Video: Mitt’s nifty new GOP-bashing ad
posted at 1:03 pm on September 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“GOP-scolding” would be more accurate but that doesn’t quite sing. I’m with Geraghty: I dig it, notwithstanding Soren Dayton’s point that Mitt’s in no position to be telling anyone what “real” Republicans should believe. True enough but beside the point: the ad’s really about good government and effective management, both of which conservatives are hungry for and both of which Mitt’s well positioned to push, partly based on his record and partly on his reputation as a guy so squeaky clean that he won’t even use foul language. Rudy’s too socially liberal to get away with an ad like this, Fred has too much lobbyist baggage, and McCain’s too much of an amnesty shill. If any one of the big four’s going to do it, and it needs to be done, it’s Mitt.
Mitt’s also the only one of the big four who’s hinted, however slightly, at drifting away from Bush on Iraq. If things take a downturn this fall, he’ll probably be the first major Republican candidate to tack left to try to capture growing anti-war sentiment among the right.
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 »
The guy has it going on! Next to Rudy and Mitt, the other candidates are babes in the woods and absolute fakes.
Not only does Fred have the lobbyist baggage, he is completely unprepared for prime time. Whenever he gets stuck on an issue, which they are many, many, of them, he says “Waaaalll, we’re gonna haf ta look inta that.”
Here’s his latest exercise in sticking his foot in his mouth.
csdeven on September 19, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Something about Mitt has always reminded me of a slick car salesman, but I can’t argue with this ad.
BeachBaby on September 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Another reason not to vote for this guy. Sorry, once again, I don’t trust him. I don’t fully trust any of them. But of the Big Four, he’s number 3 in trust factor. (I only trust McCain less.)
tickleddragon on September 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM
YOU’RE IN THE TANK.
Allahpundit on September 19, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Isn’t it absurd that he has to say he approves this message after speaking it?
Our Zero Tolerance society at work.
wordwarp on September 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Also…we should outlaw any politician EVER using the phrase: “It’s time for a change.” It’s a hackneyed indicator of a plastic politician.
And if the others do it, they too should be smacked (figuratively speaking.)
tickleddragon on September 19, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Isn’t it absurd that the first post about a Mitt commercial is from csdeven bashing Fred!?
Darksean on September 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I think we need a little bit of honest GOP bashing every now and then. What happened to the fiscal conservative…when did the social con take over?
StoutRepublican on September 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM
This sort of obvious calculation (which he did in the last debate by being sure to say that the surge is “apparently” working in some areas) is disgusting to the Nth degree. I’d vote for Hillary if I wanted a poll-driven, finger-in-the-air leader.
This is the reason I think Mitt polls so low generally is there is a strong sense he is too packaged and focus-grouped.
Clark1 on September 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM
This has got to be some sort of Hot Air record.
Good ad. I think he says what a lot of Republicans want to hear in that ad - we need to clear out the party a bit.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Can’t fault the message. This guy still bores me, though.
MikeZero on September 19, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Pah, meant to write “clean out” the party a bit, not clear.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I dont really have anything against Mitt. But I dont like this ad. More soundbites, more cliches, more self-flaggelation. Are ALL republicans at fault because Bush wouldnt use his veto power over spending; are ALL republicans at fault because one pervert trolls for gay sex in airport restrooms?
I think I’d rather hear POSITIVE PLANS from Mitt and criticism of the Dems directly. This ad turned me off and did not in any way make me more sympathetic to his candidacy.
Always Right on September 19, 2007 at 1:21 PM
hehe..we got cha, Slu. ;)
tickleddragon on September 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Sorry but I have a real problem with Jay Leno being our moral compass !
stenwin77 on September 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Mitt may be qualified to be Rudy’s VP. Although, Huckabee looks good too.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Yep, he’s all about “change” since he has supposedly changed his position to pro-life? Or what exactly is his reasoning now? That he was “personally” (like Giuliani) against it, but will allow it to continue? I assume he’s “personally” against illegal immigration also, but won’t do anything that either. What he “personally” thinks doesn’t matter? Or does it? Which is it?
nottakingsides on September 19, 2007 at 1:25 PM
And while we’re on the subject of “Charlie Crist” - he’s pure politician through and through.
Kennedys don’t want windmills in their front yard, Crist doesn’t want oil rigs in the Everglades. I say, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET US OFF OF OUR DEPENDENCE ON THE MIDDLE EAST!
stenwin77 on September 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM
It needs to be said, but not by a candidate. I’ll not vote for someone who’s gonna scold me. The plastic veneer is beginning to get real tiresome.
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Good questions, especially since he endorsed RU-486 and was so pro-life he was committed to not changing abortion law in Mass…..
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 1:28 PM
If these people are to believed, I’m not sure if his record is best described as “squeaky clean” or he’s completely adverse to using foul language.
The ad won’t help him, won’t hurt him- at the moment he’s pretty much a 2nd tier candidate in what’s boiling down to be a two man race between Rudy and Fred.
Perhaps he should spend more time bashing Democrats, but I could see how he’d feel more kinship with them than with Republicans given his RINO history.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 1:28 PM
No mo Rinos.
tickleddragon on September 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM
As a Republican Floridian, I stand by Christ’s statement. We’re having enough problems here already.
amerpundit on September 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Why isn’t this directed to Mel Martinez, Mike Duncan, Mitch McConnell or John Boehner? That’s who should be ranting at Mitt. Not the voters.
lowandslow on September 19, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Glad you see it my way. We should start with the RINOs running for President, including Rudy, Romney and McCain. After that move on to Ted Stevens, Trent Lott and all the other porkmeisters.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Again, if the majority of a party’s voters picks one of these so-called “RINOS,” then it’s you who’s out of step with the party.
We are no longer a conservative nation. Ronald Reagan would have trouble winning in this environment.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 1:35 PM
A conservative-majority nation, I should add.
Frickin’ fever. It’s got my brain fried.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 1:36 PM
I really liked that ad, but I still don’t really like Mitt.
I’m still open to change, but right now I’m digging Rudy/Huckabee.
BadgerHawk on September 19, 2007 at 1:36 PM
If we outlaw the phase “It’s time for a Change,” while we are at I would include,”it’s for the children” as well.
My favorite slogan from a few years back: “If you can’t feed them, don’t breed them!”
Wuptdo on September 19, 2007 at 1:37 PM
AP: Love your work, and appreciate your contributions. You’re an important player in the blogosphere, but I’m confused. You assert someone’s “In the tank” while using a headline like that?!
(Mitt’s Nifty New GOP-Bashing Ad)
That being said, isn’t everyone, including yourself, “In the tank” one way or another? Your Title suggests disdain, then your posting seems to praise him (unless I’m missing something). Playing both sides? Are numbers down, or just a slow news day? Who exactly are you leaning toward??
nationspatriotcom on September 19, 2007 at 1:39 PM
“It’s time for a change” - Mitt
“…casts voters as agents of change”, Obama
Channeling the agents, or channeling change
Entelechy on September 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Important/Interesting to note that the site it Paid For By the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
That’s not to say anything contained therein is false, but the site strikes me as a case of projection. The Democratic legislature fought him at every turn, took away certain appointment powers, then blamed him for everything [par for the course, I know]
cadetwithchips2 on September 19, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Hmm this is a tough one. The war is going to be a huge problem for Republicans this election. The specifics about what Mitt proposes as he “tacks left” will be very important to me. I know Allah has posted a few clips of Mitt discussing war strategy and he has been pretty impressive and forward thinking in those discussions. The question I think I need to ask is, should any proposal for a deviation from the current strategy be referred to as a “tack left?” Are we conceding something to the left that we should not when we classify any change of strategy as a “tack to the left?” Part of me cringes at the notion that new ideas should be automatically considered a tack to the left. I don’t think they should be but I suspect they will be. The details are about what he proposes when he begins to discuss new strategies are going to be important to me.
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 1:47 PM
It may be a good point, Zett, but I don’t think Mitt’s gonna get far enough for us to have to consider it. He’s pretty much irrelevent.
It will be either Rudy or Fred.
tickleddragon on September 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Saw that site earlier - bought and paid for by the dhims. There’s lots of other info on mitt out there, and what I see is a record of saying one thing while doing another. Especially on abortion - he endorsed RU-486, and said he was committed to keeping abortion legal in Mass. And we’re supposed to believe he’s pro-life?
Sorry, but that dawg ain’t gonna hunt.
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM
…oh and that’s not necessarily wishful thinking. It’s more like my perception of the political reality.
tickleddragon on September 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Mitt is so pretty, though.
lorien1973 on September 19, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Or perhaps because some Republican voters are content to just keep voting for whomever has the “R” next to their name without working to make sure that candidate is worthy of that designation.
The country hasn’t gotten less conservative, only our candidates have. In fact, I’d argue that with the exception of certain social issues, the country has gotten more conservative.
Compare issues like gun control, illegal immigration, welfare… all were issues pushed then by the Democrats, but now nary a peep- they know they can’t win pushing for gun control, increased welfare benefits, benefits for illegals, etc because we’ve gotten more conservative, not less.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM
[squirming on his sweaty seat]
Sqirm factor of about “6″ on a scale of 0-10 with ten being high.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Long day ahead bashing Mitt and shilling for Fred, huh, HP?
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 1:52 PM
And Hitlery’s out there with her new health-care plan and promising to make us more socialistic.
Wish the Republicans would spend more time talking about that, and not scolding the base.
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Colorado - trending Democrat
New Hampshire - trending Democrat
Nevada - trending Democrat
Arizona - trending Democrat
Virginia - trending Democrat
Maine - possible Dem pickup
Missouri - trending Democrat
Pennsylvania - trending Democrat
The trend is not in our favor.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 1:55 PM
You very well could be right. We shall see. I’m going to disagree for now though and predict that last two standing on our side will be Rudy and Mitt. Rudy is going to end up on the top of the ticket. Time will tell. Thats my semi-educated guess.
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Good point.
Spirit of 1776 on September 19, 2007 at 1:56 PM
I still think Hunter is best possible GOP candidate.
But I think it’s a good ad from Mitt.
Nethicus on September 19, 2007 at 1:56 PM
It’s important and interesting if what they posted is false or misleading, but if true then facts are facts regardless of who pays for the website they’re listed on.
If what they say is demonstrably false we all should take them to task for it; otherwise it doesn’t matter who’s saying it.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 1:57 PM
.
Save yourself the finger-tapping - go to archives - just copy and paste it all , here in one post.
.
.
Thank you.
.
.
If you need anymore time saving suggestions, just let me know.
I’m always happy to help.
Mcguyver on September 19, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Maybe I’m naive, but I tend to take men at their word unless they prove they were trying to deceive me and not just me misunderstanding their message.
I liked the ad. It’s a necessary sentiment. I think each and every one of the fiscal conservatives should be saying the same thing. If we Republicans act fiscally irresponsible, we lose. If we are lax on our security, we lose. If we act like Deocrats, we lose.
It’s a wakeup call that we need to hear from every Republican.
Good job, Mitt.
I’m still for Fred, though. ;)
Tennman on September 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM
The problem isn’t Republican morals - everyone is human (except Hillary, who is a cyborg) - the problem is Republicans so spinelessly letting Democrats get away with using, and enforcing on us, a moral compass so full of double standards it defies belief.
Expecting Republicans to be angels is neither practical nor smart politics. Demanding Democrats cut the bunk is. Mitt, go after the real enemy and expose the Left. We’ll hear you.
Halley on September 19, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Great ad. I actually see it as more of an attack on Democrats than Republicans.
Totally absurd and we can thank McCain-Feingold for this absurdity.
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Dang. Deocrats should be Democraps…Democrats. Sorry.
Tennman on September 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I’m pretty sure that tagline has been placed at the end of political ads for as long as I can remember. You are right though. It is very rediculous.
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:04 PM
The trend is a reflection of our elected officials and candidates. The Republicans screwed the pooch raw when they had control of Congress, and are again going to pay the price; watching Bush fumble about certainly doesn’t help either. On what issues has the country gotten more liberal?
What’s the typical voter turnout? Maybe 35% for midterms and 50% for Presidential elections? People are more likely show up to vote for candidates they support rather than vote for someone they don’t particularly like but is affiliated with the same political party as they are.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Agreed, and I noted that in my post. What I would warn about is the facts borne out by the official record, and the conjecture drawn from those facts. The messenger cannot change the facts, but can twist and refashion those facts to cause more damage than the record would otherwise show. Its still good political theatre.
Yet, I still think its noteworthy that its an official party effort, and not a glowing example of Citizen Journalism.
cadetwithchips2 on September 19, 2007 at 2:07 PM
What the hell are you even talking about? Spend less time with the bold tag and more time trying to make a coherent point, duder.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Mitt, stop commenting about yourself in the 3rd person. Besides that, you can talk up Rudy all you want, he still won’t be your runningmate.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 19, 2007 at 2:11 PM
You know Fred is the son of a used car salesman and he is so proud of that fact that it’s in his ads. Mitt on the other hand is the son of a car salesman (George Romney ran AMC in Detroit at one point) and he very successfully sold the country on the Rambler.
So, I guess that brings us to a stalemate when it comes to their rivalry..
Seriously, this rap against Mitt is so silly. When I think of salesmen I think of Billy Jeff or John Edwards. Mitt’s life just does not compare in any way to hustlers and fakes like that.
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 2:11 PM
From: http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/09/mitt_romney_a_dead_dog_loser_i.php
Interesting…
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 2:11 PM
That really doesn’t mean much to me. Money gets your message out. People will then agree or disagree with your message. His name is not as well known as Fred’s or Rudy’s or McCain’s. All this tells me is that where he has been able to get his message out and produce some exposure he has, as a result, gained popularity. Why is that not a good thing?
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:17 PM
It’s not that we’ve gotten more liberal, it’s that social conservatives right now are victims of their own success on a number of issues. The reason gun control and raising taxes are not brought up by the Dems is that the GOP has been successful in making those issues radioactive for the Democrats.
Gay rights issues have been taken off the table due to the overwhelming numbers of states that passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and abortion has largely moved from the political to the social - more of the fight is being waged by crisis pregnancy centers than by politicians, and it’s being won, albeit too slowly.
Overall, though, I think the country has moved more liberal on the following issues: gay rights (as separate from gay marriage), exercise of government power and the drug war.
Trying to foist this off on the quality of our candidates is fallacious. Look at the makeup of state legislatures and governorships - that’s where the voters are closest to the politicians. At present, those trends are not good for Republicans. Democrats hold the majority of both houses of the legislature in 22 states; Republicans control 15 states, and 12 states are divided.
This is not about candidates or finding a “true conservative” to win. It’s about changing demographics and political trends.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Zetterson, you should go read the article…
The main point is this:
He’s just not catching on in a lot of places.
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM
McCain-Feingold required the specific tag line, “This is (candidate) and I approved this ad.” Before, the candidates voice had to be on the ad, usually the “paid for by…” or if the candidate voiced the ad then the announcer would tag the ad with “paid for by…”
KelliD on September 19, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Right, because hustlers and fakes NEVER say one thing to one audience, then another to a different audience a little later on, custom tailoring his speech to whatever he thinks each group wants to hear even if one message is completely the opposite of the other.
And if someone wants your opinion, the answer to which will please one group and displease the other no matter how you answer? Dodge the question and pass the buck… kind of like how Mitt did in the last debate on the surge question.
Mitt is driven by personal ambition rather than ideology; he’s nobody for himself to blame for his his campaign crashing and burning.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:21 PM
If the proposal doesn’t lead to complete and total victory, then it is a “tack left”. If it’s a better strategy than the current strategy, it is a “good idea”.
MikeZero on September 19, 2007 at 2:21 PM
And, I’ll add, the Romney strategy is to have success in those states he is doing well. Once the results are in and he ends up on top in those states then he will gain traction elsewhere. I don’t know if that is going to work or not but that is the strategy.
All your quote says is that it hasn’t worked yet. That doesn’t matter though. His campaign doesn’t need it to work yet. They did not expect it to work yet. We will have to wait and see if it does. Right now its too early to tell though.
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Tennman on September 19, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I thought Deocrats was quite brilliant. It’s the perfect word to use to describe the Religious Left.
Huh?
Hollowpoint,
If these people are to be believed? Do you believe this?:
Surely you can do better than that. You’ll note that that charge didn’t have a little number next to it.
Oh, and thanks for this reminder. Maybe it will help mess up his image in a good way:
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:22 PM
You basically echoed part of the article I linked, but again, it appears that he’s not getting the traction nationally, regardless of the gazillions he’s putting into his campaign. The problem is that in states that are traditionally red, he fares a lot worse than Rudy or Fred:
Not too promising if you ask me…
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 2:25 PM
I’m convinced that csdeven is Mitt
- The Cat
MirCat on September 19, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Yes, exactly. That is an important distinction to make. That is why I think the details of what it is exactly that Romney proposes will determine if he is really tacking left or not. To say he is tacking left before we know what he proposes is political suicide.
Politics is jiu jitsu. We will probably lose if we put ourselves in an inescapeable position.
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Well, you could be right. I probably should have clicked on your link before commenting. We’ll see.
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:30 PM
You’re largely right, but gay rights and the “war on drugs” aren’t going to be major issues in the campaigns. “Exercise of government power” is too vague; I’m not sure what you mean since that could be expained either way.
In terms of state politics, they always differ from nationally, where Republicans held majorities all the way through 2006… and lost because Republicans in Congress and the White House stopped behaving like Republicans after becoming too comfortable with power.
We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this, but we’ve both lived to see conservative Republicans win in landslides and “moderate” ones get slaughtered- and yes, sometimes the opposite. I just fail to see what’s changed in the past 8 years that makes it impossible for anyone but a “moderate” to win.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It’s going to be easy for whoever wins the nomination to track away from the war for the general election. The number of troops in Iraq right now can’t possibly be maintained through next fall, so whoever wins can just play that angle without it costing them anything. They get to (hopefully) talk about the progress still being made, while arguing for troops rest and ‘redeployment’ (I still don’t quite know wtf that means).
BadgerHawk on September 19, 2007 at 2:33 PM
You are SO tedious, with your Hollow Points.
Mitt’s life has been remarkable and much of it has been dedicated to service to others. If that is “ambition” then I’ll take it.
As for your claims that he tailors his message to his audience, please provide an example instead of your usual empty bloviating.
His positions have evolved over time on some issues (like Ronald Reagan!) but he has been very consistent on one thing: He has always, always said that he will not force his views on others. He believes it is up to the people to decide issues, not the courts, and not people like Hillary Clinton, so if you disagree with that then you can explain yourself.
Finally, for all you attempts to paint Mitt as a waffler, why is it that you ignore Fred’s changing views on issues like abortion? Hoping we won’t notice perhaps?
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Zetterson on September 19, 2007 at 2:30 PM
It’s a very interesting article. Worth a look.
jdawg on September 19, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Colorado is a good example of what happens when conservatives win the big issues. They took care of taxation and spending with TABOR, and now the state is trending Democrat. Overall, I think people tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate.
If Thompson’s candidacy takes off, he could win as well, but he’s more of a strict federalist than a social conservative, which I also think appeals to moderates. Giuliani’s continued appeal to GOP voters has to do with what I outlined above - a lot of the big battles are won and we’ve created some new third rails. Giuliani wouldn’t threaten what we’ve already won, and he would take on the Democrats, as we’ve seen. After eight years of the New-Tone Lovin’ Mushmeister, I think that’s attractive to a lot of GOP voters.
And what I mean by “exercise of government power” is that voters of all stripes seem more comfortable these days with federal intervention than in the past.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM
and I think his mother’s husband sold cars too.
Connie on September 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Yet Mr. Virtue Romney couldn’t bring himself to show up to the Values Voter debate?
bj1126 on September 19, 2007 at 2:38 PM
I thought it was a decent ad and I think it’s about time somebody said it.
CP on September 19, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Because times are ‘too good’. It can all change in a flash.
Entelechy on September 19, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Some of the stuff on the site is a bit snarky and irrelevant, but the 1981 arrest and 2002 incident- if true- contradicts to some degree that Mitt is “squeaky clean” and not completely adverse to using foul language as suggested by AP.
Moot point anyways- it’s pretty much a two man race now, and Mitt ain’t one of the two considering that he’s playing catch-up with McCain and has to use his personal funds to keep his campaign afloat financially.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Connie on September 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM
That’s right! Billy Jeff’s real father was a salesman too. I’m not sure when he sold, but it wasn’t cars.
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Dude, it’s been discussed here dozens (hundreds?) of times, and you’ve been part of those discussions. Funny that you brought up Reagan though, since Romney said to one audience in MA that he “didn’t want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush” and that “I was an independant at that time”, only to tell an other audience while running for the nomination that Reagan is his hero, but I digress…
If Fred’s position on abortion has changed, it’s changed very little from what I’ve seen- he isn’t now or ever was a hardliner, but has always (unlike Mitt, who once said it should remain law) been in favor of overturning Roe v Wade and had a good record in the Senate, supported by pro-life groups before and during his Senate career.
As much as you hopeless Mittbots would like to deflect any discussion about Romney to bashing Fred, this thread isn’t about Fred, it’s about the train wreck in progress that is the Romney campaign and his Red-on-Red message that I don’t disagree with, but won’t revive his almost nonexistant chances.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:53 PM
amerpundit on September 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM
I also am a Florida Republican, in fact Charlie lives in the condos right around the corner from me. My thought is that if we sell some oil, maybe our tax nightmare would be lessened.
stenwin77 on September 19, 2007 at 2:53 PM
To be fair, nobody who really matters showed up either. Was it even televised? I’m not sure I’ve seen a single news outlet cover it during or since.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I just clicked on Allah’s link to “Soren Dayton” whoever he is. There’s a big Fred ad in the LH column and among other things, he calls Mitt “venal” which deserves defining:
Adj. 1. venal - capable of being corrupted; “corruptible judges”; “dishonest politicians”; “a purchasable senator”; “a venal police officer”
bribable, corruptible, purchasable, dishonest
corrupt - lacking in integrity; “humanity they knew to be corrupt…from the day of Adam’s creation”; “a corrupt and incompetent city government”
There are many men and politicians who can be described as “venal” but Mitt is not one of them. Au contraire.
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Thank you! I’m with you on that question, but it never seems to get answered.
AprilOrit on September 19, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Hollowpoint,
So, because this has been discussed before, I’m supposed to hold my virtual tongue and just let you issue your daily Fred talking points without interruption?
For the record, I am not a Mittbot, but you are a Fredbot and a really annoying one at that.
I like both Rudy and Romney and have not yet decided which one I prefer. They both have many great qualities and would bring invaluable experience with them to the Presidency. Which ever one can win is fine with me.
As for Mitt’s positions, there is not a single position on the social issues that Mitt has today which I do not believe are sincerely held by him at this time in his life.
As President his power over those issues is pretty much limited to appointing great judges (which he most certainly would do) and using the bully pulpit. Anyone who thinks that even the most ultra-conservative candidate can magically and single handedly change things to their satisfaction if the American people are not behind them is not facing reality.
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 3:09 PM
The idea that’s out there that the GOP cannot win unless the Christian Conservatives or the Far Right Social Fringe is with us is so ridiculous. How about the rest of the Middle of the Road Americans who are social Conservative and detest the Far Right Christian Fringe element and the Far Left Moonbat brigade?
Pandering to special interest gets you no where fast in these times. I say stick to the original platform of the GOP, since when did we become, or for that matter, want to become so similar to the Constitution Party?
AprilOrit on September 19, 2007 at 3:10 PM
What about the next point in his life? Or the one before this one?
I am not convinced to be against Mitt, but he’s got lots of splainin’ to do to convince me to be for him.
samuelrylander on September 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM
And if one can easily change those beliefs which they hold “sincerely,” how sincerely could they really be held?
samuelrylander on September 19, 2007 at 3:16 PM
AprilOrit on September 19, 2007 at 3:10 PM
What exactly are the positions held by the far right Christian Fringe that you detest so much?
samuelrylander on September 19, 2007 at 3:18 PM
I think I’m going to stop analyzing any of the GOP candidates and their relative standing and messages until September 29th. That’s when Newt will decide whether or not he’s entering the race. Newt entering the race would dramatically change the dynamics of the GOP nomination, for better or for worse. He’ll force the others to reposition themselves, re-strategize, and otherwise adjust to a genuine conservative movement leader and man of ideas in the race. Should be fun and interesting to watch if it happens. In the meantime, I consider all this positioning to be moot until we know whether or not the field is complete.
aero on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Mitt, the American Sarkozy?
MB4 on September 19, 2007 at 3:27 PM
aero on September 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM
True dat.
samuelrylander on September 19, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Mitt’s also the only one of the big four who’s hinted, however slightly, at drifting away from Bush on Iraq.
That is not correct as both Rudy and Fred have done that.
MB4 on September 19, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Go back and review the thread, duder. Where was my “daily Fred talking points” again? I can’t find it, unless you count my view that this is coming down to a two way race between Rudy and Fred- hardly a controversial opinion or “talking points” considering the standings in the polls.
As you’re reviewing the thread, notice who’s been trying to derail the thread into a Fred thread- it’s not me, it’s been you and your fellow Mittbots- starting with the very first comment in this thread and including your post that I responded to.
Seems that you’re doing a bit of projecting there, Mitten.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I agree, the republicans have to counter Hillary’s health care plan. With its mandate for insurance , increased regulation of insurance industries, huge subsidies, why, that almost sounds like RomneyCare when you put it in those terms doesn’t it?
Pot, kettle, black.
At least Romney’s national plan is far superior to his state plan. But then you have to factor in what votes he was trying to get.
Keljeck on September 19, 2007 at 3:46 PM
February 14, 2007 - “But in discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr. Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further. And he has put the strategy in a broader context that plays down the importance of Iraq.
Terrorists “are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq,” Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that “there are no sure things,” and that if the United States fails in Iraq, “we have to be ready for that, too.” In California a few days later, speaking of “the danger of focusing on Iraq too much,” he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.”
MB4 on September 19, 2007 at 3:48 PM
There is no comparison between HillaryCare and Romney’s plan.
1. Mitt wants to help each State come up with their own plan, with a plan that fits their needs. He knows perfectly well that what works for Massachusetts is not going to work in a State with different variables.
Hillary on the other hand wants a Federal, one-size fits all plant that is run by the Federal Government.
2. Increased regulation of the insurance industries? Hillary would eliminate private health insurance companies and force us all to have government health insurance.
I have not heard Mitt say anything about “regulating” the insurance industry, something he is unlikely to propose or even desire (although being a brilliant businessman he may have good suggestions about how they can better accommodate the needs of Americans and he may want to work with them to see what can be done to those ends)
3. As for subsidies, Hillary says her plan will cost what, $150 billion a year? That is probably a fraction of what it would really cost, and the end result would be a deteriorated level of care and service.
Romney’s plan (which is really more of a concept since it is not a Federal plan) if properly executed by the States does not end up increasing taxes as it shifts taxpayer money that is being wasted, toward covering people who don’t have insurance.
But as I have said many times before, if you or any of the candidates have a better idea than Mitt, I’m all ears.
Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 4:11 PM
MEGA LULZ!1
I’m talking about his STATE plan, silly. I told you his federal plan is by far superior. But the fact is, he came up with that garbage. His state plan had increased regulation of the insurance industries, made everyone buy health insurance, and gave large subsidies to those who couldn’t.
HillaryCare 2.0 does the same.
Here’s the plan: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/
Keljeck on September 19, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »