Hot Air Audio: Michelle interviews Gov. Mitt Romney
posted at 2:46 pm on August 17, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Immigration and border security are now at the center of the GOP presidential race. Hot Air spoke with Gov. Mitt Romney about sanctuary cities, Rudy Giuliani’s response to his criticism of NYC’s illegal alien safe haven policy, homeland security, ID cards, CAIR, and civil liberties, among other related topics. We’d of course welcome the opportunity to hear from Giuliani about these issues. Thanks to the Romney campaign for taking the time to speak to Hot Air’s audience.
Part 1:
Part 2:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I was with him until he said he would humanely replace the illegals who are here now. You mean we get a free upgrade to a new model?
pedestrian on August 17, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Mitt! fears nothing. The first to be grilled by Hot Air, full of vitality, and smart as hell, though he did have a few stumbling moments.
All hail Mitt!
BKennedy on August 17, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Fantastic interview – this is the Mitt I know. He needs to keep being himself just like he was here, and stop trying too hard to be liked. This is the Mitt people need to see and hear.
TheBigOldDog on August 17, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Mitt Romney is probably the only presidential candidate that inspires me. Every time he speaks, I like what I hear. He speaks directly to the issues in a coherent manner. He answers the questions and has logical, conservative solutions to the problems our nation faces.
He’s not perfect, but neither was Reagan. Romney would make a good Prez.
HYTEAndy on August 17, 2007 at 3:20 PM
That was a great interview. There is nothing better then listening to two very well informed people converse on an important topic such as this. Michelle asks all the questions that need to be asked and Romney takes his time and provides well thought out, articulate answers to the questions. The substance speaks for itself. That was great. Good for Hotair and thank you Mr Romney for speaking to us.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I’m not following. Which part of that do you have a problem with? Is it the humane part or the replace part? I think it was pretty clear that he was saying he was pro LEGAL immigration, done in a manner in which we have control over who comes and doesn’t come in. Where’s the beef? As a result you are humanely replacing illegals with legal immigrants brought in based upon this country’s particular needs. Sounds good to me.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Yes, yes he will.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 3:41 PM
He’s “not that familiar with” the current policy on the matricula consular ID? That’s a little disappointing.
Jaibones on August 17, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Thanks for coming to Hot Air, Governor Romney, and explaining your position on immigration, legal and illegal. I’m sure most of us here agree with your sentiments, as do most of the American people.
I would like to hear more of your thoughts on legal immigration, the favoritism we show to certain countries, and what, if anything, needs to be changed in that regard.
Please come again to discuss other subjects as well.
jaime on August 17, 2007 at 3:55 PM
We’ll get an upgrade from Mexicans to Venezuelans.
Lawrence on August 17, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Agreed.
Jaibones on August 17, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Somebody needs a nap.
He’s talking about replacing illegals with legal immigrants.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 4:03 PM
It’s too bad he had a brick wall for a state legislature, he may have been able to do so much more for the state.
Laura02420 on August 17, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Civil liberty #1….The right to be kept alive.
Great one Mr. Romney. Thank you so much for talking to us.
And super duper kudos to MM….thanks for NOT asking him about his religious faith!
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Last thing Rommey did as Governor of MA was signe the agreement so that the State Police and ICE would cooperate to rid us of those unlicensed/registered illegal alien drivers. First think the D that replaced Mitt did was to recind the agreement. Come back Mitt, we need you here…
Rich on August 17, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Unless he plans on amending the Constitution or deporting parents without their children, he’s going to have a hard time.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 4:21 PM
As Yes, Deval “Cadillac” Patrick. Wonderful empty suit, that one was.
BKennedy on August 17, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Huh?? My guess is the word “citizens” is the key to that. And, usually children tend to travel with their parents. Why on earth would the parents abandon their children?
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 4:25 PM
We’re feeling magnanimous, so the kids can go ahead a leave too. Mexico will welcome them with open arms. ¡Bienvenidos a todos!
Mojave Mark on August 17, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Big S, in case I misunderstood you, are you arguing that there is no such thing as an illegal alien?
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 4:27 PM
very well done interview, i really like what i hear from mitt
trailortrash on August 17, 2007 at 4:29 PM
No, I’m saying that we can’t take citizenship away from children born in the USA to illegal alien parents unless we amend the Constitution. The other option, which is Mitt’s proposal,is to issue an ultimatum to such parents that they will be deported with or without their children. I don’t think that will work.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 4:32 PM
That’s not what he said. In fact, he specifically said he had no intention of trying to amend the Constitution. He was asked about chain migration where relatives can follow children born in this country. He wants to do away with it.
Unlike certain ex-senators who voted for it, numerous times.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I guess you missed the part about “without due process of law”.
jaime on August 17, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Ok. I see. Thats why I ask such questions. That is tough. I worry about that too for several reasons. First of all, it will not be good PR for our side to have images on the nightly news of parents being torn away from their parents because the parents make the decision that the children will be better off staying here. Second, the anchor baby problem is something that needs to be dealt with for this issue to be fixed the way it should be. I think we can come to a reasonable agreement that our founders did not write that with the intention of tearing children from their parents. As a result I think that has been misinturpreted for a long time now. I would be willing to bet our founder’s intention behind that was to say that for any legal citizen who delivers a baby on US soil, that baby is a legal US citizen. I don’t think they meant that to apply to foreigners who break into the country and drop babies. They were far too smart for that. Thanks for the clarification to your statement by the way.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
oops scratch that. Children are torn away from their parents. Parents are not torn away from their parents.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 4:46 PM
What about the parents though? Mitt’s plan for the illegals already here seems to be “no amnesty! we’ll scare ‘em away,” which will not work if there’s a citizen in immediate family, so he’ll have to end up deporting them. I don’t think somebody’s uncles and aunts should be given a pass into the country, but for certain close family connections, it might have to be allowed.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
You’re legal immigrant replacements.
While we’re at it, let’s replace criminals’ guns with harmless replacements.
pedestrian on August 17, 2007 at 4:46 PM
You can say that again.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Realistically, I think it probably will be for those already here. But if we actually start enforcing our borders and stopping new illegals from getting in, this problem will slowly disipate.
But chain immigration is stupid and should never have been allowed.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 4:50 PM
That was a pretty good interview by Mitt, & substantial questions, though mostly he just had to agree with Michelle.
Glad to see he doesn’t think that talking toward HA readers isn’t too unpresidential ;)
Spirit of 1776 on August 17, 2007 at 4:57 PM
For those near a TV, Romney is going to be on John Gibson in a few minutes answering more questions about immigration.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I agree, and that’s why I think the desire for foolish Tancredoite “purity” on the immigration issue is a problem for the GOP. We need to look at the mechanisms each candidate proposes in order to solve the problem.
Coming back to Rudy vs. Mitt, I see two distinct proposals from the candidates, offering a real choice. As I see it, both want increase border enforcement, but diverge as to what need to be done abou those immigrants who make it in and settle in a community. As governor, Romney wanted to deputize his police into the federal immigration agency, and now proposes policies that will explicityly prevent those who are here illegaly from assimilating into society (i.e., no services.) Giuliani refused to allow his police to be, in effect, deputized by the feds, and provided basic servies to help assimilate illegals that the feds could not deport. Personally, I prefer the Giuliani strategy based on the idea that we need to prevent the consolidation of a permanent underclass of foreigners.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I was happy to hear that Mitt finally realizes there is an immigration problem. It is amazing how running for a higher office makes them so much more aware of what is happening…but while in office zzzzzz’s.
right2bright on August 17, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Yeah, seriously its going to be tough. Peggy Noonan wrote a good piece about that a few weeks ago. Here it is in case you are interested:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010118
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Yes, I saw that, and agree with her. Thanks for linking it, though; more people should read it.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM
According to Rasmussen Romney is gaining:
Giuliani 22%
Thompson 19%
Romney 15%
McCain 14%
MB4 on August 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM
I disagree with Noonan. We have a procees by which people can come into this country legally. Those people need to be fast tracked into the jobs that will be denied to the illegals. THAT is rule of law and any subversion of that law IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYONE.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I’m inclined to agree with you though csdeven (not unusual by the way) because I think that once the laws are enforced and the parents realize that the jobs are gone they will go home willingly and unless they are insane they will take their own children with them. It can be done right. And it can be done without news images of mothers being stripped from their babies, which would be a killer to our fight against illegal immigration. What I’m trying to say is that I think the argument that we can’t or won’t deport 12-20 million people is a straw man’s argument. We don’t have to do that. I think Peggy Noonan would agree with that too.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 6:06 PM
If they are here illegally, unless I’m mistaken we don’t know who they are. So all they have to do is do a touchback and smile and say they are applying for the first time. Given that with tight enforcement, there would very quickly be 12-20 million job vacanies, we would soon be pretty desperate to have them, so the processing will be expedited by then. But that’s exactly what the Z-visa was, which most on this board despised.
I still don’t see how replacement with a different group of people will work.
pedestrian on August 17, 2007 at 6:14 PM
ps. I’m a Mitt supporter, and I have no doubt he has something in mind. My guess is that it is the Z-visa.
pedestrian on August 17, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Well at least we would know who’s here. And, I’m skeptical we will ever see that desperate moment that you are making reference to. Things don’t happen fast enough and the benefits to their leaving will greatly outway the costs.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Why would they go back? They came here because they couldn’t make a living in their original country. I’m working on the assumption that doing odd jobs and working under the table in the USA (and you can’t stop that, no matter how hard you try) is better than being in the same situation in Mexico, Venezuela, or anywhere else in the world.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 6:25 PM
The flying pigs will be awesome too.
Hollowpoint on August 17, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Must be tough on you watching Romney continue to rise while Thompson falls. I’d like to say I feel bad, but I don’t believe in lying.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Actually, on rereading Noonan’s piece, I only agree with her reasoning that we need to slow down and take stock of where we are. I disagree strongly with this statement:
Engineers and nurses will be OK in most places in the world. We can train Americans to work in those professions, if we need them here. I’m not saying that we should close our doors to them either, but we should think twice before importing a foreign professional workforce. Let people with no where else to go into the country, with the agreement being that if they work hard and assimilate (i.e. become Americans) they stand a very good chance of succeeding.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM
It must be tough on you watching the object of your worship statistically tied for 3rd despite spending millions of his own money on a campaign he’s been planning or running for over two and a half years.
That he’d still be trailing someone who’s not even announced yet, hasn’t run a single ad, and has only been working on his campaign for 6 months must be even tougher. I guess that explains the jealously-induced animosity.
Hollowpoint on August 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM
That is a very good question. You caught me off guard with it a bit too. I still think though, if they are given the choice between not being able to work here, not being able to drive here, not being able to soak up gvt handouts here, not being able to gain legal citizenship here for their children and children’s children and on the other hand they have the choice to go back to their home country where they have legal residence, where they can apply for US citizenship and stand in line and do it legally, they will choose option 2. I could be wrong about that though. Its a good question, as I said.
I’d also like to add, enforceing immigration law will make it less magnetic to those who have yet to cross the border illegally. It will not lead to every illegal leaving but it will lead to many illegals leaving. It will lead to many illegals not making the difficult journey because the reward is less enticeing. I think after all the pros and cons are weighed, simple law enforcement at the workplace is the best way to go. It won’t be perfect. But I think its our best option available.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Groan. Just when I think it’s safe to read a Romney post because it’s from Bryan and not from Allah, along comes “Hollowpoint”.
In addition to the divine Ms. M’s mahvelous interview, I also saw the John Gibson interview, which was quite good and Romney was Statesmanlike and Presidential as always.
Another plus to that segment was that FOX showed a lot of clips of Obama greeting a crowd where the camera was filming him from the back of his head.
Not a very flattering view of the
MessiahMouse – to say the least. I’d advise Hillary to use that footage, but it’s a bit too reminiscent of Bill’s famous encounter with Monica and her beret.Buy Danish on August 17, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Not in the least. Romney started off with almost zero national exposure and predictions from all the “experts” that he could never win. Fred is a movie star and a household name. That and his NRO podcasts are all he has done.
True to his lazy form, Fred sits on the sidelines and refuses to have his record examined or his views debated and his poll numbers are sinking. Romney, as I predicted months ago, is an excellent candidate who is rising as people become familiar with him. Fred is an empty suit with almost zero accomplishments save for McCain/Feingold. Romney is an immensely accomplished executive in both the private and public sectors. He has won every debate and both straw polls. He leads big in 2 out of the 3 first primary states and has built a formidable ground organization.
I’m very pleased with where he stands a couple weeks before Labor Day. And I know he will continue to win debates and support. All is going according to plan.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 7:12 PM
If I’m not mistaken, this brings us back to the Constitutional amendment argument…
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I think the reward will still be enticing. We just need to make sure that it is enticing for the right reasons, i.e. to contribute to American society by working hard and becoming an American. It’s too heavy to go into here, but I think the real reason why we have an immigration “problem” is not so much an inherent feature of immigration itself, but the way a large influx of new people interacts with the welfare state and “multicultural” institutions. If they all had to learn English and get a real job, I suspect people wouldn’t think it was such a crisis.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 7:26 PM
JackStraw,
I just saw some footage of Fred? and he didn’t look too movie star-esque. On the contrary, he looked tired and sloppy.
I like a lot of what Fred? has to say, but Romney blows him away in that department. When it comes to first impressions, it seems to me that the biggest difference between them is that Romney is energetic (without being frantic) and sharp-witted, while Fred? comes across as sort of lethargic.
I keep wanting to tell him to think about his posture, to sit up straight, and walk tall!
Buy Danish on August 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I agreed with most of what you said until you hit that. As much as I would like to kick back and not have to compete with with green-carded engineers, if we don’t bring them here, they will set up shop where they are and that will be even worse for us. I’d rather keep as many high-paying jobs here as we can. For people, like me, who have to compete with that, the choice of a smaller piece of a bigger pie is often better than just watching better pies being made elsewhere.
pedestrian on August 17, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Buy Danish-
I get accused of being a Romney fanboy by Hollowpoint and to be honest, he’s correct. I am rarely impressed by politicians but Romney is a rare breed and I am a strong supporter.
I have been watching him for years, long before he got into politics. He was a brilliant business executive and was well regarded as a guy who could pull people together, energize them and lead them to success. Those qualities are rare in today’s politicians.
What you have seen from Romney is what many of us in the MA area business community have seen for years. He believes in what he’s doing and goes after it with energy and passion. People who hack at him for being a MA liberal have no idea what they are talking about and couldn’t be more wrong. The fact that he was able to do as well as he did in the bluest of blue states speaks volumes about his political acumen and his ability to drawn both Independents and Dems.
He’s the real deal.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 7:45 PM
pedestrian on August 17, 2007 at 7:36 PM
OK, maybe I went too far. Engineers and scientists, or others whose expertise is both valuable and portable, should be targets for green cards. However, there are professions, such as in the clinical medical fields, teachers, and others, that we should try to fill with Americans, via better education (I know, I know, it’s a long term solution.) I’m concerned with making sure Americans can take the best jobs than with preventing immigrants from taking low-skilled jobs.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 7:49 PM
JackStraw,
Exactly. Honestly, the only problem I see for him is the pesky Mormon problem – which is unfortunately a big one.
I don’t personally care at all, and its obvious from his life and career (and also from his Governor father) that he in not in any way like a character out of “The Banner of Heaven”, but there is no doubt that this will be used against him.
I think the Evangelicals can be persuaded to come around for the most part, but the secularists who already hate Christians are going to go nuts over his Mormon roots – with Hollywood’s help.
I’ve already been told by some “elites” that “Mormonism is THE greatest threat to America”. I realize that that is a stunningly ignorant and illogical statement but that mindset exists. The question is, how pervasive is that thinking?
Obviously these people won’t vote for a Republican anyway but what about the undecided “Independent” voters that they and the MSM might be able to persuade? (Granted Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch are Mormons too, but let’s face it, most voters outside the Beltway and Blogs don’t know who they are).
Did his Mormonism come up much when he ran for Governor, and if so, how was it handled? And is what happens in a Governor’s race relevant to a run for the Presidency?
Buy Danish on August 17, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Hands down, for me. Tied with Dukakis as the top 2 worst governors in Mass history. And that was the a huge election I couldn’t believe the landslide Patrick won in.
Back on topic, sorry. I’ve been pretty quiet when it comes to our side in the race. Hoping Hunter would catch on. But kind of knowing he wouldn’t at the same time.
I supported Mitt when he ran against Ted. And again when he ran for gov. He’s been impressing me a lot lately. Sure he’s spending money. But isn’t everyone that has it, doing that? I really liked this interview today. But the other night on H&C when Bob Beckel tried his best to smack down Mitt. Romney stood up and slapped back. Beckel got that silly pout on his face and tried again. Didn’t work then either. He didn’t take another shot til after Romney was gone.
Oh and which other “top-tier” candidate has even talked to the other half on H&C? So I guess I’ve showed up for now.
PowWow on August 17, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Mitt and Tancredo when elected, you won’t have to do much else, all the illegals will head back home on their own..but seriously, Mitt reminds me of Pres. Reagan even how he laughs and handles himself..With Mitt we win a few blue states..Laura interviewed him a few months ago and he told her the same..I like that Michelle has seen something here..
Legions on August 17, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Okay, so far I’ve stayed out of the election pretty much. Well except for taking shots at Dims. And hoping Hunter would catch on. But I think knowing he really wouldn’t.
I volunteered for Mitt in his campaign against Teddy K. And then again when ran for gov.
I liked this Q&A very much. And the other night on H&C when Bob Beckel took his shots? Mitt took him down. Beckel got pouty, and tried again, didn’t work. The only shot he got in, was after Mitt was gone. Oh and what other “top-tier” candidate has shown up and even taken a question from the lib side on H&C?
He’s been good in the debates. Or what passes for debates. So I guess I’m involved now. On the other hand, if someone else gets the nomination will I support them? Yes. Look at the alternatives.
PowWow on August 17, 2007 at 8:49 PM
sorry for double post. My first post never showed up on my screen until just now
PowWow on August 17, 2007 at 8:49 PM
All I have to ask of Hollowpoint is this:
When is Fred Thompson coming on?
Fred is a lazy Larry. We’ll be lucky if he even shows up for his announcement date.
BKennedy on August 17, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Mitt will be the nominee and he will beat Hillary.
Baphomet on August 17, 2007 at 9:24 PM
MM conducted another great interview. She is poised, intelligent, entertaining, and eloquent.
I like Romney. He is the most presidential.
Will the Mormon thing hurt him? Probably. But if he is the Repub nom, of course I will vote for him. And I like him best so far.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on August 17, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Good Lord. We don’t have a chance in 08.
I have this dream where there’s an empty podium at the first real GOP debate. Midway through, a figure appears……a man who is a real republican and not afraid…a man who is energetic, intellegent…..
The debate moderator says – “Ladies and gentlemen, Michael Steele”!
BacaDog on August 17, 2007 at 9:27 PM
BacaDog,
I really like Michael Steele too, but your dream is a tad premature. Cabinet position, perhaps?
BKennedy,
If Hollowpoint represents the typical Lazy Fred supporter, then include me out. It’s the tone he uses when he voices his opinions that is so annoying, not necessarily the opinions themselves.
He (?)is like a duck nip, nip, nipping at your ankles. Case in point –
Is Hollowpoint a girl with too much attitude? That’s so Third Grade Chickspeak.
Buy Danish on August 17, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I like Mitt. I was very impressed with his first debate performance – at least the first one I saw.
He’s extremely careful with his wording. Do you think that contributes to the perception that he’s “slick”?
Dork B. on August 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Damn, I’m gone for one day and there’s a decent news day…
Bad Candy on August 17, 2007 at 10:27 PM
It’s been this way since I can remember and I’m 45. Lived here all my life except for a cupla stints in Colorado and New Hampshire.
My mother and I were having this convo tonight, asking just WHY the Dems here are so adamantly in charge of the state. The only good reason we could come up with is that corruption is rampant in this state( Mom’s been here since ‘40) It’s like Louisiana, but with a worse accent.
Many of you would ask why people like Kennedy, Kerry, Dukakis, Curley(while in jail) could get consistantly be voted in. I have your answer right here!!.
It’s because NOBODY dares run against them. Anyone who dares is completely DESTROYED personally and financially here.
Now,I like Romney,always have. He has to do a LOT more outreach to folks like us to get him over the top though. This was one HELLUVA start!!!
Blitz on August 17, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Yes, thank you Gov. Romney. And great interview Michelle! This format (Hot Air) is perfect. Sane questions, follow ups, allowing enough time for the discussion to flow naturally (i.e. without the hard breaks), just perfect. I predict that by next year at this time, all the candidates still in the race will have to answer Michelle’s questions.
Zorro on August 17, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Good interview. MM asked real questions, and tough ones. There were no softballs. Unlike typical MSM media questions to Dems. Romney answered them all without beating around the bush or changing the subject, or a bunch of talking points. Well done on both sides. I would not be unhappy with Romney as pres. And I bet he gained respect for MM in that interview. He had to of. She asked straightforward direct questions. And never mentioned his religion. I bet he is not at all used to that.
MalkinFan on August 17, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I whole heartedly agree with many of the comments on this thread. Michelle, well done with the the question line in the interview. We need these candidates to answer hard questions. And Mitt, very eloquent and thoughtful responses.
Bravo to both of you!!
Troy Rasmussen on August 17, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I used to think that also. I read a study that most illegals had jobs, but were drawn to the US for better jobs and opportunities. They can go back to their old jobs and fix their own country.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 11:18 PM
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 11:18 PM
You don’t spend your entire savings to risk your life crossing a border into a country where you’re not wanted and cannot speak the language if your situation is fine at home. I’m sorry.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Hollowpoint is a dude and a single issue voter. (2nd amendment)
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Uh… founders? Do you know what year the 14th amendment was ratified?
HYTEAndy on August 17, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Speaking as an evangelical Christian college student, Mitt’s faith doesn’t bug me too much.
Sure, I think he’s going to Hell, but if he nominates decent SCOTUS judges and gets Roe v. Wade overturned, how would that not be divine providence? How would that be a bad thing?
Remember: God used even pagans to bless Israel (see the story of Balaam and Balak in the book of Numbers). Perhaps Mitt is a blessing in Mormon-guise.
HYTEAndy on August 17, 2007 at 11:42 PM
I will also say that I’m not a fire-and-brimstone ultra-holiness guy either. So don’t get in a tizzy that I think Mitt ain’t makin’ it through the pearly gates. I’m just saying that even though I disagree with his theology, I’d cast my vote for him as Prez.
But it’s early yet. We’ll see what happens before the primaries. I’m not commited to any candidate yet.
HYTEAndy on August 17, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Here is a reference to the study I mentioned.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 11:47 PM
AllahPundit, are you trying to line up Mike Huckabee for a HotAir interview?
It would be good to hear him solo with direct questions from an interviewer with a funtioning brain.
Jaibones on August 18, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Gov Romney speaking to Hot Air is history in the making, all candidates should attempt to enter Malkinworld…
AJ @ Ingraham Show on August 18, 2007 at 1:38 AM
By all indications, first week of September, 5 months before Super Tuesday and only a couple weeks from now. Later than most of us would have liked, but he’s not been planning a hyper-ambition driven campaign since early 2005 as has Romney so apparently needed more time.
After numerous pints of Guiness tonight, I finally figured out why the Massachussets contingent here is so slavishly devoted to FlipFlop Mitt and so adamantly opposed to the only conservative Republican front-runner: The Kennedys, Kerry, the inherent elitism…. you think your state deserves a president, no matter what his lack of Republican credentials. Pity for you most of the country sees through the facade.
It’s entirely possible he could crash and burn after he announces, but given the success he’s had in building support in a short period of time, it’s unlikely.
However, if Fred drops out or somehow crashes, I’ll be disappointed but not heartbroken- I’ll have to support a conservative with little chance of getting the nomination. By contrast, if (when) Romney fails, I suspect there will be a rash of cult-style suicides in MA.
Hollowpoint on August 18, 2007 at 3:16 AM
Right after we’re chilling our beers in a frozen Hades while shooting flying pigs and driving our cars faster than the speed of light.
As much as I do like beer, bacon and fast cars… I’m not holding my breath.
Hollowpoint on August 18, 2007 at 3:20 AM
When combined with the pandering flip-flopping- yep, too slick. The first debate is what turned me completely against Romney when he came out as a Big Government “conservative” in addition to being a gun-grabber. Sorry, not looking for Bush lite.
Hollowpoint on August 18, 2007 at 3:26 AM
Is it just me or doesn’t Michelle look oh-so-cute with that cap and headset?
infidel4life on August 18, 2007 at 3:39 AM
Why is it, that even though Romney had (mostly) the right answers, that I just don’t believe that HE believes what he says??
Excellent interview Michelle, (as usual).
I just wish that I could trust the guy……. Something about him (or maybe just something about me) makes me think that he is saying what he knows WE want to hear, rather than what he really believes, and what he will actually fight for if we give him our support.
LegendHasIt on August 18, 2007 at 4:36 AM
Since csdeven seems to delight in cluttering up “Fred strings,” I think the following is appropriate:
Differences Between A Republican & Democrat …I’ll keep it simple .
Senators Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. DC has a lot of them.
The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 Out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson’s pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave
the homeless person $5..
Now do you understand the difference?
Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Romney says a lot of the right things, no suprise here, most of them do. (even Bush did)
I see his biggest problem as being a candidate from Mass. That just does not sell in the south. Like he is almost contaminated or something. Rudy has the same problem. An I worry that this guy has been touted since 2003 as the next great thing for the Republicans. Along with Rudy, and yet for all that coverage over all that time and all that money spent, he can’t hold onto a postion in the polls higher than 3rd?
conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 7:34 AM
I am curious why the MSM are always trying to dig up things on truly conservative candidates, and lobbing softballs at the two Rinos from NYC & Massachusetts. Maybe because they realize they could live with “rule by Rino?”
Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:02 AM
I hope no one takes that as meaning MM is lobbing softballs. I wish she would get elected instead of what we will be forced to accept.
Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:03 AM
He said something about a law that employers can’t discriminate against the “documentation”? that illegals provide. What? I have never heard of that one. Was I breaking the law when I refused to hire someone for providing me a fake SS card that didn’t pass the muster when I called the SS hotline (set up in the 80s after the last amnesty to provide employers a method of verifying these numbers). There may be some such law, and to tell the truth I wouldn’t be suprised, but I have not heard that one.
conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:09 AM
First, thanks for serving.
RINO is an over used term. It is used whenever a conservative compromises to get legislation passed. Sometimes we have to compromise. IE, the 2nd amendment. There has to be limitations on it. We don’t need people running around with RPG’s etc., so that is an area that a conservative can give on.
The reality is that this country is comprised of mostly right leaning centrists, and hard line conservatism isn’t going to accomplish much of anything. Any conservative that wants to be elected, has to move towards moderation. Now that doesn’t fit with anyone who places a greater value on one of the bill of rights over others. We have several folks here who think the 2nd amendment has greater weight than any other right. They think any restrictions on that right, regardless of it’s basis in rationality, means the candidate is a RINO.
RINO’s do exist, but the only person I would put firmly in that camp is Rudy. But even at that, he’s better than any dem any day of the week and I will vote for him in the primary if he polls best against the front running dem.
csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Dangerous turf man. I understand what you are saying and agree to some point but where do we draw the line. If a majority of the American people (or the government) believe that speech can be dangerous, what happens then? Time for more comprimise? I think not. Once you start trampling on any of our rights you open the door to a pandora’s box that can result in a downward spiral and the loss of all of our rights.
conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:38 AM
And concerning the 2nd amendment, from one of the framers.
Kinda hard to do nowadays with shotguns and deer rifles huh?
conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:50 AM
For all of us “gun nuts,” check out this blogger’s rating on the candidates’ stands on the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.redpills.org/?p=218
Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »