Video: Mitt on O’Reilly, Fred on Hannity & Colmes
posted at 10:30 pm on September 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Great video from Thompson.
Romney didn’t seem to have on his fingertips the simple fact that congress, not the president, controls funding. Strange for someone who was a governor.
Thompson was logical, coherent, passionate, in control, and tough.
csdeven, you hack and shill:
You have no basis for your statement except for your own biases.
On a previous thread you jumped up in defense of Mormonism in the most adamant terms, then said that you never said you are a Mormon.
Well, are you?
Or was that just a dishonest debate tactic designed to sow confusion?
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 1:26 AM
See, then there are two possiblities here. We can either fix it so that the government isn’t playing for ER visits, or we can make everyone pay to fix the bottom line.
It’s similar to Edwards making people go for preventive care. They may not want to, but it helps the bottom line. People may not want to buy insurance, but making them do so helps the bottom line.
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 1:27 AM
Save your personal insults for your children.
Class envy has nothing to do with it. That’s like playing the “race card”, it is overused.
He got a huge headstart (like most famous politians kids, can you name some?: Kennedy, Gore, Bush, Rosevelt, Jackson, the list is endless)
Do you think his father being a Governor and their famous friends did not help his career? Are you saying that his name did not open doors? Are you saying that being the son of a wealthy influential powerful politian, with incredibly influential friends (like Marriot) didn’t help him succeed? You would have to be a dolt not to have had doors opened to you.
No envy, just the facts. Doors open to powerful people. Just ask Jessie Jackson jr. Ask George Bush, or Al Gore. Do you think Chelsea Clinton will start at the bottom of the rung? If you were a consulting firm would you pay her top dollar? I think so, not because of her Stanford degree, but because she has power…from her family. Kennedy was paid top buck while trying to pass his bar (most Kennedy’s can’t pass a bar without…).
Grow up and find another insult that sticks, that “class envy” insult makes you sound like a school yard child.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM
You’re a great spokesman for freedom, aren’t you?
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 1:30 AM
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.
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM
I think you have Fred confused with Jeri on that one!!!
MB4 on September 7, 2007 at 1:31 AM
I think an awful lot of people (on the left and right both) get way too caught up in the punditry: assuming that everybody else in the world is part of a vast unwashed mass, and you’re sitting above it all.
They forget that most Americans are NORMAL PEOPLE, who – for very good reason – don’t trust anyone who looks and acts too slick.
Think whatever you want about Mike Huckabee’s politics, but if I was sitting across from a guy with eyes like that on a bus, I would switch seats. Look at Larry Craig; does he look like any more of a pervert than most elected officials? We’re just stuck choosing from among people like that because most people who gravitate toward a lifetime career in politics are just plain weird.
But, if we have a choice, voters don’t WANT that. Go back and look at every election for the past fifty years. Nearly every time, the winner is the guy you’d be most likely to buy a used car from.
Mitt Romney reminds me of the John Kerry Brahmin type. He looks exactly like the kind of plastic-faced, silky-voiced manikin you’d think some OTHER sucker would buy a used car from. Newsflash: everybody else sees the same thing you do.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 1:31 AM
If you think I am then I guess I am, I don’t think I am.
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 1:32 AM
politician
say itspell it along with me. p-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n ,,,,, politicianGoodnight All!
RW_theoriginal on September 7, 2007 at 1:34 AM
He is, he admitted to it a couple of months ago when he started his Mitt-wit campaign.
But that doesn’t matter, Mitt’s religion does not qualify him or disqualify him, it is not an issue. His consistency or rather his inconsistency is the problem. He is or he isn’t depending on how many votes he can get from you. Very slick, and smooth…but then I have never heard a man conned out of money say “I gave him the money because he looked untrustworthy”.
Unfortunatly, if he is the last “girlie man” standing in the Republican party I have to support him. It will be tough finding an issue I trust him on, but I will just convince myself he means it this time.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:35 AM
I don’t want to. How ’bout we not impinge upon my freedom?
Spirit of 1776 on September 7, 2007 at 1:38 AM
Every once in a while we have an idiot do this.
You see this is a place for ideas. The English class is down the hall. We discuss ideas. Get it…ideas. Probably something you have a hard time grasping. If you do not know what someone is writing or understand what someone is writing because the do not spel a word wright, than you need to go bak to skool.
This is a posting for ideas, not grammar school. Get it?
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:40 AM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM
I can’t let that particular falsehood lie unanswered. The fact is that Romney tried for YEARS to fire Matt Amorello as Mass Turnpike Authority chairman, but he did not have the authority to can him.
The corrupt Democrat legislature would not do as he asked, until finally a woman died and, bingo, Amorello was finally fired.
All this is in various Boston Globe stories, but they require registration, so you’ll have to locate them yourself or trust me on this one.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 1:42 AM
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
So you are being intentionally misleading. In your comment, you stated that NYC has tried to protect its illegal alien convicts. Executive Order 124 only prevents “line workers” (i.e. beat cops, traffic cops, toll collectors, police receptionists, etc.) from making a judgement about the immigration status of an individual and reporting them to the federal authorities. The reason why the decision to take the responsibility of reporting suspected illegal immigrants off of the front lines was to ascertain that the individual was involved in criminal activity before calling the INS/ICE. Anyone who was apprehended and/or ID’s as a likely illegal immigrant criminal could be reported to the federal authorities by those responsible for doing so. This is, in no way, “protect[ing] illegal alien convicts.” You may disagree with it all you want, but you should be able to make your point without misleading others.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Oh, now I get it. I’m being misunderstood.
Let me rephrase. You can solve the problem of having to pay for ER visits two ways. You can either make it so the government doesn’t pay for it, or you can make people buy health insurance.
Forcing people to buy health insurance helps the bottom line, and it’s function is the same as EdwardsCare’s mandatory preventive care. That is intended to save money. BOTH in my mind are undesirable, though in different degrees.
I’d prefer to search for a good solution that makes ER visits either cheaper, or keeps the government from HAVING to pay (not saying they immediately won’t) rather than making everyone buy a state approved health insurance plan.
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 1:45 AM
Making them buy the proper food for the children also helps. Making sure they buy the right books for their children also helps. I think children who are overweight should be told what to eat. I think swings are dangerous and should be banned from parks. I think is is unwise for any child to walk to school, they should all be driven. I think every house should have an air filtering system. I don’t think you have enough insurance, you should buy more.
See the problem?
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:46 AM
It does matter.
I’m not criticizing Mitt for his religion, any criticism of his religion is separate.
My comments regarding Mitt have been little short of glowing lately.
I’m saying that csdeven used that dishonest tactic the other day. My criticism is of him. He’s contemptible.
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM
What you’ve described is the root of socialism and I appose it on principle. If the taxpayers don’t want to pick up the bill for my health care expenses then fine, but if they insist in doing so against my wishes, even if I’m healthy, then they have no right to forcibly separate me from my freedom and liberty as restitution. That attitude is what leads to an ever-increasing diminution of my responsibility and thus my rights and eventually leads to tyranny. At the conclusion of that same logic, which you’ve expressed in the quote above, ultimately nobody has any rights because everybody is interdependent upon somebody else to some degree or another.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Actually, you could put together any two stances on Iraq you can imagine and it would be an accurate summary of Hillary Clinton’s position. And no matter what position you picked, she would scream to high Heaven she doesn’t advocate it. Mind you in doing so she would say absolutely nothing to clarify what her position actually IS; only what it IS NOT.
She’s following Sun Tsu’s strategy of deception through formlessness. Unfortunately, this does nothing whatsoever to deter terrorists; on the contrary, it actually HELPS their cause.
That’s because, in her mind, Hillary Clinton is not at war with the terrorists. She is at war with us.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Yes I do, I apologize for not being lucid enough.
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Good clarification. Too bad Mitt did not do the same, he slid in a sly one calling NY a sanctuary city.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:49 AM
I think we are just seeing the beginning of a great campaign. Fred Thompson is the man for the job. He already has my vote.
msipes on September 7, 2007 at 1:51 AM
Also, it has nothing to do with keeping the federal government from pursuing illegal aliens in NYC.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 1:51 AM
They could be reported. They also might not be- especially since cops were prevented from directly contacting authorities, even with hard evidence they were engaged in criminal activity. Only the designated gatekeeper was allowed to contact federal authorities, and was under no obligation to do so.
There’s no way around it- he welcomed and invited illegals to his city and protected these criminals (they’re all criminals by definition) from being reported.
Spin it any way you want, but no one is buying it.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 1:51 AM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:40 AM
Spoken like a true government school teacher.
Ignorance isn’t pretty but it’s curable. Give it a shot!
BTW, if you were actually presenting intellectual ideas instead of class warfare it would be easier to ignore your illiteracy.
As I said before, goodnight! (Don’t make me come back. :-)
RW_theoriginal on September 7, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Caught Fred’s interview- very good, and he again declined the opportunity to attack his rivals. If only Mitt had the same class. If he continues to perform like he did on the H&C interview, he’ll most likely win.
Hollowpoint on September 7, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Soon as I clear it with my accountant (wife) I’m going to send a buck Fred’s way. I’ve decided to donate directly this year instead of to the Republican party.
Fred is VERY clear about things. I guess that comes from actually WORKING for a living in his formative years and not having a silver spoon shoved in his mouth from mum and father.
Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on September 7, 2007 at 1:59 AM
In the Hannity interview, you mean. If he keeps getting nothing but interviews in the most friendly possible forums he’ll win is what you meant to say.
Christoph on September 7, 2007 at 1:59 AM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM
LOL. You are seething with anger and envy.
The fact is that Romney’s father George grew up poor but went on to achieve the proverbial American Dream. How did he manage to go on to be the President of AMC, Governor of Michigan, Presidential candidate and cabinet member with poor parents?
Goodnight.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 2:00 AM
I’m looking and looking, but fail to see anything new or better that Thompson brings to the table. And I’m sure al-Qaeda fears Giuliani the most, which is why he’s still my guy.
Halley on September 7, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Trust me, if Big S wants to claim that he has no reading comprehension skills whatsoever, you are never going to win that argument.
But why even bother? New York City is a real place. Anyone who’s actually BEEN there knows that it’s America’s foremost magnet for illegal aliens. And anybody who tries to claim Giuliani had no part in that isn’t even fooling himself.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 2:03 AM
A couple of points:
1.) It is entirely within the City’s interest to call the federal authorities when a crime is committed by a suspected illegal alien; it takes the responsibility (and cost) off of the city’s hands if the federal government manages to deport the criminal.
2.) There are plenty of levels of “designated gatekeepers” in law enforcement, including those in government attorney’s offices. A cop who arrests someone for committing a crime does not pronounce a verdict on the spot, he takes the alleged criminal into custody at which point the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting the individual is delegated to other police workers and attorneys. These are the kinds of individuals who are likely to be tasked with calling the federal authorities if the investigation indicates that the suspect may be an illegal alien.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 2:04 AM
I’ve lived in NYC for a number of years; I understand that it is, in fact, a real place.
Big S on September 7, 2007 at 2:06 AM
You may be right, but he only got very involved after the tragic death of the woman. He is the one who never watched Bechtel, the engineering firm, and did not give enough oversight. Very weak in managing Bechtel, he had the authority to audit them, and when the auditing finally was done (way to late), never held Bechtel accountable.
Not his shining moment as a leader, huge cost overruns, no accountablility, and a death.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 2:09 AM
I was off to bed, but see that Floating Rock thinks I’m a Socialist.
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM
I have no choice in the taxes I pay now, do I? And neither do you.
If someone like, say, you, doesn’t have insurance and gets in a car accident you’re going to end up in a hospital whether you (or I) want you there or not, and someone is going to have to pay for it. Unless you have a lot of cash on hand it is going to be me, which IS “Socialism”.
As such I’d really much prefer that you have insurance.
Final goodnight.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 2:10 AM
I think Mitt is trying to angle for a VP spot on the Thompson ticket. He’s the only candidate I see that has been absolutely avoiding bashing Fred and going out of his way to say nice things about him.
bj1126 on September 7, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Thanks for responding tonight. I’ll let you have the last word on the issue. Goodnight. :)
FloatingRock on September 7, 2007 at 2:16 AM
I am seething at your stupidity. Of course someone can come from a humble family and be successful…where did I say that? Would you point out where I said that isn’t the case? You can’t, well then I will accept your apology.
Here let me type real slow.
You say coming from a influential powerful family does not help you in business. I say it does.
Get it?
I am sure you think Paris Hilton has made these millions because she is talented, I say it was because of her name. You think Jessie Jackson jr. is a millionaire because he is smart, I say it is because his father had influence. You think the Kennedy’s have done it on their own, I think Joseph Kennedy (a poor man starting out) made the Kennedy who they are.
You think background has no influence on success, I say it helps. And the more powerful the more it helps.
You think Trump kids started flippin burgers?
Good night, I think this is what they call…checkmate.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Now did Mitt’s successes once he was placed in business arise from his parents’ influence, or from his merit?
Keljeck on September 7, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Tell me if I am wrong…Matalin is married to Carville. Carville is in bed with the Clintons?
AZCON on September 7, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Wow Hollowpoint, if “I welcome him in” is considered classless to you, I can’t imagine what you find overtly offensive.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 5:22 AM
Bkennedy
The classless part is when he sniffed and said “Fred” has never worked in the real world
And he (Romney) had…….
Romney in his blue blooded way, insulted the working people of the United States who dared to go to school and then of all insults challenge his presidential bid
It was that classless statement that opened this can of worms
Also Romney did not come into the failed Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002 he came in in the last quarter on 1999
http://www.alumni.hbs.edu/bulletin/1999/october/profiles/romney.html
Additionally Romney to cut corners cut insurance covereage and left the entire state of Utah and its taxpayers potentially holding the bag in case of cancellation which in 2002 was a credible are very real possibility
http://deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3949,30000044,00.html
Sooo tout your record at your peril
EricPWJohnson on September 7, 2007 at 5:41 AM
Yeah… Uh, lets see, Washington lobbyist, Senator, and overpaid actor. Yeah, those are “real jobs.” The only one that wasn’t paid on the public dime was the actor stint, and we all know the kind of intelligent middle class sensitivity that comes out of that moral wasteland.
Spare me the ridiculousness. Fact is, the last time Fred had a job that any Joe Regular would connect with was over two decades ago. For a man who supposedly hasn’t made political ambitions his life goal, he’s sure spent a lot of time screwing the pooch in Washington and Hollyweird, known bastions of intellectual and moral corruption. And Romney is spot on when he says Fred doesn’t have any executive experience. Rudy Giuliani said it best (paraphrased): “He does a wonderful portrayal of my previous job.”
And what is this business about cutting insurance coverage to the entire state of Utah? Last I checked he was never governor there.
I do empathize with you though Eric, I have the same visceral and immediate hatred for amoral Hollyweird pundits that you do for the sons of rich people. To me, Fred Thompson is the physical embodiment of everything I hate about both Washington and Hollyweird: He’s an insider and a brownoser pretending to be something he’s not in order to ruse the common folk for which he truly has nothing but contempt.
Fred talks big about federalism now, but where was that love of federalism when he was throwing his full weight behind McCain Feingold? Where was his support for transparency in politics when he was funneling PAC funds to his son? Where was his respect for consistent conservative values when he lobbied, however shortly, for a pro-abortion group? Fred is just another Hollyweid/Washington elitist who thinks the commoners are too stupid to see through his ruse. If Arthur Branch did not exist, Fred Thompson would be another nobody in a sea of nobody candidates.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 6:57 AM
You know it was both. His father opened the door, and Mitt stepped in and did something.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 7:41 AM
That assumes that Fred deserves to be on the same stage as Rudy, Mitt, and McCain. After the last 24 hours, I’m not convinced that he would deserve it.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 8:00 AM
I am fairly sure that Mitt was responding in the context of the things he will focus on as president. When he realized Bill wanted to know what he would do with his executive power he told him. Bill realized they were in different context and clarified it by saying that Mitt would not ignore them but would deal with the sanctuary cities. I think any honest assessment of that will lead a body to the same conclusion.
I don’t see how anyone can see Fred as up to the same standard as Mitt. Mitt was specific, Fred was vague and basically just parroted the situation as it stands with no specifics of a plan.
But yes it is my opinion. I believe that a wise honest would come to the same conclusion.person
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 8:11 AM
That’s funny because the more folks get to know Mitt the higher his numbers go. The more people hear from Fred the lower his numbers go.
You are, and always have, projected your biases onto others and you look like a fool when you do.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 8:16 AM
It’s mostly to humor Fred because he soooo wants to be above debate it’s nauseating. I say give the man what he wants and let him pick up the pieces of his destroyed campaign afterward. If the yipping pup wants to run with the big dogs, I say let him.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 8:38 AM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 2:19 AM
Checkmate? I don’t think so!
Of course Mitt’s background has been beneficial, but unlike you I don’t think that achieving success and passing those benefits down to your children is something to be scored, and the very fact that you compared Mitt to Paris Hilton is not2bright.
It is indeed an advantage to grow up in a family who have the means to provide you a great education, and that instills strong values of self discipline, work and service. Clearly Mitt has worked very hard to take the gifts he was given and earn his own way in the world, and voluntarily give back to the community with an investment of time and money.
The Romney’s are an example of the American Dream fulfilled, and it is beyond me why you resent their achievements, or belittle Mitt just because he had a privileged upbringing, which he himself recognizes.
The fact that Fred did not grow up with the same advantages is completely irrelevant and makes Fred no better or no worse a candidate in that respect.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Make that “something to be scorned” not “scored.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 8:41 AM
Where Newt goes, so go I. If he does become overtly involved in Fred’s campaign, that will clinch it for me. I would love to see Newt become the next president’s closest adviser (or even the next president, truth be told). Newt is the only living person to have successfully led the Conservative Movement to victory, and I want to get behind him again. If he endorses Fred, that’s absolutely huge in my book.
aero on September 7, 2007 at 8:47 AM
Specifically, how did his father open the door? Who did he influence? Was his father connected to Mitt’s first job? Honestly, I don’t know. If he wasn’t, could there be ANY job Mitt could have gotten that you would not claim was manipulated by his dad? Considering his academic achievements, don’t you think Mitt would have been a very sought after person to employ?
Also, do you discount Mitt’s academic achievements?
Also, do you remember that Fred’s son got a job with Fred’s former clients when the kid had no experience what so ever? He had been a landscaper or something like that. Also Fred funneled cash to his son, and according to Dick Morris and others, his son did basically nothing to earn the 4K a month salary.
Should we examine Fred’s family dealings also?
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Bkennedy
Again you have no idea how Fred got to hollywood. I think you ought to read his back ground
I have several problems with Romney
1. He mischaracterized his fiscal success in Mass as Gov
2. Romney ran a terribly organized Olympics – venues were
understaffed, athletes missed start times, tickets sold
in error – they were a shambles of organization
3. He downplays the fact or avoids althogether or acts like
his is a reluctant Mormon (personally I could care less)
But when you are the great great grandson of one of the
5 people who founded the faith – its odd
4. Flip Flops on issues from immigration to abortion
5. Has five sons all “serving” their country?
Fred is no ones boy, no one’s Hollywierd, he doesnt try out for parts people actually want him, he doesnt have an agent nor did he star in anything that can be remotely associated with the left.
Freds success is his own, Romneys belongs to his parents
EricPWJohnson on September 7, 2007 at 8:59 AM
Up at the top of this thread Eric makes some statements re: Mitt that are just complete crap.
My brother worked with Mitt at Bain & Co and I am here to tell you that the guy earned the money he made at that firm. Mommy & Daddy had nothing to do with the fabulous success of Bain.
I haven’t made up my mind re: Mitt vs. Fred but, smearing Mitt and trying to diminish his achievements in the private sector is hooey.
Babs on September 7, 2007 at 9:01 AM
The only thing I want a pretend DA to be is a pretend President. Its Hollyweird. You don’t embrace it, it embraces you.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 9:06 AM
And Eric, you want to get into the Olympics??? Please keep in mind that Mitt took over the Olympics after a corrupt admin was thrown out.
You want to denigrate Mitt for ticket sales and start times? Bwahahaha!
It is quite a selective memory that you employ.
Babs on September 7, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Yeah, he was talking it up on Fox and Friends this AM. But Brian Kilmeade skewered him with some pretty pointed questions which Fred stumbled all over trying to avoid. After the interview, everyone agreed that Fred needs to step up his game.
I hate to add this because the groupies will reject the facts of that crappy performance by Fred, but even that tool Geraldo seen through Fred’s facade and into his total weakness as a candidate.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Eric is like Fred. He thinks that if he puts up a big enough smoke screen and throws enough crap against the wall, the truth will be obfuscated and some of the crap will stick. Concerning his slavish support for Fred, certainly some of the crap fred has thrown against Eric’s wall has stuck. Now Eric tries the same with us, not realizing we are wiser than he and are not fooled by his crap throwing.
It’s really despicable that Fred preys on the most gullible of our society. I just hope Eric hasn’t sent Fred his life savings.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 9:16 AM
I apologize in advance for the length of this response!
EricPWJohnson on September 7, 2007 at 5:41 AM
Mitt was referring to the fact that Fred has spent a lifetime in Government jobs and has not been out in the real world in the private sector. He in no way is implying that Fred is lazy, nor is he demeaning him for the circumstances of his youth. He is merely making the point that Fred is inexperienced in that regard, so you can stop whining about that now.
Conservatives tend to be very wary of people whose life experience does not include competitive private sector business experience, particularly since so many of these inexperienced people then go on to regulate how the private sector runs their businesses through government mandates. They dictate who they should hire and fire, what benefits they must provide, and so forth.
And your point is????? Your own link talks about how he reformed the process and instituted openness and transparency into what had been a corrupt and secretive situation.
What do you think would have happened if the Olympics had failed as they were on a course to do?
Here’s what Romney accomplished:
And lookee here!
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM
I agree. Just like Mitt’s supporters constantly bashing Fred isn’t winning Mitt any new voters, Fred’s supporters bashing Mitt won’t help Fred win any new voters either. Enough with the bashing already!
aero on September 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Well, he said if he was getting in he was getting in, he just failed to mention what he was going to get into was a massive pile of muck.
BKennedy on September 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Babs on September 7, 2007 at 9:01 AM
I have not made up my mind either – I am interested in the truth. I am very impressed by Romney, I really like Guiliani, and there are even some things I like about Fred, but I prefer executives to legislators.
I think Newt is a genius and a brilliant spokesman for conservative principles, but he is not a good candidate because the Left have done too good a job of smearing him.
The only candidate I cannot support out of the box is John McCain Feingold McCain, despite his courageous and laudable military service. They guy makes a mess of everything he touches when it comes to advancing the Republican, and most important, conservative agenda.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Hey how about since I am the long time San Diego native I pick the place…I know all the really good places here…Oh and while you know I am a Fredhead, I also like Mitt, he is my second choice, however I must confess that your revelation of his having a MBA from Harvard is a bit disturbing. Not that I don’t think a MBA from Harvard is a good thing, its just that the last President with a MBA from Harvard really hasn’t turned out as well as I hoped he would.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Mitt also has a law degree from Harvard.
And as far as Bush’s MBA goes, his problem is that he doesn’t articulate his positions well, not that his positions are bad (his immigration reform package being the most striking exception).
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 10:54 AM
And he doesn’t even have the faintest clue why that kind of attitude pisses people off so much: “I ran a company, so I can run this country.”
Newsflash: Most Americans don’t WANT the government to “run” us. We want you to tell us how you are going to LEAVE US ALONE, not how you are going to solve all of our problems for us. (And most of the pathetic losers who fall into the second category are never going to vote for a “capitalist pig-dog” anyway.)
Liberals just can’t get it through their thick heads that the average person isn’t sitting in front of his TV seething because Fred Thompson lucked into a part-time acting career. But I have a funny feeling they might start doing that if he “accidentally” brought the subject up every time he opened his mouth.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM
logis on September 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Logis,
Sheesh. I can’t believe you are quoting that clueless azzhat Eric!
Romney was NOT insulting “the working people of the United States”.
Most conservatives prefer people who have have had private sector experience running a business instead of spending their entire lives in government jobs or inside the Beltway. That was his point about Fred, no more, no less.
Secondly, Mitt also ran the State of Massachusetts, so he is not running solely as a businessman.
Finally, it’s not as if the job of the Presidency is a figurehead. No matter how much you and the rest of us may want government out of our lives, it is beneficial to have someone with a broad range of experience who won’t produce an agenda of foolish legislation that impacts the very private sector they are clueless about, and negatively impacts the entire economy.
Like Hillary, for instance.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Well as usuall you did not understand my post. Read them a gagain. I am challenging you and your mitt-wits. You all state that family influence has no affect on mitts success. I pointed out many examples, and quite frankly common sense, that a powerful man with influential friends is a huge asset to someone (especially a “consultant”) in business. If you want to believe that his father’s influence did not help him, you are allowed to be naive. You obviously have not spent any time in the business world.
I never dissed his academic record, Stanford, BYU, Harvard, great school. Chelsea and McEnroe went to Stanford.
And finally, is Fred’s son running for office? You are comparing him to Mitt (and making my point about family influence by the way…thank you).
Mitt is a good businessman (the country is full of excellent businessman), he was a pretty good Gov., a little weak minded and a little too much on the tax increase for me. Mishandled the big dig when he finally had a chance to correct it (took a death to wake him up), but pretty good. Excellent with the Olympics. I am looking at his record objectively.
Fred has not shown the leadership I would want in a president. But being a good businessman does not mean you are a good president. No more than being a good peanut farmer makes you a good president.
You on the other hand have nothing, nada, to say good about Fred. I always wonder about people who hate someone, who is so obsessed with someone, that they only find evil contempt.
Do you have a picture of Mitt on your pillow?
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:05 PM
If you want to believe that Mitt Romney’s vast private sector experience makes his version of socialized medicine better than Hillary Clinton’s version of socialized medicine, I’m perfectly happy to take your word for it.
Because I simply don’t care. If the Republican Party nominates someone who even thinks it’s possible to MAKE that argument – no matter how incredibly dynamic he happens to be – we’ve already lost.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Let me start with explaining my biggest disappointment with Bush before addressing this. My biggest disappointment with Bush is not his stance on immigration, but his insistence on running America as if it were a business. It’s not a business, it is a republic. It was and is his insistence on running America as if it were a business that lead to his stance on immigration. From a business point of view his stance makes good sense, but it is not in the best interests of a republic.
Having said that I will address my new found concerns with Mitt, that being that I now have to wonder if Mitt will do the same thing. Attempt to run the United States as if it were a business.
The practices that are good for a corporation are not necessarily good for a republic. Yes a broad range of experience in a CIC is a good thing, but it is equally important that our CIC not promote legislation good for the private sector to the detriment of republic.
Globalization is good sound corporate business strategy, but harmful to a republic. Bush has promoted what is good for corporate America to an extent that is harmful to the republic. When Bush was first elected I was very enthused by his MBA in business thinking that a good business manager would make sound decisions on how to effectively manage the American economy.
What I discovered later was that things that are good sound corporate business strategies are not necessarily good sound strategies for running a republic. Outsourcing is a good sound corporate strategy, but a dismal failure for a republic. Illegal immigration amnesty is a good sound corporate strategy, but very bad for the national security of a republic.
Furthermore while both of those strategies are good for the corporate bottom line they have profoundly negative impact on the citizens of a republic. They diminish the earning capacity of the middle class blue collar worker and seriously impact the security of all the republics citizens.
They also have a very serious negative impact on the moral of the middle class blue collar worker.
Thus I now worry that should Mitt follow Bush’s lead and manage America like a business we would continue to see legislation promoted from the White House that would be good for corporate America at the expense of the citizens of the republic and the republic itself.
I’m not going to rush to any judgment on Mitt because of these new found concerns, but I will be looking to see Mitt address this issue in a manner that will reassure me that he will not endanger the republic by corporatizing America.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Buy Danish
Thanks for proving my point
Fred has served his country
Romney has served himself, with mommy and daddys help
EricPWJohnson on September 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I’d be happy as heck to hear a businessman say, “God I hated having the federal government up my ass and in my wallet, and I want a chance to help put a stop to that crap!”
But I haven’t heard that from Mitt Romney. Did he say “I’ll cut their funding” about the EPA? Hell no. As a typical Rockefeller Republican, he wants to use federal funding as a carrot-and-stick approach to force local governments to his bidding. Sure, a CEO might play that sort of game to keep his VP’s in line, but it is definitely not something a president can (or should) do to the properly constituted government of a city or state.
Newsflash: That’s where all the federal government’s money comes from in the first place; that state’s citizens (and its elected officials) are not your EMPLOYEES; they are your CUSTOMERS.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I don’t have a dog in the Romney fight, even though I grew up in Michigan during his governorship, but “Jeeps are made by GM,” I cannot let pass. I worked in a AMC/Jeep dealership in the early ’80’s. Jeep is currently owned by Chrysler–just drive by a Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth dealership and look at what’s in the lot. If you don’t believe your lying eyes, believe this–
Looks like they’ve been owned by practically everyone BUT GM. Among mechanics, the joke was always that AMC stood for Anybody’s Motor Car, because they were like Heinz 57 varieties under the hood. GM engine, Chrysler ignition parts–you name it.
smellthecoffee on September 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Wish some of Mitt’s “broad experience” included military experience. Same for all the rest of the frontrunners on both sides. It really does bother me that our next Commander in Chief during a time of war is going to be someone with no military experience whatsoever (unless McCain pulls a miracle out of his behind, and I hope he doesn’t because he’s so wrong for the presidency in almost every other way). But it’s pretty much a done deal given the current field and the short time remaining before the first primaries. We’re either going to have a lawyer or a businessman in charge of our military for the next stage of the War on Terror. Yikes.
aero on September 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Reagan did OK, and he was just an actor.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:57 PM
aero on September 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Yep Fred’s a lawyer all right, one who has practically promised to shove a nuclear weapon right straight up Dinerjackets a$$ and push the button while Dinerjackets is thanking Allah for finally ramming something big firm and hard up there.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM
smellthecoffee on September 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Sorry, didn’t give any attribution on the long block quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep
smellthecoffee on September 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Rudy: lawyer, businessman, mayor
Fred: lawyer, actor, senator
Mitt: businessman, governor
Hillary: lawyer, First Lady, senator
Barack: lawyer, state legislator, senator
Silky: lawyer, senator
I admit that Mitt stands out as the only one in the bunch who was not a lawyer before entering politics (though I think I read in the comments here that he does hold a law degree, yes?). It’s funny that we all hate lawyers so much in general, but we almost always elect lawyers to represent us in government. Funny, that. Anyway, Mitt also has the highest level of government executive experience, though I count being the Mayor of NYC easily on a par with being governor of a state. And I find Rudy’s leadership record in NYC to be far, far more impressive than Mitt’s leadership record in Massachusetts. Rudy’s just a git-er-done kinda guy.
Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, there’s not a shred of military experience in the bunch, which is a shame given our current circumstances. I think given Rudy’s experience overseeing the NYPD (so successfully, too), he comes the closest to having been in charge of an organized armed force.
aero on September 7, 2007 at 1:11 PM
And a governor. His executive experience counted for a lot going into the presidency.
I like Fred–he might end up being my guy, especially if Newt gets involved in his campaign. I’ll support Mitt 110%, too, if he gets the nomination (he’s my least favorite of the three right now, though). I’m still leaning toward Rudy right now, though, because I think he’s best on the War on Terror. He’s also a proven tax-cutter and I think he just might actually try to do something about the looming entitlement crisis. Plus, he looks like the only one who can realistically beat Hillary right now, and that unfortunately counts for a lot to this pragmatist. But I’m really totally open to others convincing me that they’re more worthy of my vote than Rudy. Fred has a chance of doing that–he’s saying all the right things so far, and I like his style. I’m just waiting to really see him in action to make my final judgment about him.
aero on September 7, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Actually, I interpreted Fred’s statements about Iran as a proposal to support and promote a rebellion within Iran, which is what we may be quietly doing already–we’ve done it before in other troublesome countries. He pointed out that their economy is in really bad shape, and the people are restless, which makes the country ripe for insurrection. It would be far better if we could get the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs and Ahmadinejad than having to nuke them ourselves. I agree with that–try diplomacy first, support internal rebellion next, invade when nothing else works.
aero on September 7, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I never said that.
I understand your point. I asked for specifics. How was his dad involved? Was his dad connected to his first job, etc? I haven’t seen the specifics on the influence Mitt’s dad used to get him jobs etc.
I do see the linkage to Fred’s associates and his son. He was given a job he had no experience in. That is why I brought up Fred’s family.
No specifics for Mitt.
Lots of specifics for Fred.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 1:27 PM
As I have pointed out to you on several occasions, I was not going to give Fred the benefit of any doubt while he was playing games with his non-campaign. I am very open to him now, but over the last 24 hours, he has been completely disappointing. Perhaps because you Fred supporters have built him up so much I expected more from him than he can muster. But I am wide open to him, but he is still acting like he was this summer. He avoids questions and does not inspire me. I was told Fred would hit the ground running and blow everyone away. Well, now they are saying that he needs time to get up to speed. His staffers are quiting left and right.
I mean really, what do you expect? You expect I should hold Fred to a lesser standard than I do the other candidates?
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 1:33 PM
That is a good point and is a serious cause for concern. How do we get any of the candidates to promise to defend this country against corporate interests?
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM
I call bull$hit! Reagan was more an executive politician than an actor.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Heh heh heh if I had the answer to that one I could probably pull off a successful run for POTUS myself. How do you get any candidate to not put their hand out for “donations” or “innocently” award multi-million or billion dollar contracts to corporations that just by chance happen to have donated to the candidate?
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Ronny was actually a damn fine actor, that said however having had the very distinct pleasure of seeing him speak in person as the Governor of California back in the early 70’s and when he was running for president in the 80’s (my sister was a political consultant for the Reagan campaign here in San Diego) I will have to agree with the sentiment you express.
Not only was the man a executive politician of the highest order, but extremely intelligent and a powerful orator. His grasp of what was going on in the world and what political implications of those events was truly amazing. I have yet to see any of the current candidates for POTUS display even a fraction of that ability.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Lest anyone forget, there may be one or two more openings on the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, during the next President’s term. Ginsburg and one other, I think, are looking to retire.
This seems to me, to be a paramount issue.
Troy Rasmussen on September 7, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Damn right it is, a conservative POTUS could foreseeable appoint 2 or more conservative stick constructionist to the SCOTUS. Could just be the weight needed to swing the pendulum back to true American values and away from the socialist creep that activist jurists have been cramming down America’s throat for the last 4 decades.
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 2:48 PM
And that’s just from this one thread.
It’s what I call “pundit-itis.”
Stupidity is nothing to be ashamed of; it can be a wonderfully entertaining personality trait. But mindlessness is just plain annoying. If you really, genuinely, came to the independent opinion that Bill Clinton was a better President than Abraham Lincoln, then please go ahead and say that – with pride. For crying out loud, you could actually be interesting for a change.
But if all you’re able to do is regurgitate some meme you happen to have heard a sufficient number of times recently, then do everyone a favor and try to find a new hobby.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:05 PM
No. one. said. that. You however just can’t stand the fact that he was born into an accomplished family. How do I know that? Right here:
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM
If that^^^ is not envy, then I don’t know what is, and it is undeniable that you suffer from it.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM
This may come as a shock to you, but Fred’s son isn’t running for president. Georg’s (Romney) is.
If you think that George did not help his son, okay, if that is what you need to believe. If you think the influence of having an ex-Gov, ex politico insider as your father doesn’t help, okay. It just shows your inexperience with business and your naiveté.
Any facts I bring won’t change your mind (it hasn’t in the past), so certainly common sense won’t.
BTW, having someone help you in business is not a bad thing, having someone lay the ground work for you is not a negative. Being born into a privelidged life is not wrong, it gives you access to people, ideas, and opportunities that the commons person does not receive. He is very lucky, and I am sure grateful for his fathers guidance. Just like people such as Jessie Jackson jr. is fortunate to have been born to his father. He, I am sure, would say he built his fortune on his own, I would say his father had quite of bit of influence. You would say Jessie jr. is a self made man, I don’t. Mitt parlayed his fathers hard work (like Bush, Kennedy, Hiltons, and many others) and made himself a fortune. He was lucky, lucky to have a powerful father, lucky not to have served his country, lucky to spend the war in France. God bless him. But don’t tell me he is out of an Horatio Alger novel.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM
logis on September 7, 2007 at 12:08 PM
His version is indeed better because you get to choose when and if you want to go to a doctor, and you can choose to go to whatever doctor you want.
It is also not a Federal plan. He also does not want to force every State in the Union to follow the Massachusetts plan. He believes the States should be free to figure out what the best way is for them to proceed, if at all, and he understands that we need to see what worked and what didn’t with the Massachusetts plan.
These are fundamental differences and pretending that requiring people to carry insurance, just as we do for cars or homes (even with subsidies for the poor) is Socialism is silly.
But hey, if you have a better idea to stop squandering taxpayers money while improving access to health care, I’m all ears.
smellthecoffee on September 7, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I already addressed this yesterday and corrected the error here: Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Do you point your finger and stick your tongue out when you type that I am envious?
Do you know how stupid you sound, like a child in a sandbox calling someone names.
He has envy, he has envy, he has envy.
You don’t think a powerful ex gov., and insider politico won’t help his son? You must come from an estranged family. Notice his sons rallying around Mitt, that is called family support. You don’t think if one of his sons is interviewing for a job, and Mitt knew the president, he wouldn’t put in a good word for his son?
Strange thought process you Mitt-wits have.
And you think pointing that out is somehow envy, do you live in an Appalachian cabin?
Ol Hank has two goats…yeah but his dad gave them them goats…damn you must be full of envy.
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM
And hey, that’s something a US President actually, directly, DOES.
Giuliani mumbling something about how he “wouldn’t mind too awful much” if we got more conservative justices won’t mean squat when the Democrats in Congress start burning crosses on his yard.
Appointing Justice Robertson was nice, but it wasn’t the hard part. Fred Thompson is the man who carried him through the snake pit. And that, my friends, is REAL “executive experience.”
That’s about half the battle. Nominating a Republican Presidential candidate who is in favor of conservative judges as long as it’s convenient makes as much sense as nominating a candidate who “sorta” dislikes Al Qaeda.
logis on September 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM
doriangrey on September 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Generally speaking I think your comments are hyperbolic and exaggerate how much Bush treated this Republic “as a business”.
Outsourcing may cost us some jobs but Americans are rewarded with the ability to purchase goods and services at a much lower price.
More hyperbole. It doesn’t impact the security of “all the republics citizens” and the fact is that we are more, not less prosperous now.
When Henry Ford began to mass produce cars, the blacksmith and buggy maker lost his job too. That doesn’t mean that that person cannot acquire the skills to do something else, especially in today’s environment where unemployment is low and opportunities are boundless.
Nobody likes change, but change is inevitable. Apparently you would have us just lumber along doing things the old way despite the fact that they are outmoded or obsolete.
That smells like protectionism to me.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM
right2bright on September 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Do you realize how childish YOU sound? I quoted you verbatim. You said what you said and it could not be clearer. Let me reprint your comment one more time:
Next -
Why don’t you go back and read my comments instead of repeatedly accusing me and others of saying things we never said.
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Speaking of children -
How has Fred served his country while Romney hasn’t, pray tell? Am I to understand that in your view, being a Senator is “serving your country” but being a Governor, or saving the Utah Olympics doesn’t count?
Buy Danish on September 7, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Mitt is a good man and would make a fantastic president.
But at the end of the day, He is unelectable due to his Mormonism.
Fred is very, very electable and has the right stuff to get elected and be a super president.
TheSitRep on September 7, 2007 at 4:30 PM
True, but Fred Thompson is, and we can see he is willing to pressure his associates to hire is unqualified son for a job and he is willing to funnel campaign cash to his son in a seemingly do nothing job. (That’s what I heard anyway) And I never said his father didn’t have influence on Mitt’s life. Rather I requested from you the specific instances where George did intercede in Mitt’s behalf. IE: Was George involved in the firm that first hired Mitt? You seem very sure of your claims and I must ask you for the specifics.
One thing we want to be wary of is the nepotism that Fred is fond of, and the cronyism that Bush is killing us with. If there is a smoking gun to be found, I want to know about it. The suspicion itself is a reason to watch it more closely, but as of yet, I see no evidence that George put pressure on any company to hire Mitt. Now had Mitt been hired by Marriott, a close family friend, then I’d completely agree. That is why I would like to know if you have some data that makes a connection between Mitt’s dad and his first job. I have looked all over the place and the only link to Mitt and his first job is that the owner of the company was a top recruiter from Harvard. That doesn’t sound like George got him the job. But, if you have conflicting data, please post it.
I know Mitt was an adviser for the board for Marriott, but that was after he had made a name for himself, and was a clear benefit to the company.
csdeven on September 7, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I’m waiting for either Mitt or Fred to come out and DEMAND enforcement on the illegal issue now, but right now I’m leaning toward Fred………….
ahkjr33 on September 7, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »