Video: Fred’s first ad
posted at 10:44 am on September 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The plan was (and is) to roll this out tonight at the start of the debate, then informally announce on Leno right after midnight just as a 15-minute video is going live on his website. I guess they couldn’t wait, though: both Jim Geraghty and Marc Ambinder just posted copies of this spot, presumably leaked to them by the campaign. Contrary to popular belief, says Ambinder, this isn’t going to air during the debate but during the last block of commercials for “The O’Reilly Factor.” Smart thinking: given the size of Bill’s audience and the creeping boredom with the debates leading people to tune out, he may get more viewers doing it that way.
They shed another staffer today and Geraghty says the secretive yet influential Arlington Group might be about to abandon ship. (Update: See below for more.) And then there’s this:
Roll Call columnist Stu Rothenberg already has an opinion: Thompson blew his best chance by not getting into the race in the spring or summer. “In delaying his entry into the Republican race, Thompson has looked indecisive and weak,” writes Rothenberg in in his Monday column (subscription only). “He has lost potential supporters and contributors to other campaigns. And he has limited the strategic options of his campaign. But maybe more than anything else, he gave an opening first to Romney and more recently to Huckabee that neither would have had.”
More on Mitt in a minute. Stand by for updates.
Update: Already linked in headlines, but be sure to read Tom Bevan’s enjoyably pissy shot at Hugh Hewitt and the other Fred-bashing water-carriers for Mitt. I especially liked the pointed inclusion of HH in the MSM. But let’s go easy on the term “fragging,” okay?
Update: Geraghty follows up on the Arlington Group. One of the things I most like about Fred is one of the things they like least. Ah, the libertarian(ish)/social con divide.
This individual said the Arlington Group members have not been able to agree on a candidate. “There has been a great deal of excitement about the possibility of a Thompson campaign; many of us are very happy about how clearly he criticized and called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. But there is concern that the federalist constitutional amendment that he leans toward on marriage just wouldn’t work. How can you have a couple married in Massachusetts and then, when they move to Tennessee they’re not married anymore? It just seems to our legal people that America is going to end up with one definition of marriage. That’s what we want, actually, and we want that definition to be the traditional one… We hope to convince all the candidates that on this issue federalism is a not as high a value philosophically as making sure marriage has traditional configuration.”
The source goes on to hint that they’d probably be leaning towards Huckabee if they thought he could win. Which he can’t.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
And do they really have the right ideas? Protectionism? Launching air strikes on Mexico?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 1:52 PM
No, not really. I don’t like either of them as candidates, and if the polls are any indication, roughly 96-99% of primary voters agree.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Well then, Mitt is just going to have to remind them of his upbringing by parents who were eloquent and active Civil Rights supporters, and gosh, darn if they weren’t Mormons too.
As for gays, don’t most of the Democrat candidates oppose gay marriage? Are they Mormons?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Slubog,
Sorry, I thought you were talking about Mitt and Rudy!
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM
http://www.BobbleheadsForFred.com
FloatingRock on September 5, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Well, I agree to an extent; neither one has anywhere near the stage presence or charisma of Reagan or even a Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. However, some of that lack of “base support” is due to the fact that many conservatives get drawn to these phony front-runners with qualities that, in the end, have nothing to do with what makes a good president. Hunter/Tancredo may not be fancy, but they’re right where it matters most — on the issues.
We have to start reversing the tide of socialism in this country before we turn into France, and liberal lites like Mitt, Rudy and perhaps even Fred Thompson aren’t going to get the job done.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I’ve got to get that image out of my head – think; dead cats…
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Oh, please.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Actually, the ability to draw and maintain support is a much-needed quality in a president. Ideas are essentially meaningless if you have absolutely no ability to convince others of their worth.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Where does Hillary stand on the issue of Gay marriage?
It’s in the news today and as usual she is all over the place.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Anybody looked at romneyfacts.com?
Interesting….
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 2:03 PM
It should be noted that both Giuliani and Romney have cut taxes in liberal states. They’ve both struck a blow against the creeping socialism of excessive taxation.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Well, to clarify – Rudy cut taxes in a liberal city in a liberal state.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I think Hunter at least is a good speaker. But it’s kind of hard to get your ideas out there when you only get 3.5 minutes to speak at these “debates” and the mainstream media all but ignores you because you don’t fit the preconceived template of what a presidential candidate should be.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Speaking of dead cats and negative ads… the Tory premier of Canada’s largest province, Ontario, ran a negative ad accusing the leader of the Liberal Party opposition of being, “an evil reptilian kitten eater from another planet.”
Wanna guess who won the election?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 2:08 PM
This has nothing to do with preconceived templates. These candidates are not even drawing support in early primary states where they’ve met individual voters on a one-on-one basis.
That does not speak well of their abilities to communicate ideas in a way that inspires voters.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:09 PM
And it’s too late Freddy, now it’s too late
Though we really did try to make it
Something inside has died and I can’t hide
And I just can’t fake it
It used to be so easy supporting you
You were new and charismatic and I knew just what to do
Now you look so old and tired and indecisive, and I feel like a fool
MB4 on September 5, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Hey, to each their own Miss? Mrs? Danish. Perhaps I should have specified such a thing appealing to swing voter women only. Those “undecideds” are usually “swung” by the most shallow of reasons such as, does candidate X sit when candidate X pees? What skin pigmentation does candidate X have? Perhaps these “undecideds” can be swung by the jock?
-oh jeez
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 2:10 PM
No, like all good moderates, they’ve just slowed down the inevitable. “Striking a blow against creeping socialism” would be a complete overhaul of the tax system, a position that neither one of those guys have.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I for one am glad he’s finally getting in. I’m a fan, though I’ve definitely tired of the wait over the month.
NOW, he has the chance to prove to the Fredheads that he is what they think/hope he is. I hope that is the case. Of course, he also has the chance to prove to the Fred? bashers right as well.
Right now, I’m for either as at least I’ll finally know my voting direction. Let him strut his stuff, give him a little while. I think we’ll know pretty soon.
Darksean on September 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Speaking of dead cats and negative ads… the Tory premier of Canada’s largest province, Ontario, ran a negative ad accusing the leader of the Liberal Party opposition of being, “an evil reptilian kitten eater from another planet.”
That is the most awesome attack line ever.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Fred should have got a face lift. I am pretty sure that Hillary did sometime in the past.
MB4 on September 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM
I work for a member of the Arlington Group and have been on quite a few of those conference calls. I wasn’t even aware that they were looking to endorse a specific candidate but the pitches are always made the the idea that the members’ respective organizations would privately or publicly endorse the candidate they liked the most. Quite a few of them have been leaning toward Huckabee all along.
A lot of them also feel just like you do Ace, that the federalist solution is the best option. Where Fred falls on the dispute between states on things like abortion and gay marriage is in question and why I think some of these folks are leery of him. Good luck getting a debate question or reporter question that in depth though…
I wouldn’t put too much stake in whatever comes out as the position of the “Arlington Group”. They are a very divided bunch unable to organize even to the point of launching and promoting a simple joint website.
bj1126 on September 5, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Whoops – the first part of the above comment was a quote.
Better to slow it down then push it forward, no?
Half a loaf is better than no bread at all.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:12 PM
You know when you are having an interesting conversation when you scroll down to the middle and come face to face with this:
Only on Hotair. I love it.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM
So we should settle for the moderate/liberal lite front-runners? Is that what you’re saying?
Why can’t the stupid Republican party produce a popular candidate who’s actually conservative? Why are we always stuck with these damn RINOs?
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Hillary Clinton can say absolutely anything and still have the moonbat vote. And she knows that 45% of the country is too conservative to vote against her no matter what she says.
So her goal is to basically say nothing coherent between now and the general election in order to move to the center and capture the moron vote. If we try to “out moderate” Hillary with another Rockefeller Republican candidate, we will lose in a landslide.
logis on September 5, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Who’s “settling?” At present, a majority of Republican primary voters consider Giuliani or Romney their first pick for candidate. No one’s forcing them into that position – they’re making it of their own free will.
They’re front-runners because people like them. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Sigh.
I understand what you’re saying, slub, but I’m just sick of settling for the lesser of two evils. For once I’d like to actually vote FOR someone instead simply voting against whatever socialist candidate the Democrats throw out there.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Well that’s about the only thing useful about this thread.
Jeeze. Sounds more like kos/huffpo/du in here than HA.
techno_barbarian on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
You’re right. My bad. I foolishly assumed that the Republican party base still gave a damn about conservative values and principles.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
I haven’t had time to read 90% of this thread but want to comment about Tancredo and Hunter. Both of them would be getting far more notice, IMO, if it wasn’t for the star power of Fred soaking up all of the attention from the sidelines for all of this time. However, I suspect that the reason why Fred’s star power is theoretically important to this race is as a counterforce to Rudy’s star power. If Rudy and Fred weren’t in this race, Hunter and Tancredo would probably be doing much better. This is why if Fred fails, I’m hoping for a Newt/Hunter or Newt/Tancredo or a Newt/? Ticket because Newt is a conservative thinker who could ace the debates and has name recognition. The real question about Newt is whether or not he can overcome his negatives, which many people here seem to doubt, (a lot of them committed supporters of other candidates, BTW), but I think he might be the last best hope of the conservative movement if Fred fails.
Evidence seems to indicate that in spite of being a liberal, Rudy’s star power will probably carry him through the primaries absent a binary-star arrangement.
FloatingRock on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Personally, I don’t feel as though I’m settling. I’ve seen Giuliani speak and I liked what I heard. The guy’s a fighter, which is preferable to the eight years of BOHICA we’ve gotten from the Bush administration.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
jdawg,
If you’re looking for even more info on Romney, A Mormon in the White House is an excellent source (and I can thank my 13 year old son for giving me the book for my birthday, or I probably would never have read it.)
I have “evolved” from a somewhat enthusiastic supporter to a full fledged Mitt fan. Although I do like Rudy and as a former New Yorker can attest to how he saved New York City from the throes of liberalism and decay.
Zetterson,
It’s Mrs! Are you sure that jockstrap isn’t supposed to appeal to “swinging” voters not “swing” voters?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Fred Thompson:
Security: The security of knowing the government can dictate what you say and how you say it, just as I did when I practically spearheaded McCain-Feingold.
Unity: The unity of one government of Republicrats and Democans all working for Washington’s best interests, just like I did all those years as a lobbyist.
Prosperity: The prosperity of the North American Union which I hope to build with the other Washington elites I am fond of. But worry not, my red truck and flannel pants will always be at the ready.
Fred Thompson ‘08: The only consistent Conservative. Consistent in failing conservative principles, that is.
BKennedy on September 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Very likely. Rudy’s strategy for now seems to be to stay mostly quiet and let the other guys tear each other to shreds over second place. Seems to be working for him at the moment. All he has to do is sit there and be Rudy.
aero on September 5, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Only question is: what is he going to fight for? I like Rudy on the “War on Terror” front, but the rest of his platform is suspect, at best.
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I don’t like some of his specific stances, but I do like his belief in free-markets and his view on taxes and spending. Plus, unlike the Bush administration, I don’t think a moderate Republican would take conservative support for granted.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Bush isn’t a moderate?
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Bush certainly campaigned as a conservative. Made lots of promises, fulfilled none once conservatives elected him.
Giuliani knows he has to throw conservatives some goodies to get them on his side – and I’d much rather have a President Giuliani in control of the courts than a President whoever on the Democratic side.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Dude, how hard do you think he’ll have to fight the Democrats to get that stuff through?
Christoph on September 5, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Am I sure? Err. No. Uhh. Why do you ask? :)
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 2:35 PM
2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
A real conservative?
I gather that it is the “social” issues that matter most to you, and I think it’s fair to say that Romney is pretty darn good in that category. He would certainly appoint conservative judges, and I think he could do a great job of persuading people on issues like embryonic stem cells, embryo farming, abortion, gay marriage, and the like.
Clearly Rudy is not a social conservative, but when it comes to our national security, taxes, and the like his conservative credentials are as good as anyones.
The staunchest conservative in the World cannot perform miracles, particularly when they have to deal with Congress and the Judiciary, but an articulate and principled President can persuade more and more Americans to err on the side of ethics.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Follow the money…
FloatingRock on September 5, 2007 at 2:41 PM
That’s not entirely true. Bush appointed great jurists, cut taxes, tried to reform Social Security and has fought an aggressive war on terror, particularly with the Patriot Act, Gitmo and the like.
He has disappointed elsewhere though and obviously immigration was poorly handled, to say the least.
I like what Ann Coulter once said – in an ideal world Bush, not liberals, would be the opposition.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 2:20 PM
I really don’t care about his religious affiliations, but I am a bit concerned about some other things, namely his flip-flopping. I’ve heard all the arguments ( a republican in a moonbat state, and all that ), but I’m not convinced. I tend to support Fred, but I’m still waiting to see what happens. It’s way too early in the process for me. I do know who I’m not going to vote for, though.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 2:46 PM
True. I over-stated the case.
I really wanted tax reform and spending cuts, though.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:46 PM
How many times this year have we heard people talking as if the general election were scheduled for tomorrow, and the Primaries were over six months ago – like it’s perfectly reasonable?
Say whatever you want about propaganda, but one thing is for certain: like any other form of advertising, it WORKS, or people wouldn’t invest so heavily into it.
And the crazier the claim, the more likely it will seep past people’s logic centers and settle into their hindbrains, until it’s defended as Gospel. And the stupider the claim is, the better. One that is brilliant, but has a tiny flaw, will be torn apart. The best claim is one that violates not just fact and reason, but the very concept of time and space itself.
logis on September 5, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Saw this at http://www.imao.us/archives/008611.html – Love it..
OK, one can dream, right?
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Considering I was speaking hypothetically, and in terms of Giuliani as an acceptable candidate and not a shoo-in for the nomintion, your criticism seems a bit hyperbolic.
In other words, lighten up.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I bet the bobblehead effect wasn’t nearly as visible in full NTSC video (which Fred as a politician and actor has always played toward), but when it got converted to YouTube, it got jerkier. Given the political leanings of the owners of YT, there will no doubt be allegations that somehow this was done deliberately.
Since Fred wants to do a lot of his campaigning via the Internet, his director needs to look at everything at 320×240x30 and be sure it’s good that way too.
The Monster on September 5, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Huh? He’s completely reversed his position on whether Roe v Wade should be upheld, is in favor of big government programs not authorized under Constitutional mandate, is in favor of anti-2nd Amendment federal gun control, and has reversed his position on stem cells. He’s shown weakness on gay rights as well, though I personally don’t care about that issue.
Republican candidates typically tack to the right for the primaries, then back to the middle for the general election. He’s previously been a RINO “moderate”, but has reversed and changed positions to portray himselft as a conservative.
Are we really to believe that he wouldn’t shift back to the more “moderate” version of Romney that has typified most of his political career? I certainly don’t, and don’t see how any other informed person would.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 2:53 PM
You know, I’ve thought about that a lot recently: wouldn’t it be a great world if someone like McCain or Giuliani were the leading DEMOCRAT candidate – so we’d actually have a valid fallback position in case our guy faltered? But I’m afraid JFK was the democrat Party’s last lurching step toward sanity.
In today’s America, there are no real political “factions” per se. It’s basically a choice between reason or lunacy. And WAY too many people are choosing lunacy these days.
logis on September 5, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I’ll take Fred!’s head bobbing to Slick Willie’s lip biting any day.
(or the chance that Cankles’ face will fall off revealing the fembot underneath…)
Darksean on September 5, 2007 at 3:00 PM
That would have been real nice, but I fear many republicans have been lured over to the darkside and just cant stand the thought that the people deserve to keep the money that they earn.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Well, according to Hillary, they take it for your own good.
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM
I don’t see this as a small detail: the Thompson supporters can joke; but I’m pretty sure the Ron Paul crowd aren’t kidding about ANY of that psycho crap they keep spouting.
logis on September 5, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Slublog on September 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Yea, but Shillary had one child and needed an entire village to raise it…So please excuse me if I take everything Shillary (well what do you know those documents were sitting on my desk the entire year that I couldnt find them) says with a very large grain of salt…
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 3:15 PM
I simply can’t vote for a guy that nods that much
and we thought bush was bad with public speaking! wow!
triple on September 5, 2007 at 3:16 PM
You know there really isn’t anything wrong with Ron Paul supporters that 500mg of clozapine a day wont fix…
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Slubog,
Me too.
Hollowpoint,
What Big Government programs are you talking about, oh annoying one?
As for your other bloviating, I am not going to waste my time re-arguing the same points over and over again with you.
It’s like arguing about the Iraq War with a liberal – a total waste of time.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Not many people know that Fred ran over csdeven’s dog in his pick up truck. It was an accident, but he never forgave him. In fact, he vowed to haunt Fred for the rest of his days like Salieri vowed in Amadeus.
I feel bad for any pet owner that loses his dog, but sour grapes are sour grapes.
jihadwatcher on September 5, 2007 at 3:22 PM
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I don’t have a shred of doubt that the positions that a mature Romney holds now are completely sincere and will continue to be his positions. I know this has been said many times, but think Ronald Reagan and how his positions evolved.
Maybe if you could tell me what you think he might do as President that would worry you I could try to address that specifically?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Priceless!
FloatingRock on September 5, 2007 at 3:26 PM
jihadwatcher on September 5, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Great stuff!
You don’t happen to have any “news” stories about Doriengrey or Hollowpoint do you?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 3:28 PM
You know, if you replace the word “dog” with “son”
…and add the word “repeatedly,”
That just about explains everything.
logis on September 5, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Well, I knew there was something behind csdevens pathological hatred. So I did some research. I relentlessly combed the archives. And sure enough, there it was.
Nonetheless, our thoughts and prayers are with him in this trying time.
jihadwatcher on September 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM
jihadwatcher on September 5, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Doh…
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 3:38 PM
That was kinda funny. But don’t you think you got the sour grapes analogy wrong? I’m not picking on you, it’s just a pet peeve of mine when people use that the wrong way.
And I would never own a Corgi.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 3:39 PM
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 3:39 PM
I wish to express my condolences on the loss of your best friend Allah, it must have been devastating to have Fred splatter him all over the parking lot. It does however explain your pathological hatred for Fred and his red truck.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 3:42 PM
jihadwatcher,
That’s funny stuff. Very well done.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Oh yes of course. Csdeven, I’m very sorry to hear about your loss.
Zetterson on September 5, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Yes, it’s tragic.
csdeven on September 5, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Too early? Get a grip. The rest of the country hasn’t even tuned into the election yet.
unseen on September 5, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Mature?
We’re only talking about what, two to five years ago, tops? That would be saying that Romney’s positions weren’t mature when he ran for gov of Mass. Sorry, I’m not buying that. My concern is that he comes off slick (almost plastic) now, then the mask falls off and we see he’s just another RINO.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I would have thought a corgi would be too much of a dog for you.
But I am sorry about the loss. That explains everything, no one would be as obsessed with something like you are with Fred, if it did not involve something like this tragedy.
I understand your pain, and I now understand how bitter you must feel. It certainly comes out in your posts.
Tell me, can dogs become a god of their own dog world, and have multiple celestial wives? I hope so. The belief in that should ease the pain.
right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM
right2bright on September 5, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Now, now, it’s not easy losing a close friend like that. I once lost a dog when I was young, and it still eats at me to this day.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Well as of tonight Fred is in the race. I’m interested in finding out just how globalist he is. If he’s an open borders guy, a supporter of the bizarro world free trade agenda then he won’t get my vote but if not, and he is as conservative as promised I’ll support him all the way.
Right now I support Hunter and Tancredo, mainly for their stances on illegal immigration and securing the border but they’re both tough on radical Islam.
Buzzy on September 5, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Sigh.
Halley on September 5, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I’m hoping for a Thompson/Hunter ticket myself, but if Thompson were to turn out to be a globalist soft on illegal immigration I would drop him so fast I would get a speeding ticket for breaking the speed of light.
doriangrey on September 5, 2007 at 4:55 PM
His ad was really bad. I’ve never seen him over act like that before. His tag line is security-unity-prosperity …. what about freedom ? I do not trust this guy.
Maxx on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
jdawg,
This is appears to be an accurate history of Mitt’s views on abortion. I think “matured” is a fair description, particularly when coupled with the stem cell debate, advances in science, et cetera.
Call it an epiphany of sorts.
What else bothers you?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Jeeze. Sounds more like kos/huffpo/du in here than HA.
techno_barbarian on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Why should they have all the fun?
MB4 on September 5, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Hate to burst your bubble, but that wikipedia entry has a link to an American Spectator article that says (empasis mine):
From: http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11053
The article goes on to say:
While I understand that peoples’ opinions do change over time, I still see Romney as a typical politician; slick, and willing to do or say whatever to get elected. He may be a great guy, but right now I can’t support him.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Agree. Plastic is a fitting description. Something tells me this guy would roll over for the LEFT at the first opportunity.
Maxx on September 5, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
That American Spectator article has a really good line:
Pretty much sums it all up.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 5:46 PM
O/T but thank you to both your and Limerick’s sons for their service.
PowWow on September 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Even more tidbits linked to that wiki article on Romney:
From: http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm
Just the bullets, the filler is good, too:
Apparently, only enough to mollify the base…
OK, I give him credit for this:
and
But let’s be real. This guy is all over the place, and not exactly the staunch pro-lifer some try to make him out to be. To be honest, this looks more like someone who’s a political opportunist.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Boy, the guy finally gets into the race and it’s snark-o-mania here.
It’s ON!
Mojave Mark on September 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM
jdawg,
The now defunct American Spectator?
Did you not think Ronald Reagan was conservative enough for you?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM
It’s a bit of a stretch to compare Romney to Reagan. Besides, I looked at a link that came from the wiki article you provided, so should that question the wiki article itself? What about the other links I quoted from – again, provided by the wiki page you provided? Are all these other pages incorrect as well? And if they are, then what does that say about the wiki article you provided?
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Mojave Mark on September 5, 2007 at 6:09 PM
;-} Heh. That’s good. Can I use that sometime?
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 6:30 PM
jdawg,
Let’s parse this one entry, shall we?
How could he have changed abortion laws in Massachusetts?
Your problem with that is….?
I thought you liked that.
He still does not believe in forcing his beliefs on others. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned and let the States decide which is quite the opposite of forcing your beliefs on others, like the Supremes did with Roe.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:31 PM
jdawg,
Sorry, crossed post. I am only comparing Romney to Reagan on abortion, and in the general sense of someone who moved to the right.
I assume you know that Reagan began as a Democrat, do you not?
I’m curious, if not Romney, who do you support?
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Sorry for all the posts.
Check out what Michael Reagan has to say about his father, and Romney (and even Guiliani’s) conservative credentials in a piece entitled, Casting the First Litmus Stone.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Yes, let’s:
He seems to change positions pretty much whenever there’s an election coming up.
Sorry, but if he was the staunch pro-lifer some claim him to be he wouldn’t be using left-wing rhetoric to stay in office or get elected. He should have done what he could to change the law – parental involvement, third term abortions, anything?
That’s exactly what it looks like – in a word, pandering to the base.
A pro-lifer would not do this. Period.
Pete Wilson did this too. And no one bought it. this is the rhetoric of a RINO who wants it both ways. And I’m just not buying it. He may be personally pro-life, but his record looks like someone who wants it both ways.
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I am very aware of Ronals Reagans’ history. His big issue was communism, which put him at odds with the liberals. It’s quite a stretch to compare Romney to Reagan.
I haven’t made up my mind, completely. If Fred gets his act together, I’ll support him, although I do like Huckabee, Hunter and Tancredo. Unfortunately, I doubt the latter three have a snowballs chance. If it comes down to Rudy McRomney, I may take a pass and just vote R to keep Hitlery out.
Sorry for going so long here.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Buy Danish on September 5, 2007 at 6:31 PM
This is the kicker:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm
You can say, Reagan, Reagan, all you want – A pro-lifer would not say he/she was committed to keeping abortion legal.
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Funny, I always thought Romney said his view evolved over time, but clearly this 1994 quote is much more applicable than anything from say, 10 years afterward.
BKennedy on September 5, 2007 at 7:26 PM
2002, not ten years ago. Apparently, not evolved enough…
jdawg on September 5, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »