Video: Mitt on O’Reilly, Fred on Hannity & Colmes
posted at 10:30 pm on September 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Presidential campaigns are about weighing options, and for Republicans like myself, the options come down to who looks like they’ll be the strongest, wisest leader on the war, who will make this country stronger as we press on to defend our freedoms, who will our enemies fear and who will earn respect from our friends while best reflecting my conservative values? I don’t know the answers to much of that yet, but we had the opportunity to see two of the GOP’s front-runners on Fox tonight, not in a debate per se, but thanks to video editing we can make our own debate. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, whom Michelle interviewed a couple weeks back for Hot Air, appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, and former Tenn. Sen. Fred Thompson followed him on Hannity & Colmes. They comprise two of the top four GOP candidates. It’s not unreasonable to see them on a ticket together at some point, taking on Hillary Clinton or whoever emerges from the Dem pack.
Here they are, first Romney and then Thompson, one right after the other. I’ve edited both segments for time. Because of that, I limited both segments to two questions. Romney answers O’Reilly on immigration and the war in Iraq; Thompson answers Hannity on why he chose to launch his campaign on Leno, and the war in Iraq.
Since Romney aired first, his clip goes first.
Followed by Thompson.
Addendum: Toward the end of the first clip, O’Reilly questioned whether Romney had characterized Hillary Clinton’s position on Iraq accurately, when he said that her position is that we should depose Maliki and then leave. I did a little fact-checking, and while Clinton has never put the two ideas together the way Romney did for her, yes, they do accurately reflect her positions on Iraq.
Depose Maliki. And then leave Iraq.
Breathtaking, ain’t it? So much for Hillary Clinton being the smartest woman in the world.
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 3 Next »
Romney who got all his jobs from his extremely wealthy parents – should be extremely careful making statements like “I’ve run enterprizes in the private sector” and implying Fred has done nothing
Joining a Multi Billion dollar trust firm where your parents are large deposit holders “then” “Striking” out on your own taking your parents friends and the firms clients with you is really really close to lying
Now here’s a Mitt Romney Bio that he runs away from
Born March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan, Mitt Romney is the son of Michigan Governor, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, American Motors chairman, and presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney. Romney has three siblings: Lynn, Jane, and G. Scott. He was named after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father’s best friend,[3]
This is the first huge but noteable mistake Romney has made and potentially a fatal one
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Can anyone else come up with a more uninformed and ignorant statement?
I love contests!
Buy Danish on September 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Again, what exactly is Fred’s opinion on Iran? He stated the problem quite well. He is more than capable of relaying what the issue is. I’ll give him kudo’s for that all day long. So, what’s the solution Fred? In fact, what is your opinion on ANYTHING? This man makes me crazy.
thedecider on September 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Freds direct, overthrow the regime in Iran or nuke em.
Not a whole lot of wiggle room.
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 10:51 PM
buy Danish
You really going to stand by that statement? You’re postive that was not only his fathers firm but his mothers side of the family were not capital share holders?
Are you going to also mention that he oversaw a failed olympics that saw several – well let me put it this way – he was one of the few who were NOT indicted for wrong doing in the process?
Or is being the son of a Governor, a chairmen of the firm that made jeep, from one of the Bluest of blue blooded families (even named after one of the worlds wealthiest people and close family friend) and he bad mouths a working stiff like Fred who went to school with a pregnant wife and worked his way and almost single handedly ended one of the most embarassing chapters in American History?
But hey, Romney’s been revising himself constantly
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Friends of Fred Thompson website is using a football analogy to ‘Kick Off’ his campaign. I’ll take it one step further here by saying that Mitt resembles an Ivy Leaque Quarterback while FT is reminiscent of John Maddens ‘Big Uglies’ that is to say a defensive lineman. While both are valuable assets to a team their methods are quite different.
sonnyspats1 on September 6, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Fred!head Lim says…..Mitt knows how to work the camera better then Fred!. That said, it is early enough for Fred! to get the newness of it all shaken off and step up. My impression is that Mr.Thompson!’s biggest weakness against Mitt is the age factor. GQ Mitt or Big&Tall Fred. Shouldn’t be the way it is but this is MTVmerica and there is no changing that.
Limerick on September 6, 2007 at 10:59 PM
I like Fred.
But…
Does anyone think his campaign approach is a bit too old fashioned?
Is he resisting the way of new media and fast style of campaigning?
I do believe his positions are good and proper, but I don’t want to see him fail b/c of old style political campaigning.
BobH on September 6, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Did I see some “fire in the belly” with Fred on Iran?
bnelson44 on September 6, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Thanks, Brian!
Troy Rasmussen on September 6, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Thanks, Bryan!
Troy Rasmussen on September 6, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Fred needs to come out STRONG, esp. on the war on terror (vis. Rudy).
If he has passion, he will win it.
BobH on September 6, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Both sound good. Mitt seems a little too polished and Fred seems a little unpolished. Fred seems more likely to fill into the shoes whereas Mitt seems a little to eager to fill those shoes. Leaning Fred 70 to 30. Rudy is just too liberal for me. McCain is too insiderish. The rest don’t stand a chance to win.
Anyone else hear Fred talk about Newt in the interview. Seems like a lot of talk between the two lately. Are we looking at a possible Fred/Newt ticket if he wins?
unseen on September 6, 2007 at 11:02 PM
I’m having trouble with my keyboard, sorry, Bryan.
Troy Rasmussen on September 6, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Bnelson44
From what I can gather Fred just warned Iran that he will nuke em
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 11:02 PM
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 11:02 PM
And the problem with that is?
unseen on September 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Looks like Fred will be answering questions posted to certain blog sites here.
bnelson44 on September 6, 2007 at 11:05 PM
O’Reilly did well to shut down Romney by telling him that only congress can defund the sanctuary cities, took some steam out of his boiler but he did well. The DEMs have us all so hoodwinked into thinking that everything is the President’s fault I guess we all forget just how little power the office really has in the legislative process. Mitt’s private enterprise statement didn’t bother me in the least and I’m usually sensitive to stuff like that.
Fred should have been to the debate last night so he wouldn’t appear alone (to some) when he failed to cite specific steps he would take against Iran. I can understand holding your cards close to the vest regarding Iran, where I want the cards out on the table is on domestic issues like illegal immigration, outsourcing etc.
Buzzy on September 6, 2007 at 11:06 PM
A million lemmings can’t be wrong: How about this as a Presidential Ticket?
BobH on September 6, 2007 at 11:06 PM
unseen
about time someone showed the waters edge
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Or is being the son of a Governor, a chairmen of the firm that made jeep
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Keep up the good work Eric! You don’t seem to have any competition at all here.
Buy Danish on September 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
EricPWJohnson,
Do you really think it’s fair to hitch Romney to the bribe scandals involving the original members of the bid committee and the IOC members that took bribes when he had no involvement with the games at the time? He came in after all those scandals basically to rescue the games and did a darn fine job of it. The Salt Lake games were some of the most successful Winter Games ever.
I’m all for supporting your candidate and pointing out true failings of an opponent, but making it up as you go sounds more like a Clinton/Obama/Silky Pony type voter.
RW_theoriginal on September 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
So. . . having successful parents disqualifies one from seeking the presidency?
And the Olympics were in major trouble BEFORE Romney was brought in. He DID save the Salt Lake Games from disaster and scandal. That is undeniable. I was there.
You don’t like Mitt Romney, that is obvious. But ease up on the personal attacks. And YES demeaning the man because of his family history is PERSONAL.
Troy Rasmussen on September 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Fred is just getting started. Expect some hard-hitting common-sense ads in the future.
infidel4life on September 6, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Fred and Mitt look like they could be father and son. Or grandfather and grandson.
MB4 on September 6, 2007 at 11:14 PM
The country needs a father now, to slap the kids around a bit and teach them what reality is. Then let them play again.
Entelechy on September 6, 2007 at 11:20 PM
I like Michael Steele. But I don’t know if I like him enough to vote for him, even if it is only as a VP.
Need to study up on where he stands on all the important issues.
2Brave2Bscared on September 6, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Troy Rasmussen on September 6, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Eric is a fountain of disinformation. Or maybe it’s just stone cold ignorance.
I hardly know where to begin to correct the outlandish claims, but I’ll start with a really easy one:
George Romney worked his way up to head American Motors Company(AMC) which was famous for the Rambler.
Jeeps are made by General Motors.
Buy Danish on September 6, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Horse race? That wasn’t even a fair match up. Mitt is much more knowledgeable, crisp, clear, and willing to answer specifically than Fred was. I think Fred should have gotten in this race earlier, just to work the bugs out.
I mean, can any of you Fred supporters be encouraged by that inteview with Sean? Especially when compared to mitt?
csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Newt as VP would be a vast waste of talent. He would need a cabinet post.
Department of Education would seem obvious. I know it sounds like a Sysiphean task, but can you imagine what would happen if somebody could actually succeed at wresting control of education from the hands of the federal government and send it back to the states?
You can point to a dozen “critical” problems facing America. But when it comes to the LONG TERM, education is the only way to halt the US’s slide into liberal decay.
logis on September 6, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Dearest csdeven, start putting those pennies aside – I look forward to our meeting in SD. It looks like you’re buying. Even if I am, it doesn’t make me as bitter as you are. I worry about you. I’m in the SE and the folks here and the Soldiers are crazy about Fred’s announcement, and they are only against one – no frozen CinC.
Entelechy on September 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
But wait a minute. The groupies said Fred was getting set in the blocks so that the day he announced he would be off with the pack. There would be no need for and run up period. If this is being ready for the starters gun, Fred just stalled and his crew chief left the day of the race.
The Fred supporters are being blindly and overly optimistic based on what Fred has done compared to what they bragged he was going to do.
csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Troy et al
First AMC bought Jeep From Kaiser
Family history is relevant when it pertains to where a person is in the campaign and his claims of success, in this case he claimed he was a made man and Fred was not.
That was simply not true
Nic try to minimize Romney’s role – he was involved with the Olympics from the beginning period this is going to be huge in the race this after he was “brought in” as the new CEO.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/278035.stm
Also he left his firm and it supposedly ran into trouble after he left – again just another coincidence maybe or maybe not.
Then the white paper came out about his governance of Mass not good, very critical of his rewording taxes as fees and “closing loopholes”
Typical
I know its hypocritical of me to point out that he is the son of a Presidential Candidate, the son of a chairmen of the Jeep Corporation, got a seven figure starting job from his parents influence, and ran his own firm with his blue blooded clientale and then presided over the worse olympics in world history and still blaming things that happened years before.
Also being the great great grandson of the “loose” equivalent of the “St Mark” of the Mormon Church also is another thing he has run away from.
Some of you need to really research Romney.
If you claim to be a success and the papers and facts show otherwise don’t accuse me of personal attacks when its right out there in the record.
And the Feds saved the olympics by forcing all those to resign or answer charges pertaining to corruption not because of Mitt.
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
You had me at “fissile material”, you had me at “fissile material”. (sniff)
- The Cat
MirCat on September 6, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Newt will play a huge role in Fred’s run but not as VP. He’ll be the Fred Architect, and a good thing it will be.
Entelechy on September 6, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Fred sounded good in this clip and the bobbleheadedness was kept in check. Also, my opinion of Romney is continuing to improve.
Primarily, Romney understands that the real solution to the immigration mess is to depolarize the magnets that draw the illegal aliens here, more so than building a fence; although in the current political and security climate it’s really about both. Hunter never mentions interior enforcement, (that I’ve noticed), however he doesn’t have Romney’s cash to help him formulate his positions, and also, Hunter is stronger on the 2nd amendment than Romney. Hunter is also speaking from his experience of preventing harm to the area that he represents so it’s not surprising that he would extend his experience to his campaign.
Still, I once said that I would only vote for Romney as a protest vote against Hillary or another Democrat, but I’m actually starting to like him well enough that I could both vote for Mitt with a clear conscience.
Fred’s oratorical skills seemed to shine through in this video clip, which gives me some hope that he will live up to peoples expectations sufficiently, including my own. Until I see him in a debate my doubts will remain. Did Fred discuss immigration in this interview? With Spencer Abraham on his staff, immigration is the issue that I’m most worried Fred may change or diminished his stance on, now that Shamnesty isn’t in the headlines.
One thing I appreciate is that both candidates are able to pronounce that most important of words, “nuclear”. Fred also said, “fissile”. Whoo Hooo! How cool is that?!? (Remember? Bush used to pronounce it nuke-you-ler.)
On the subject of Bush-isms: in the debate last night didn’t Brownback say, “complimentarity”?
FloatingRock on September 6, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Oh, I’m ready babe. But you’ll have to clarify for me…..did you say that WINNER buys or loser buys? I’ve been under the impression that winner would be buying.
csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM
I’ll be glad to pay. It will be for the good, so long as you’ll vote for the winner.
Entelechy on September 6, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Oh yeah. You know I’m voting for the rep nominee.
We’ll just set it up as the winner buys the first round of drinks at the losers place of choice in SD.
Fair enough?
csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Actually, jepps have been made by a number of companies over the years, with the brand being acquired by AMC, and most recently, Chrysler. I don’t believe they have ever been made by GM.
Big S on September 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Why target sanctuary cities at all? There are plenty of cities that desperately WANT to help the federal government identify and deport their illegals. What in the Hell do I care that New York City wants to protect its illegal alien convicts? Why should we send federal troops in to “save” the citizens there, when all they’d have to do is get off their asses and elect different local leaders?
But, when you stop and think about it, Mitt’s way ahead of the game here. A poorly executed, inefficient and wildly mistargeted approach to the problem isn’t really that bad.
…When you bear in mind that the current leading Republican candidate actually RAN the worst sanctuary city. Seriously, what’s up with that?
logis on September 6, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Fair deal csdeven. Just don’t publish the place anywhere. We’ll work it out then. Freelancer was going to help organize. He’s vanished from HA and I’ve been worried about him. Hope he resurfaces soon.
Entelechy on September 6, 2007 at 11:49 PM
EricPWJohnson on September 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Perhaps you could share some of your other “sources” with us. The one you linked to does not tie Romney to the bribery scandal, and it will be impossible for you to find a reputable source that does.
I thought Weekly World News went out of business, but maybe you have an old copy lying around or something.
Buy Danish on September 6, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Yes he DID! :) I caught that and it gave me a chuckle……
Nelsa on September 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Mitt Romney attended Stanford for 4 questers. Mitt Romney served a 30 month LDS mission where he was almost killed in a automobile accident. Mitt graduated BYU valedictorian, earning his B.A. summa cum laude. Mitt Romney graduated JD/MBA from Harvard. He was in the top 5% of his class.
I’m sure with all the data you have, you should be able to turn up a photo of Mitt’s family attending those schools while using Mitt’s name.
What a friggen moron you are.
csdeven on September 6, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Buy Danish,
Not only that but EricPWJohnson’s “proof” says no less than three times that Romney was brought in new after the scandal.
RW_theoriginal on September 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM
NYC does not protect it’s illegal alien convicts. For your reference, read this. It’s Executive Order 124, the law Giuliani has been getting so much heat for. It explicitly provides for the reporting of individuals suspected of criminal activity to the federal immigration authorities. In the clip above, Romney conflates the New Haven and New York City laws, which are actually very different. He’s being intentianally misleading by doing so; I sincerely hope you would not stoop to that level.
Big S on September 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I say we just all chip in a buy csdeven a red pick up truck and a dog named Fred!
Limerick on September 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Mitt looked good as usual, though his apparent belief that as president he could cut funding to sanctuary cities is disappointing.
I don’t have a problem with Mitt’s flip flops, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. My major issue is the health care plan he constantly brags about. Does he want to institute it as a federal system? Why is he so proud of it?
I agree that health care should not be a democratic issue, and it’s a republican mistake to allow it to be so. I also agree that Socialized Medicine is not the answer, but I don’t think forcing everyone to purchase insurance is any better. What about the people who just don’t want to buy insurance? While it may be a foolish decision, the decision should be theirs, and I think that is a conservative principle.
If it was a truly free market approach as he brags, then people would be allowed not to purchase insurance if they wished. While it is a far superior system than a government plan, I still would not support it.
I don’t think I could vote for Mitt until I got clarification on this issue. Does he want a federal reform bill like in Mass.? Or does he want it to be a states issue?
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Lim, we can negociate with Fred to relinquish the old pickup truck from Fred’s mom’s house and just give it to Fred. After all, publicity is good, even if negative, and csdeven will have earned it. In this round Fred won’t use it anyhow. Been enjoying all your posts. Regards,
Entelechy on September 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Newt – Karl Rove II, for the Fred! administration.
IrishEyes on September 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Big S on September 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM
You’re right – I confused Chrysler with GM.
You’re also right about Jeep having had tons of different owners, and at one time being part of AMC, but it was acquired by them in 1970. George Romney was serving as the Secretary of HUD under Nixon at that time, so he had nothing to do with Jeeps.
George Romney was famous for the Rambler when he was at AMC, which was a highly successful venture that turned around the companies fortunes.
Of course none of this has anything to do with Mitt Romney’s qualifications for the Presidency.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM
I should hope not.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 12:05 AM
“Mitt Romney served a 30 month LDS mission”… dude that is one serious trip.. purple microdot perhaps?
Nevermind LDS not LSD. Sorry for the poor attempt at humor but I quit smoking yesterday and
Buzzy on September 7, 2007 at 12:07 AM
The jury is still out on whether his plan can work nationally. I know that his plan saved the state money because people were going to regular doctors and not the emergency room for treatment.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Correction – s/b negotiate with Fred to relinquish (truck)
Entelechy on September 7, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Well obviously we can’t know whether it will until it’s implemented nationally. Does he want to do that?
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Here is Mitt’s WSJ Op-Ed on the piece and should answer most of your questions.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:13 AM
He’s avoiding that one. I think. I don’t think it would work, but it might be a model for ALL states to adopt if it works in MA. Then there would be no need for a national policy.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Yeah, we all know Mommy and Daddy founded Bain Capital for Lil’ Mitt. Any other brilliant insights?
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Rich Lowry nails Fred’s hide to the wall.
OUCH BABY!!! That’s gonna leave a mark! Fred’s no better than the leading dems? Do nothing senators with zero executive experience.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Breaking news !
William Amos on September 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Um, yeah. That’s the one where Giuliani sued the federal government to keep them from pursuing illegal aliens in NYC. And, yes, there is clearly no provision for turning over the files of all known illegal alien convicts. There are only a handful of people in the whole city who have authority “on a case by case basis” to report illegal aliens – all other city employees are expressly prohibited.
It’s pretty damning.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
If Fred lives up to expectations and the pollsters say it’ll work, Fred/Newt would be awesome!
You may be right, but I’d sure like to see Newt in some of the debates.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Actually I think I have an idea…
Since they’re both vying for the same voters, why don’t Fred and Mitt have the two-man debate Fred says he’s all up for? Maybe it can be a HA exclusive!
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 12:23 AM
DANG! I was hoping they’d find him hiding behind Hillary’s cankles and hips.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Thanks for that, he doesn’t answer whether he’d like to take it national, but it’s implied he’d just prefer individual states do it, that I would be fine with. Even though I still am not sold on the system.
How did he drive down insurance prices?
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 12:23 AM
You’re just MEAN aren’t you? Putting Fred up against Mitt would be like putting a AA ball player into the box against a major league pitcher. I know Fred THINKS he’s a big time player because he did well in the minor leagues this summer, but he has no frame of reference.
Jeeze man!!! Just look at the two videos Bryan posted! Mitt is light years ahead of Fred. LIGHT YEARS!
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:28 AM
csdeven,
I don’t think Mitt has any desire to take his plan out nationally. Here’s the closing paragraph in his WSJ Op-Ed:
William Amos on September 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Thanks for the news! Was he riding in a white Bronco?
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Ok y’all. That’s it for me tonight. see ya in the AM.
Peace and cheers!
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:29 AM
You caught me being lazy. I didn’t read the article. Good catch on his thoughts on it.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 12:31 AM
I can’t see Fred! accepting VP. The last thing he would want to do is go back into that chamber and play hall monitor. Newt might enjoy it, but not Freddie! (there I said it csd).
Billary is the target. Unless Vince Foster left a taped message taped under a park bench someplace she is a shoo-in.
Bill jet-setting around the planet making whoopie with the world isn’t exactly what I want to see happen, so whoever gets the nod better be able to knock the Pantsuit back into the corner. Right now that is Fred! Mitt! or Rudy! It is going to be a wild 14 months. (at least traffic will be up)
Limerick on September 7, 2007 at 12:34 AM
With apologies to Romney’s quote from the WSJ article Buy Danish posted, another great thing about Federalism is that a State can say what another one did is just crap and stay as far away from it as possible. I haven’t a clue how discussions these days always tend to “how it works Nationally.” I’m for as few things being National as is humanly possible.
RW_theoriginal on September 7, 2007 at 12:36 AM
To clarify, I think it’s quite clear that Mitt does not want to take it out nationally in the sense that he would never come up with a one size fits all program.
I think the concept that one should have to have health insurance, just as one has to have car insurance makes sense.
It is certainly preferable to HillaryCare of Edwards hideous plan, and it might be a good idea to put an end to the idea of a single payer plan by instituting these insurance coverage plans instead.
There is so much grumbling about health care and the “uninsured” that if we don’t do something like Mitt suggests were going to end up with a nightmare instead.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Fred has made his position as clear as possible. So, yes, somebody else would need to be asked this question. But it’s pretty obviously not US.
Seriously though, I wouldn’t mind a bit snubbing McCain; and the rest of the field – God bless them – simply don’t have the numbers. But if an actual debate were to be held any time soon, I don’t know how you could justify leaving out Giuliani.
In theory, if you wanted to match up three people equally, I guess that would require three debates. But if you limited them to – say – thirty minutes each, you could do it all in one night.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Oh yes, definitely. I just think that it’s not solving the real problem, which is expensive health care. It doesn’t need to be that expensive at all if we made the proper reforms.
Is it a politically correct reform that Mitt made? Yes. But I wouldn’t support it in my home state. But if it came down to MittCare versus HillaryCare, MittCare is vastly preferable.
I’d rather be forced to buy health insurance than forced to go to the doctor.
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Thanks Byran
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 12:47 AM
BKennedy, Csdeven, Buy Danish
Romney was a big backer and fund raiser for the Olympics before he “came” in to save the day which BTW – he didn’t
You can spin all you want – if you tout your record you should be able to stand on it.
His father, his parents, his extended family were all influential in his career
Its like saying Ted never got elected being a Kennedy
Keep spinning for the poor little rich kid who wants to play president like his father
Now Freds background – the working stiff Romney sniffed at at the beginning of the interview:
Freddie Thompson was born August 19, 1942, in Sheffield, Alabama to Ruth Inez (Bradley) and Fletcher Session Thompson, an automobile salesman.[10][11] He attended public school in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, graduating from Lawrence County High School. After graduation, he worked days in the local post office and nights at a bicycle assembly plant.[12]
Thompson entered Florence State College, now the University of North Alabama, becoming the first member of his family to go to college.[13] He subsequently transferred to Memphis State University, now the University of Memphis, where he earned a double-major in philosophy and political science, in 1964, as well as scholarships to both Tulane and Vanderbilt law schools.[12] He went on to earn his J.D. degree from Vanderbilt in 1967.[13
Looks like he paid for his place in life instead of daddy and mommy
EricPWJohnson on September 7, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Keljeck,
It’s certainly a complicated issue with no easy solutions, but Hillary and Edwards’ ideas are truly appalling.
One thing about Mitt, his background is as a data cruncher. He is brilliant at that and if anyone can figure out how to reform the system, he’s the guy to do it.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Yeah, that’s the part of federalism that no liberal understands.
And that’s why someone who brags that his/her “Best Health Plan In the Whole World” somehow helps qualify him/her to be our President scares me. And anybody who tries to stamp the word “federalism” on that is just peddling bullshit.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:52 AM
EricPWJohnson
I’m still waiting for your sources. Maybe you’ve been too busy adjusting the antennae on your hat?
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Well the idea would be kind of like a four man double-elimination tournament.
You’d have Rudy and Fred slated in the first debate with Mitt and McCain in a second debate, then you’d move them around to have Rudy and McCain, Mitt and Fred, and finally finish up with McCain and Fred and Rudy and Mitt. Stated more eloquently:
Round 1:
Fred vs. Rudy
Mitt vs. McCain
Round 2:
Rudy vs. McCain
Mitt vs. Fred
Round 3:
Fred vs. McCain
Mitt vs. Rudy
You could do it in a one and a half-hour debate format with 5 minute opening statements, 35 minutes for each side, and 5 minute closing statements. It would be like a series of gentleman’s duels. If Huckabee or someone else wanted in it would be more difficult, but otherwise I think the idea is sound and I doubt anyone would complain about soundbites unless we had some really horrid moderators that can’t control themselves.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 12:55 AM
That I can agree with, it seems everything the man touches turns to gold.
Now, how would he reform the system? This is why I wish they had those 1 on 1 debates Newt was talking about. I’d really like to see where his views were, not just in what he has done in the past, but why he did it. What, if it was a perfect world, would be his ideal?
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 12:55 AM
EricPWJohnson,
You have repeatedly made the accusation that Romney was “in on” the pre-Olympic scandals from 2002 and all you’ve provided as evidence was an article that disputes your claim, a few cut and pasted Wiki excerpts, and your own word. Obviously the article disputes you, none of the Wiki cut and pastes backs you up, so we’re left with your word. Frankly there are Koz Kiddies that seem more credible than you, so how about some proof or at least some valid evidence beyond your own prejudice?
RW_theoriginal on September 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Mitt sounded good tonight, Mitt always sounds good, he was trained from a baby to be a politition and he is well trained. And please, don’t pretend that his dad’s influence didn’t buy him his jobs and prestige. And I would love a 30 month vacation in France, some mission.
Mitt did a good job with the olympics, and he was probably a decent businessman, but a polition? Not so good, he wasn’t a conservative (his words), huge tax increases (oh yeah, what did he call them? fees, yeah that’s it no taxes just a lot of fees). The budget exploded under him, and he let one of the biggest boondogles (the big dig) happen in his state. Flip flopped on abortion, gun control, etc., you just don’t know where he stands. Well that’s not true, if he is in front of the gun lobby he stands by them, if he is with a conservative group he is conservative, if he is with Ted Kennedy he states he is not a Reagan supporter or conservative. So depending on where he is standing, you would know what he stands for. He has made it pretty clear.
But he looks good, and sounds good…I guess that’s what counts to some people. Gotta look the part.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM
EricPWJohnson
Wow, this is truly shocking news. It is an absolute scandal that his family had any influence in his life. I bet they had something to do with him going to Stanford, graduating first in his class at BYU, getting a Harvard MBA and law degree too.
Damn them! They should have told him to lie around and smoke dubes and drink beer all day.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I believe it’s called “class envy,” and it’s a halmark of the left.
We got it Eric, you hate Romney because he was born rich and unlike Teddy, he actually has worked all his adult life so you can’t pull the spoiled brat card.
Speaking of family members paying their son’s way, what did Fred do with all that PAC money from his Tennesee campaign? Why, I believe he funnelled it all to his son for consulting work that was never done.
And the Freg groupies accuse Mitt fans of engaging in personal attacks.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I’ll keep that in mind whenever I listen to Fred “well scripted” Clinton and Barack “rockstar” Obama.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM
You think it’s an American ideal to hold one’s parents against them? Doesn’t a father try to give opportunity for his son to have a better life then he does? Somehow that is a dishonor…I think that this is extremely shallow view. How well did he do in his positions? Let us measure him on his merits.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 1:04 AM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Another class envy guy and a fount of misinformation like Eric, I see.
By the way, those missions are not much fun. I read that he was allowed to make something like 2 phone calls a year.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Hmmmm… I don’t think so; they are entirely different circumstances. I don’t think that requiring people that use transportation and thus risk inflicting harm to others is the same as requiring everybody who is alive, who simply exists, to have insurance for their own benefit. Not at all similar other than they both involve insurance. That’s not to say that I don’t support Mitt’s plan, which I know next to nothing about. I’m just saying that they aren’t at all the same.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
logis,
I agree and I’m afraid a lot of Republican candidates have fallen into that trap of coming up with a one size fits most, with a few exceptions to pretend we believe in Federalism exceptions, plan. Frankly there isn’t much wrong with the Bush attempts at reform that set up health savings accounts, give individuals the same tax treatment as business for providing their own health insurance, keeps snake oil salesmen like John Edwards from getting filthy rich on make believe malpractice suits, and allows me to buy an insurance policy that doesn’t cover things like gender reclassification when I’m 99.9999999% percent sure that isn’t going to be an issue for me.
Those kinds of things put control back in our and the free market’s hands. Democrats despise those things and sadly Republicans have been heading the same way. The slap down in 2006 and the reaction to the horrific Kennedy/Bush amnesty plan might be enough to awaken the Reagan conservatives. I can hope at least.
RW_theoriginal on September 7, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Exactly, just because someone looks the part, doesn’t mean he can play the part. Mitt is well programmed, he was raised to be a politition. Nothing wrong with that, Bush, Kennedy, Gore, are just a few examples of families that have done that.
Glad that you agree that Mitt plays a good role.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:10 AM
StatesCandidates that rise quickly, just as all the other things of nature that are born and grow rapidly, cannot have roots and ramifications; the first badweatherdebate performance kills them.- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on September 7, 2007 at 1:11 AM
But I should have mentioned in my previous response that I don’t disagree with your basic point.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 AM
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 1:00 AM
The guy sounds like a Truther. I’m sure Fred is delighted to have guys like him rooting for him.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Bingo! Although some dirt is coming out about Obama courtesy of his wife. Apparently he smells bad – just like his namesake who lives in the cave and never changes his clothes.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 AM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Is that post an example of irony?
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Useless analysis.
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Machiavelli needs to rethink his physics. If a body with great potential energy goes in motion, the factor of friction and the cost of that transaction is what determines the resultant kinetic energy. The rate of transfer has nothing to do with it.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
The problem with your theory is that it is not harmless when people don’t carry health insurance because taxpayers end up paying for it and at exorbitant emergency room visit rates.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »