Mitt lamely knocks Rudy for being estranged from his children; Update: Observers pan Mitt
posted at 2:42 pm on September 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not as nasty as the ’sack attack, but still.
Mitt Romney used a press conference here to take a veiled but unmistakable shot at Rudy Giuliani’s messy personal life, saying that the eventual Republican nominee would need to have a united front from their family to defeat Hillary Clinton…
[T]he former Massachusetts governor – surrounded by dozens of blue tee-shirt clad supporters on a hotel porch cheering nearly his every answer — made clear this morning that he thinks there are other crucial elements to beat the candidate most Republicans consider to be the Democrats’ eventual nominee.
Romney said one of those necessary ingredients “when it comes time to run against Hillary Clinton” is that the Republican candidate be able “to bring all their family together as I have to get on the campaign trail.”
“That’s been a big part of what’s ignited our support,” Romney added.
He’s not making the obvious, if unsound, point that voters should take it as a warning if a candidate’s own flesh and blood won’t support him. That’s poor logic, foremost because bad fathers don’t necessarily make bad presidents, but there’s at least an intuitive appeal to it. What he’s actually saying is that it’s important to have the family out campaigning together. But … why? To maximize gladhanding opportunities? If that mattered, he’d be doing better than fourth nationally. He’s playing on the idea here that family is a qualification in and of itself, which I understand works for him vis-a-vis Giuliani and the social cons he’s trying to woo but annoys me as a member of the large and growing single-and-childless demographic. You would think a guy who takes so much irrational flak for his religion would be more careful about making too much of others’ personal lives. Try harder next time, Mitt.
Update: Rudy’s sensitivity to the family-man critique may explain the phone call heard ’round the world.
Update: Brutal. The fact that he’s capable of delivering moldy cheese like “I’ll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA” without grimacing almost warrants congratulations. Zanotti was there and confirms that he bombed:
Mitt Romney, aside from being something like 15 minutes late, decided that the Obama look (no tie, monochrome suit jacket/suit combination) was appropriate for the Grand Hotel, despite obviously not understanding the Obama look requires that the top shirt button be open. So he started out his speech with his collar sides jammed together at his throat and I can’t concentrate on anything else. He stole that line about not having a party whose description serves as a Jay Leno punch line (which I think is actually Newt’s), stole Giuliani jokes and failed to deliver them with the solid timing Rudy typically does, misunderstands the concept of the Hobbesian choice, and stole Ron Paul’s globalization theory (of course, he is in Michigan). He’s like a greatest hits album of everyone else, which, I suppose, is what is necessary to gain the support of every faction present here, from the paleo-conservative libertarian blend that was involved in breakfast, the hardcore Republicans who are probably looking forward more to tonight (McCain and Fred), and that segment of the population that still thinks Giuliani is kind of scary.
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:
Romney should not be doing the Democrats’ work for them.
Halley on September 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM
You know, there was a great President whose majority of children were Liberal Democrats.
amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Stumbling. What’s up? I really didn’t like the MA part of his resume at first but he started to win me over. Then, after the last debate, he seemed to go flat.
VP anyone?…or can he recover?
Limerick on September 22, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I agree AP, definitely agree.
jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Kennedy?
scooter on September 22, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Blech…don’t go there Mitt.
Bad Candy on September 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM
rudy should have his next speech interrupted by a call from his kids! that’ll show ‘em!
AdrianG on September 22, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I’m hoping Mitt realizes that Fred!s bounce won’t take away from him forever and that he doesn’t need to get desperate and do silly stuff and shoot himself in the foot.
Where he needs to go on the attack I think is the surprising amount of prejudice against Mormons.
Religious leaders should be railing against it if for no other reason than Mitt represents their stance as much or more than any other candidate.
Speakup on September 22, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Really? He did?
A little sensitive there?
Can you give some examples of what you think he should’ve said instead?
.
.
.
Not sure what Mitt Romney meant?
Ask him.
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Yes, ap, the first thing which came to mind, RR’s two out of four. They certainly were the silliest of the bunch and he survived the presidential runs and reigns just fine.
Mitt “I have 5 sons and they serve their country by standing here with me, while Rudy has two kids from a previous wife who might vote for Hillary. Thus, I’ll make the better president, vote for me”. I’m sold.
Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I want to like Romney but the pandering is just getting more and more ridiculous.
By his logic America should have elected Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Or that Barrack Obama, John Edwards and Joe Biden would make better Presidents than Rudy.
Mitt is getting very, very close to jumping the shark.
Drew on September 22, 2007 at 3:14 PM
One of the things that people say turns them off about Republicans is the hypocrisy on family values. I think its a big minus to have someone at the top of the ticket that exemplifies that.
One other interesting note is this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17males.html?ei=5088&en=2320715e4be12ed2&ex=1347681600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1190326226-ERyLbBZagf/PPfCIsMM7WA
Basically it says that everything we heard about teenagers being immature was true only about boomer teenagers.
pedestrian on September 22, 2007 at 3:18 PM
**had political observers wondering whether Giuliani was too beholden to his wife,
.
.
.
Contrast that with:
.
.
.
You can start throwing stones, right about….now.
I’m made of rubber…..
So….. you’re welcome.
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Reagan.
amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Patti who didn’t get along with her parents and is a Liberal, and his son Ron who is an atheist Liberal and outspoken critic of Bush and the war.
amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Gotten this shallow already, has it? Oh boy.
El Cazador on September 22, 2007 at 3:53 PM
He’s not making the obvious, if unsound, point that voters should take it as a warning if a candidate’s own flesh and blood won’t support him. That’s poor logic
Why is the apparent fact that a Presidential candidate’s own “flesh and blood” won’t support him unsound and poor logic as a warning sign?
That makes no sense to me.
Obviously it is not the be all and end all, but surely the apparent fact that some of those who know a man best apparently think poorly of him at least qualifies as a warning sign anyway.
So many things under the sun are warning signs, why would this be exempt?
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Thats a MEGA-BOO on Mitt…
and a very unwise phone interruption on Rudy.
Lets get back to bashing Hillary, shall we guys!
Always Right on September 22, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Because his kids may be leftists and/or have character flaws of their own, which is to say the fault may lie with them. We don’t know for sure.
Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Because his kids are apparently Liberal. It’s not that they don’t support him for Fred or Mitt. The one had on her profile about Obama. It may not be anything personal, she just doesn’t agree with her father’s politics. Again, let’s remember that Reagan’s two kids are A) Liberal, B) Critical of Republicans C) Patti is anti-nuclear weapons D) She criticized her parents openly.
amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 4:00 PM
We don’t know for sure.
Allahpundit on September 22, 2007 at 3:57 PM
True.
A warning sign signals possible danger, not certain danger.
And that is why it is a warning sign.
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Maybe Rudy’s kids like him and agree with his politics. Maybe they don’t. They aren’t saying anything, and seem to have their own agendas. Mitt’s lucky he has five adult children with nothing better to do than campaign for him. This is a non-issue, and to turn it into one makes Romney seem weird.
Big S on September 22, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Mitt should make like a tree and get out ‘a here!
/Biff
spec_ops_mateo on September 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM
It may not be anything personal
amerpundit on September 22, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Then again it may be. It in fact may well be.
All information has value.
All must go into the “hopper”.
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Mitt should make like a tree and get out ‘a here!
/Biff
spec_ops_mateo on September 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Make like a Shepard and get the flock out of here?
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Make like a horse turd and hit the dusty trail.
jaime on September 22, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Hello McFly!
spec_ops_mateo on September 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I realize the video link is of utmost bad quality =(
spec_ops_mateo on September 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Looking past his statement for a second, does anyone else find that a little sophomoric and creepy? I thought the same thing when he had his drones running around at CPAC last winter.
lowandslow on September 22, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I think I understand Mitt’s philosophy for winning the nomination and it starts with the growing dis-satisfaction with the war and the realization that we are going to be in Iraq for many years. The American people are going to look for something to feel good about and strong family values transcends political parties.
Family values, executive experience, problem solving, and communication skills are Mitt’s strong points.
I do not like these remarks of his, but I do not think they’ll hurt him.
csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I dunno. I think that Allah may be letting Politico spin this as a Guiliani hit.
Politico said:
But I don’t accept that this is an “unmistakable shot”:
In response to this:
I suppose this could be read as a dig at Guiliani, but I think he’s saying that it’s going to be tough to beat Hillary and as such it helps to have his family out campaigning for him, drumming up support, along with other volunteers.
Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 4:50 PM
It seems that with Rudy’s pending lawsuits and Fred’s assault on free speech which negatively affects the NRA, Mitt’s attacks on the 2nd don’t put him at much of a disadvantage, if any at all.
csdeven on September 22, 2007 at 5:00 PM
They are all postering with the warm-fuzzy feel good rhetoric and I for one don’t want it, don’t listen when they start it. I want them to stand up and clearly state their policies on immigration, the worldwide war we’re involved in, oil/energy, and border security with our southern neighbor. Simple.
24K lady on September 22, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Okay, now I’ve read the “brutal” update.
It sounds kinda petty to me, like OMG he hadn’t unbuttoned the top button of his shirt like Obama does.
Maybe it wasn’t his most dynamic appearance but “brutal”? And this came from someone who admits to not being a Romney supporter, and who ends by saying, “But no matter. Fred hugged me. I love him.” and “Newt is fantastic”.
Watch the “Ask Mitt” segment that Mcguyver posted. This can be seen and judged on its merits – spin free.
Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Mega Spin alert.
The story goes on to say:
Gosh, I had seen that ad and it was very good and I didn’t remember any “finger wagging”.
There isn’t any.
Yes, I know that the AP is using a metaphor here, but this story spins Romney as a scolding, finger wagging guy (like Clinton?) and that is just not an accurate description, at all.
Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Here is a fairer assessment of what went down in Michigan.
Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Whenever Mitt does anything, it has the hands of political handlers on it. I see nothing authentic about the man as a candidate.
Clark1 on September 22, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I havn’t given Mitt much thought because up until recently I didn’t see him as a contender. And,I’m still in Rudy’s corner. But(Oh Jeanie, you wimp!!)I have heard Mitt described a few times(and no I don’t have a link)as having rock solid principles. I have a feeling this might be true no matter how much he sounds like the Beaver. One could not possibly sound like that unless they were stupid or sincere. I have to vote for sincere…with a decided soupcon of self-righteous.
jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Well said!
Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I spent most of the day arguing with wealthy leftist gay men–one is a personal friend of Bush’s new AG choice–that Romney would be an excellent President. & then I come back to my friend’s home in Paris and read this. It’s very discouraging. I still support Romney. He just needs to be a little more careful about these things.
thuja on September 22, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Maybe this ongoing lively debate, between the Fred shills and the clear thinkers, will cheer you up.
And I quote on September 22, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 8:40 PM
So it has come down to who is lovable enough to send a… uumm, love letter?
Big, tall, Fred.
.
.
Or, go ahead, give a bear hug, to the overweight, fluffy, lovable Newt. Watch out, he gets very sensitive though when you criticize him.
.
thuja,
Take heart, the people supporting candidates for such emotional nonsense. They probably are recent converts from the “emotional” party anyway.
We cut them a lot of slack around here.
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Thuja: The self righteous tone is what bothers me about him though and from what I read, I’m not alone though it’s called by many different names here. I’m still holding him to my shallow but necessary criteria: Can he beat Hillary?
jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Let’s start with the basics – shall we – as compared with, Rudy or, [gasp]… Fred.
Does Mitt have any family problems? Clinton does.
Does Mitt have a history of success? Clinton doesn’t.
Well, you go ahead and answer, just one question, before debating me on this, because, well, you brought up the question.
What in Mitt’s past could Hillary really talk smack about, without looking like a complete fool, right out of the gate?
Clue:
Has Clinton to date said anything smack about Mitt?
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 9:20 PM
To thuja and jeanie,
Maybe this will help, as well:
Mcguyver on September 22, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Forget it!! I’m not biting. Time will tell. In the primary I will vote for the Republican I think can beat Hillary. End of my discussion.
jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Romney slings mud once again- what a surprise. Perhaps instead he should focus on himself and explain why he’d make the best candidate. Apparently there are so few reasons, he (and his lapdogs) are left attacking the more successful and electable candidates. Desperation brings out the worst in some people, clearly.
Sorry Mitt, as much as you’ve tried so far you are not going to be able to buy the Presidency. All you’ve managed to do is peg the needle on our collective BS meters.
Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 3:07 AM
People who hold true to their values are not being self righteous, they are being honest and are engaged in daily effort to achieve the goals in their lives. (And, BTW, they are succeeding.) Those that view that as self righteous have the problem, usually because they are not reaching the same standards. Mitt doesn’t make that person feel that way. They choose to feel that way.
csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:25 AM
Telling the truth is not the same as slinging mud.
csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 7:27 AM
The problem with Mitt and his considerable achievements is nothing can compare to Rudi after 9/11.
My problem with Rudi is that he let down the party once when he backed out of the NY Senatorial race (Yes, I know it was cancer). He left the Lazio, who had to compete with the media’s idolotry of Clinton, in a very bad position to fight an effective campaign.
It seemed to me at the time that he was looking for a way to back out. I think he will do it again.
davod on September 23, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Well, if Rudy wasn’t going to defeat her, I’m glad he dropped out. A loss to Hillary in his senate run would make him less likely to defeat her in a general election for president.
csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 8:23 AM
csdeven Guess I’ll take your advice and choose. LOL
jeanie on September 23, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Then I guess in the future you’ll be honest about your propensity to project your problems onto others? Good.
csdeven on September 23, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Bwhahahahaha… FlipFlop Mitt is amongst those who “hold true to their values”??? That’s precious.
Hollowpoint on September 23, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Hey Romney fans….I read Mitt’s full page ad in the Manchester Union Leader today and I liked what it said. Oh—-and CS–what “others”? I speak only about myself. the “others” is your spin. Take care.
jeanie on September 23, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Good news for Mitt?
Eh so-so.
csdeven on September 24, 2007 at 12:02 AM
My Translation: My family supports me and it really ignited our fire for the race.
AP’s Translation: MITT IS ATTACKING GUILIANI BECAUSE OF HIS PAST FAMILY TROUBLES! THE NERVE OF THAT MAN! AS A SINGLE-CHILDLESS-MALE I’M OUTRAGED! (embellished of course).
Not everything Romney says should be interpreted as a slight. This is just another example in a growing pattern where anything Mitt says is spun horribly out of context and then corrected later. People get the idea that Romney is run by anonymous “handlers” because AP and others at the HA staff are too busy “reading between the lines” to take what he says at base value. Romney’s already done an interview with Michelle and we had that off-the-cuff radio interview clip. The idea that Romney’s every word is determined by handlers rather than simply being plain speaking, if a little naive sounding, is ridiculous.
BKennedy on September 24, 2007 at 12:49 AM
This is a balanced article about Mitt’s ability to understand the problems facing the republican party and devise a plan to fix it. Mitt is THE problem solver in this race. No other candidate even comes close to his solid grasp of the issues.
csdeven on September 24, 2007 at 9:14 AM
Comment pages: