Audio: Laura Ingraham and Mitt Romney

posted at 12:00 pm on August 29, 2007 by Bryan

This is from Tuesday’s show. Laura interviews Gov. Romney about the Craig scandal and Washington’s corrupt culture, sanctuary cities, campaign prognostication, the rise of China and more. No fireworks, but the Gov comes across like a polished, informed statesman. And he takes a mild shot or two at Rudy Giuliani.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Malkin, and now Ingraham. I gotta tell ya Romney doubters, you don’t see any other candidate going to our general purviews here at HA and Laura Ingraham. Rudy? Never heard of him. Fred? He’s still locked in the dime portipotty deciding what he should do. McCain went down with the ship. Ron Paul is lol worthy.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM

It’s no wonder why Mitt won the straw poll. He sounds like a guy that has good judgement. The problem is good judgement usually comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.

Is he real or is he memorex?

saiga on August 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I was trying to hold out for FDT, but he is starting to get
old inmore ways than one.

Romney does have some class about him at least, 911Rudy has little.

Dersu on August 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Rudy? Never heard of him.

Hint: He’s the guy doubling Romney’s poll numbers nationally.

Big S on August 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Only Bill Mahr could take not crushing a babies head with a stone and turn in into something terrible. He has to be the worlds biggest pig – even bigger IMHO than manbearpig.

Watch Mitt. He is the best thing to a true conservative we have at the moment. I was not crazy about how he “won” the straw poll. You can truck in people and pay for attendance to win anything. Will he win based on his views (not talking points)?

On-my-soap-box on August 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Romney mania surges…

Ouch whatta Obama Shot!

-Wastland Man.

WastelandMan on August 29, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Better than anything on the other side, and if he takes TANCREDO for Veep, he’s got my vote.

The extreme left needs another Cheney-esque figure to loathe.

That way they won’t have to shift gears much when they lose.

profitsbeard on August 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Better than anything on the other side, and if he takes TANCREDO for Veep, he’s got my vote.

The extreme left needs another Cheney-esque figure to loathe.

That way they won’t have to shift gears much when they lose.

profitsbeard on August 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM

I reiterate…

profitsbeard on August 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Go Mitt Go…..

Campaign strategy hint; Announce that you are going to join the CNN/YouTube debate, however in the same breath state that you have already answered all the relevant questions via your own YouTube account format.

And also state that you are not going to answer “snowman” characters since it debases the Presidential debate forum.

Nobody should be afraid to submit their full name/real character in YouTube.

That brings me to the end of my conversation about this.

Don’t like it? Deal with it.

Go Mitt Go….

Mcguyver on August 29, 2007 at 1:11 PM

The extreme left needs another Cheney-esque figure to loathe.
profitsbeard on August 29, 2007 at 1:06 PM


Right!

We do not want the Left to change their strategy of driving off the cliff.

That would take away my most favorite spectator sport, which would throw me into deep depression. And I assure you we sure don’t want that.

Mcguyver on August 29, 2007 at 1:16 PM

How ’bout Romney/Fred?

or Giuliani/Fred

vs. Shril/Silky or Barry/Silky

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Mitt has one wife, a family that actually talks to one another, no pictures in drag, pro life, strong on defense…

With Fred! snoozing, maybe it is time to look at Mitt.

saved on August 29, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I’ve changed my mind.

Thompson/Steele

Romney/Steele

You heard it here first!

BacaDog on August 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Steele-great idea!!

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 1:23 PM

DAMN!

JiangxiDad on August 29, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Romney/Steele
You heard it here first!
BacaDog on August 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Good call!
But then again I’m in a good mood today…. been watching Libs drive off the cliff…

Mcguyver on August 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM

“Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant” Thanks for the nostalgia from my childhood, Laura.

Bigfoot on August 29, 2007 at 1:27 PM

LOL!

Talk about timing. A “Friends of Fred” person just called me wanting a contribution.

I politely told her Fred wasn’t a candidate for any office so why should I give him money. I mean, my neighbor thinks he’d be a great President but I’m not giving him any money either.

Dead silence on the line.

BacaDog on August 29, 2007 at 1:27 PM

I gotta tell ya Romney doubters, you don’t see any other candidate going to our general purviews here at HA and Laura Ingraham.

Well, good for him.

You Romney believers can all go ahead and vote him into office for all I care, but when he inevitably turns into another George W. Bush liberal lite, don’t come back here crying about how you got fooled.

Meanwhile, there are a couple of pretty good conservatives in the race going by the name of Hunter and Tancredo, but since they’re “unelectable.”

2Brave2Bscared on August 29, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Well, good for him.

You Romney believers can all go ahead and vote him into office for all I care, but when he inevitably turns into another George W. Bush liberal lite, don’t come back here crying about how you got fooled.

Meanwhile, there are a couple of pretty good conservatives in the race going by the name of Hunter and Tancredo, but since they’re “unelectable.”

2Brave2Bscared on August 29, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Hunter doesn’t appear to be trying very hard, nor does Tancredo. They’re only electable if they win the nomination and they aren’t going to win the nomination waiting around for someone to notice them.

As to Bush Lite? Romney’s stance on Immigration sounds like the polar opposite of Bush’s. Moreover, he doesn’t sound like a bumbling idiot when he speaks and he knows what he’s talking about as proven in countless soundbite “gotcha” threads, even here at HA. If you’re worried about Bush Lite, look no further than “America’s Mayor.”

Hint: He’s the guy doubling Romney’s poll numbers nationally.

Big S on August 29, 2007 at 12:53 PM

I don’t care about national polling numbers. It isn’t a national election, it is 50 individual state elections. There’s going to be some California and New York RINO types (and IndepenDems) who will drastically inflate Rudy’s national numbers. Following your rationale, before New Hampshire and Iowa can vote they have to consult with New York and California before they find out if their candidate is electable. It is unlikely those two states will ever turn red, Rudy couldn’t even beat Clinton in his own backyard.

Besides, I was talking about Rudy engaging the conservative blogosphere or radio, or anything really. He’s done nill, whereas Mitt has engaged in at least two interviews with conservative blogging/radio stars, plus a mighty groundforce to win the Iowa straw poll.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I’m an undecided, but I want to know more about Mitt.

swami on August 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I don’t care about national polling numbers. It isn’t a national election, it is 50 individual state elections.

Besides, I was talking about Rudy engaging the conservative blogosphere or radio, or anything really. He’s done nill, whereas Mitt has engaged in at least two interviews with conservative blogging/radio stars, plus a mighty groundforce to win the Iowa straw poll.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

The national numbers are important because they speak to the strength of a candidate when the national election rolls around. Mitt’s just not that popular, and if he can’t gain traction in the Republican field nationally, it’s probably because most people just don’t like him. It’s not entirely his fault, but the way he speaks just sounds condescending, and is probably the reason a lot of people have had lukewarm reactions to him. That and the fact that he’s a transparent panderer. If you’re going to pander to conservatives, it’s best to try not to sound like a jerk while you’re doing it.

As to the second point, Giuliani’s been on Hannity and Ingraham’s shows about as often as Romney has. Unless your metric is the single interview Romney did with Michelle Malkin, I just don’t think that statement’s correct.

Big S on August 29, 2007 at 2:05 PM

As to Bush Lite?
BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Bush: Signed expensive Medicare reform bill.
Romney: In favor of the bill, wants to greatly expand federal health care spending.

Bush: In favor of big government education.
Romeny: In favor of increasing big government education even further.

Bush: Said he’d sign a renewal of the “assault weapon” ban though he knew it wouldn’t reach his desk.
Romney: Supports renewal of an “assault weapon” ban.

Bush: Has seen approval ratings go in the toilet.
Romney: Approval ratings tanked by the end of his term.

Bush: Largely ignored the problem of illegal immigration.
Romney: Largely ignored the problem of illegal immigration until the last weeks of his term, ensuring the effort wouldn’t be enacted.

Bush: Cut taxes.
Romney: Raised taxes and fees.

The question isn’t whether Romney would be as bad as Bush, but whether he’d be even worse.

Hollowpoint on August 29, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Hunter doesn’t appear to be trying very hard, nor does Tancredo. They’re only electable if they win the nomination and they aren’t going to win the nomination waiting around for someone to notice them.

Wow. Not trying very hard? The Republican base more or less ignores them, and yet you’re blaming it all on them?

Voters notice who they want to notice.

As to Bush Lite? Romney’s stance on Immigration sounds like the polar opposite of Bush’s. Moreover, he doesn’t sound like a bumbling idiot when he speaks and he knows what he’s talking about as proven in countless soundbite “gotcha” threads, even here at HA. If you’re worried about Bush Lite, look no further than “America’s Mayor.”

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m convinced that the only two presidential candidates who would really fix the immigration problem if elected are, again, Tancredo and Hunter. The rest of them are saying just enough to please the base, much like Bush did on a myriad of issues in 2000 and 2004.

As for Giuliani, I agree that he’s the most liberal of them all. But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think Romney’s a conservative.

2Brave2Bscared on August 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Besides, I was talking about Rudy engaging the conservative blogosphere or radio, or anything really. He’s done nill, whereas Mitt has engaged in at least two interviews with conservative blogging/radio stars, plus a mighty groundforce to win the Iowa straw poll.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Yeah, that “mighty groundforce” sure has given Romney a big surge:

07/23/07 13%
07/30/07 13%
08/06/07 14%
08/13/07 14%
08/20/07 14%
08/27/07 13%

The Iowa Straw Poll was a meaningless fundraising exercise that Romney bought and paid for to the tune of some $2 million dollars. The numbers show that it meant nothing, unless you count Huckabee going from 2% to 4%.

Hollowpoint on August 29, 2007 at 2:24 PM

I was talking about Rudy engaging the conservative blogosphere or radio, or anything really. He’s done nill,

Rudy was on Laura just last week…

and he gave a very rational explanation of NYC’s “sacuary city” policy — if it is even fair to call it that given the strict order that NY city employees were under to report any illegal suspected of a crime. Rudy explained the policy (of not reporting illegals seeking city services unrelated to the commission of a crime) was an unfortunate but necessary reaction to the federal government’s failure and refusal to deport those that were reported, leaving his city populated with 400,000 illegals that he was powerless to do anything about.

Mitt was disingenuous to suggest that Rudy is still a proponent of such a policy. The policy was only made necessary by the fed’s failure. If the fed did its job, the policy would not be necessary. So, Rudy’s support of this policy as mayor of NYC faced with a federal failure to act cannot rationally be used to claim he would support a similar policy as POTUS, when he actually would have jurisdiction to act. Particularly given the fact that Rudy has vowed if elected to end illegal immigration.

tommylotto on August 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

and he gave a very rational explanation of NYC’s “sacuary city” policy — if it is even fair to call it that given the strict order that NY city employees were under to report any illegal suspected of a crime.

tommylotto on August 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Still spinning I see. City employees were barred from reporting illegals- even those suspected of a crime- directly to federal immigration authorities. Instead they had to go to an intermediary within their agency who likely tossed the reports in the trash.

Rudy’s on record as supporting amnesty and his pledge to end illegal immigration is laughable. Rudy’s current stance on illegal immigration is almost completely indistinguishable from Bush’s, and his record as a sanctuary city supporting mayor is even worse.

Hollowpoint on August 29, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Still spinning I see

Stating and explaining the facts is not spinning. Spinning is what YOU do when you generalize the facts in a misrepresenting way to create a false impression. Rudy is on record saying if the feds would do their job and deport ALL of the illegals it would be the equivalent of a giant federal grant to NYC.

He has a long history of reporting crminal aliens and requesting the feds to deport them all, but only a tine percentage of the criminals reported were ever deported by the feds.

These are facts which you ignore, they you poo-poo the legitimate distinction between the NYC policy and the common understanding of sanctuary cities by fabricating a mythical bureaucrat who ignored Rudy’s direct instructions to report aliens suspected of a crime. That is not even spin. That is a fabrication to harm a candidate that you dislike because he won’t trust you with an assault rifle, cluster bombs and suitcase nukes.

tommylotto on August 29, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Fred Thompson:

07/23/07 We’ll be getting in soon!
07/30/07 Really, I mean it!
08/06/07 I’m totally not stalling!
08/13/07 Wow, my son’s gonna get really rich off this, uh, I mean, any time now.
08/20/07 I’m busy! Talk to my wife! She’ll handle it!
08/27/07 Don’t bother me, my staff is in disarray!

Now Hollowpoint, you can be just like Hillary’s campaign staff and have your every opinion dictated by polls, but as for me, I’m well aware that Mitt is doing great in the first primary states. In 2004, everyone was equal until the first primary votes were in, and then John Kerry soared up. You’ll excuse me if I don’t find your “national poll” numbers an accurate indicator.

As to health care, it was approved by the known ultra-liberals at the Heritage foundation and is a whole lot better than the fluff and nothing our other politicians have given us on the issue for years.

BKennedy on August 29, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Mcguyver on August 29, 2007 at 1:11 PM

I agree.

cjs1943 on August 29, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Request: please use plug-ins that are supported on all platforms (I’m running Firefox on Linux) or if possible provide a link to the file. Thanks.

5foot2 on August 29, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Mitt!, as always sounded presidential and informed. We’ve got 5 months to go and that’s plenty of time for him to get his name out there. IF he can win NH, I think he’ll be on his way.

csdeven on August 29, 2007 at 10:20 PM