.

All conservatives should keep this in mind tomorrow at the polls. A lot of pundits say that Romney is not as electable as McCain. I think that it is way to early to say and frankly I think that Romney would school Clinton or Obama in the debates if he gets the nomination.

Romney is the man.

Joe of GA @ Feb 04, 2008 22:03:45 PM

What a load of rubish. McCain will carbon tax us into recession. He voted against Bush tax cuts. He will amnesty 15 million new Dems who will destroy our economy into a socialist welfare state.

McCain is the anti-christ of economic conservatives. How come there are so many stupid people who don't see this???????

RA of OH @ Feb 04, 2008 21:30:14 PM

Rombots, please stop. No-one's buying your line.

To to the Rombots who've over-posted here, my problems with Romney are:

1) His commitment to being pro-life is entirely convenient to this election and without any trace of history of actual conviction.

2) He'll say ANYTHING to get elected. Who are you and what do you want? Just tell Mitt and that's what he'll promise to deliver! Just ask the voters in Michigan - they think he's going to find them 20 million high-paying wage-protected economic-trade-proof blue-collar jobs in the American auto industry which offer a low-risk guarantee to an upper-middle-class lifestyle. And without fairydust!!

3) He seems to think he has the right to tell Huckabee to withdraw from the race as though this were the capital markets and he's the big bad I-banker and/or corporate raider about to buy the GOP out. Guess what, Mitt! You've spent 10x as much as everyone else COMBINED and the voters still don't love you. And you don't get to buy out the competition, either. We don't like you, you're money's no good here. Now, take your arrogant son-of-a-governer's arse and GO HOME!

pfish of DC @ Feb 04, 2008 21:23:17 PM

Response to Howard J. Harrison

I think that the comment posted by Mr. Howard J. Harrison requires a response.

1. U.S. economy had a great period of expansion during 1812-1936 because of the unleashed entrepreneurial spirit that couldn't be expressed on the other side of the Atlantic but found a fertile ground here. Moreover, the annual economic growth average during that period was inferior to what was achieved after WWII (when free trade ideas gained more acceptance). The vast unexploited resources found in U.S.A. during the second part of the 19th century also helped expand the U.S. economy.

2. To assert that the U.S. had a protected economy during 1812-1936 is a flagrant overstatement. We have to remember that during that period, protectionism was the rule and compared with other nations the U.S. had an open economy.

3. Nostalgia for good old days makes for good writing but doesn't make it a fact.

4. The U.S. became a debtor due to its staggering military expenditures and lavish consumption, well beyond what the country could afford. Free trade and a friendly environment for investors kept, and is still keeping, the economy alive.

5. Milton Freedman never admitted that the Smoot-Hawley tariff didn't have a contribution to the birth of the Great Depression. He just points, and he's correct, that the mismanagement of the money supply was the determinant factor for the start of the Depression.

6. Markets react to anticipated events. This is why stock goes down or up depending on what the expected earnings for the next quarter(s) are. The market collapsed because it was largely expected for the Smoot-Hawley tariff to become law.

7. Free trade lift countries from poverty and provides for an amazing increase in the standard of living worldwide. Protection is what will likely hurt the U.S. economy and lead to a new Depression. Unfortunately, enough time has passed for USA to forget the lessons of the past and act unwisely. U.S. economy will likely suffer a setback and that's because protectionist voices are louder and louder. Free trade brings what is best in people and allows for the better and most efficient to survive. When you are not the most efficient or the best, protectionism is your only "escape".

A I. M @ Feb 04, 2008 21:22:05 PM

Romney really bests McCain on every issue? REALLY?

These are all very reasonable comparisons. If we were electing a Chief Financial Officer, they'd be the only ones that mattered. Unfortunately for Governor Romney, the three main duties of the president--commander-in-chief of the military, foreign policy, and appointing judges and Supreme Court justices--have nothing to do with this. While I'm certain we could argue Governor Romney's merits on financial matters in his favor, I'm just as certain that he is not in McCain's league when it comes to foreign policy and being commander-in-chief.

On the federal budget, while I don't deny the power of the bully pulpit, the veto or making the entering argument, the real authority vested in the president boils down to approval or veto of the budget that Congress sends him. Failing a Congress exceptionally amenable to his agenda--something on which neither man should count--it's quite likely that the more important trait will be the ability to lead. McCain has spent his entire Congressional career doing it.

While you may not always like the directions he's gone in reaching across the aisle--and neither do I--you can't deny that he can do it. After turning his back on a sizable portion of his own record as a one-term governor in the bluest state in the unioin to portray himself as more Reaganesque than Reagan, I'm not convinced Romney can. In other words, I take issue with Mr. Grant's assessment of Romney as a proven leader, particularly relative to McCain. I'm quite certain by now that this makes me more common and less conservative than the most conservative voters. I'm not so certain that it makes me less conservative than Governor Romney. Regardless, I'm absolutely certain that Senator McCain is conservative enough--Mr. Pethokoukis' point in the first place.

Sean Gillespie of VA @ Feb 04, 2008 21:10:53 PM

Those of you who claim you wouldve voted for Giuliani but not McCain have cemented the stupidity of the anti-mccain factions. They hold nearly identical views on everything except abortion and gay rights, where McCain is more conservative.

Are you sure you aren't democrats posing as republicans? Cause you guys make no sense. Wgile you're at it explain how a Clinton or Obama presidency is preferable to a McCain presidency? You think O'Connor is bad, do you realize who those two would put on the bench?

Either make an effort to understand politics or keep your opinions private. If you want to vote for the democratic candidate, there is room for you on their teams.

Logan of VA @ Feb 04, 2008 20:48:15 PM