Video: Log Cabin Republicans take revenge on Mitt

posted at 12:35 pm on October 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s the flip side of the “Gays for Giuliani” spoof that was aimed at reminding conservatives how Rudy wasn’t always as cool to civil unions as he’s now pretending to be. Rather than smack Mitt for wooing social cons by campaigning against gay marriage, the LCRs avoid the subject entirely — the better to focus on issues that can do him real harm with the base. HA readers have seen all the old footage here before but most people haven’t; given how little known he is in places other than Iowa and New Hampshire, this will be the first exposure some voters have to him. Quite an impression.

According to Real Clear Politics, the ad will run on Fox News “with a focus on Iowa,” the one state Mitt needs more than any other to propel him to frontrunner status before Super Ultra Mega Tuesday.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Are you then comfortable with your fellow republicans using these tactics on Fred??? I don’t think they should be used on anyone but especially not on members of my own party by members of my party.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 4:33 PM

Yeah, the 11th commandment and all…But hey, smear tactics or no, it’s another Presidential election cycle. Unfortunately, it’s all about smear…attacking the opposition instead of extolling the virtues of one’s self.

There’s going to be a lot of mud slinging this coming year. We better get used to it.

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Yeah, the 11th commandment and all…But hey, smear tactics or no, it’s another Presidential election cycle. Unfortunately, it’s all about smear…attacking the opposition instead of extolling the virtues of one’s self.

There’s going to be a lot of mud slinging this coming year. We better get used to it.

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Getting used to it doesn’t have to mean embracing it.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 4:38 PM

As for whom I support, I have repeatedly stated that I like Mitt and Romney.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Okay, but which one do you prefer? Mitt or Romney.

right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Okay, but which one do you prefer? Mitt or Romney.

right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Fetch me a paper towel dang it, I just splatter junk all over my monitor reading that…

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Okay, but which one do you prefer? Mitt or Romney.

right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM

heh…

You made the claim that it is reasonable for LCR to make this ad because abortion is a human rights issue, yet that is clearly not the reason LCR made the ad.

As for whom I support, I have repeatedly stated that I like Mitt and Romney. I am not the one using Mitt’s statements from 1994 on abortion as an issue.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM

No! I never made that claim that the LCR is justified with that ad because of abortion, or anything else Mitt said there. Yes…I DO make the claim that abortion is a human rights issue, in response to the statement: Why would gay men be pro-life.

It all boils down to this….You don’t think Mitt should be held accountable for statements he made in a previous election in Mass. It’s all null and void as you see it.

And yes…politicians do change their views, and even parties. Fine. But what you’re really mad at is having any bad press about Mitt Romney. Get used to it…it’s politics.

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM

Why is it especially ironic that a Mormon 120 years later (or more depending on perspective…
Jens on October 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM

The irony is that their (LDS) “prophets”, who are 100% accurate, change their minds (like suddenly embracing blacks), just at the time when society rebels against what the “prophets” are proclaiming. The ultimate flip-floppers…guess God changes his mind also. Now we have Mitt…

right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 4:51 PM

And yes…politicians do change their views, and even parties. Fine. But what you’re really mad at is having any bad press about Mitt Romney. Get used to it…it’s politics.

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:47 PM

As I said before getting used to it doesn’t mean embracing it.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 4:53 PM

As I said before getting used to it doesn’t mean embracing it.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 4:53 PM

No, most certainly doesn’t. Funny, how so many polls always show people very much dislike mudslinging at election time, but it always seems to be the mudslinging that sways elections.

Just ask John Kerry…

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM

No, most certainly doesn’t. Funny, how so many polls always show people very much dislike mudslinging at election time, but it always seems to be the mudslinging that sways elections.

Just ask John Kerry…

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:59 PM

That doesn’t make it right or acceptable.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 5:07 PM

If Mitt really was fighint the Religious Right these days, I’d probably like him more.

Vyce on October 4, 2007 at 5:15 PM

That doesn’t make it right or acceptable.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Agreed. But it does make it a sad reality…

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Agreed. But it does make it a sad reality…

JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM

On that we can agree….

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 5:28 PM

I am very specifically referring to the fact that the LCR chose to make Mitt’s position on abortion an issue.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Did LCR make Mitt’s position on abortion an issue, or did Mitt’s bouncing positions on abortion make it an issue?

Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Yes…I DO make the claim that abortion is a human rights issue, in response to the statement: Why would gay men be pro-life.

JetBoy,

Who made that statement? Not me.

I am not saying that homosexuals can’t be opposed to abortion. I am saying that opposition to abortion is not why the LGF made this ad.

To say otherwise is simply not believable.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Gregor,

Bouncing implies that his positions have gone up and down. That is not correct – they have become steadily more conservative over the years, and this ad is using footage from 1994, as have my own.

But the bottom line is for anyone to claim that the LCR are running this ad in support of the pro-life movement is farcical.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Yikes! Sorry for the mangled writing above. Move, “this ad is using footage from 1994″ to the end of the second sentence.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 6:36 PM

The context of Mitt’s comment was this:

In this debate, Kennedy accused the Reagan administration of basically weakening single parent families etc. Mitt allowed him to frame the Reagan policies as failures and rather than challenge that fallacy, he tacitly accepted as fact and then denied wanting to return to those policies. Granted, the liberal voters of Mass probably believed those policies did weaken the family and Mitt would have been crucified for defending Reagan.

The bottom line is that had Mitt been able to oust that murderer, we would have been fine with whatever he said to get the job done.

The true test seems to be if Mitt held to his campaign promises. He did as governor and I see no behavior in him that leads me to believe he will become a flaming liberal when he becomes president.

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Bouncing implies that his positions have gone up and down. That is not correct – they have become steadily more conservative over the years

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Your claim is simply not true. His positions only changed when he started planning to run for President. You imply that his change in stance has been “steady” throughout the years, which there’s nothing that supports this. His stance simply changed, over-night, upon making the decision to run for a position that his previous positions did not give him a chance in Hell to win.

There’s no reason to believe his current views are anything more than lip service any more than you would believe Hillary is suddenly moderate.

Oh wait. Do you? Doesn’t she have the right to change her views like Romney? Didn’t think so.

Like I said earlier, Romney and Giuliani supporters such as yourself claim it’s okay to change stances on serious topics as long as it’s the guy you want to win. If it’s someone else, such as John Kerry, then he’s suddenly the master of all flip floppers.

Face it. Romney is a flip flopper and a fraud. Pretty simple really.

Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 6:46 PM

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Here is where we see the profound difference between you and I, look closely and don’t let it harm you. Mitt is not my candidate, look carefully how I have savaged him with lies implications falsehood innuendos and implicant distortions of the facts.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Would you like to explain to the group exactly how Kerry’s explanation of his flip flops compare to the explanations Rudy and Mitt have given for theirs?

Really, I’d like to hear how you make the comparison and the only way for you to do that is to explain to the group the three candidates justifications and then explain how they are all equal in rationalization.

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Face it. Romney is a flip flopper and a fraud. Pretty simple really.

Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Romney is not a fraud, but you are a jackass, and that’s becoming very obvious. You are smearing a good, capable man for no good reason. Indeed, if we were to follow your demands that our beliefs remain stagnant, Ronald Reagan would never have made it to the White House. There is no one who has led a more exemplary life than Mitt Romney, but if that doesn’t matter to you, that’s great for you, because with your help Billy Jeff could be First Lady.

But enough of this – why don’t you tell us who your candidate of choice is ? I’ll go on a flip flop hunt as soon as you tell me.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Here is where we see the profound difference between you and I, look closely and don’t let it harm you. Mitt is not my candidate, look carefully how I have savaged him with lies implications falsehood innuendos and implicant distortions of the facts.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 7:25 PM

I don’t understand this comment. Can you explain further?

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 7:33 PM

I don’t understand this comment. Can you explain further?

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 7:33 PM

Oh you understand it alright.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Oh you understand it alright.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Not having read the entire thread, I must have missed something. Why you make that comment in response to mine (which was simple to give the debate comment context) is not clear. Explain it or not, I couldn’t care less at this point.

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Hollowpoint,

Kerist, are you going to eliminate Romney over that? I hardly think that that is going to give Fred the boost he needs.

It’s Time to focus on what matters or, BOO! Hillary will be in the White House.


doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Uh, I didn’t understand it either. It needs a little editing or something.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM

The irony is that their (LDS) “prophets”, who are 100% accurate, change their minds (like suddenly embracing blacks), just at the time when society rebels against what the “prophets” are proclaiming. The ultimate flip-floppers…guess God changes his mind also. Now we have Mitt…

right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 4:51 PM

I’m not saying it isn’t ironic. My question for sebastian, to clarify, was why is it ironic for Mitt and not for other protestant republicans (such as sebastian) who agree with him on the gay marriage amendment position — seeing how either: a) the protestant God flip-flopped from his position with Moses and the patriarchs; or b) the Bible is only (100%)accurate until “society rebels against what the [bible claims]“.

Jens on October 4, 2007 at 8:21 PM

There is something to be said for momentum. Too many want to label each candidate as having a certain level of concervatism, as if this is a fixed part of thier personality that doesnt change. Absurd. Someone who battles against collegues and tries to move public opinion is more legitimately convervative to me then someone who who had it easy and can claim to be 99% concervative without having to fight for those values. Voting this way is exactly how you get a weak president such as the current GWB and Romney is the antidote to this.

Resolute on October 4, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Uh, I didn’t understand it either. It needs a little editing or something.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Compare csdeven treatment of any politician, Fred especially to my treatment of any politician in any thread here and what I said will become crystal clear. My treatment of Mitt here or Rudy here.
Really ought to drive a stake through my point.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 8:57 PM

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 8:57 PM

OH, I get it now. You took a comment I made (that had zero reference to your point in this thread) and responded to it with a point that came clean out of left field.

Got cha!

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 9:04 PM

OH, I get it now. You took a comment I made (that had zero reference to your point in this thread) and responded to it with a point that came clean out of left field.

Got cha!

csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Yea, pretty sweet ambush eh…I figured you of all people could appreciate a good ambush……. :p

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 9:07 PM

doriangray,

I didn’t understand the sentence, and still don’t.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 11:40 PM

doriangray,

I didn’t understand the sentence, and still don’t.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 11:40 PM

csdeven viciously attacks all the candidates except Mitt, whom he supports. I support Fred but refuse to attack any of the other candidates. Do you get it yet? I was contrasting our two diametrically opposed philosophy regarding advancing our candidates.

csdeven holds to the politics of personal destruction, I want to hear the strengths and weaknesses honestly evaluated regarding each candidate. csdeven believes that the end justifies the means.

I believe that when the end justifies the means there is no atrocity you eventually will not be willing to commit to achieve your goal.

doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Hollowpoint,

Kerist, are you going to eliminate Romney over that? I hardly think that that is going to give Fred the boost he needs.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 8:02 PM

No, not just over that- just countering your characterization of Mitt as being such an authentic straight shooter (see what I did there) when he’s been caught in a fib while pandering to a specific audience.

I’m holding candidates to a much higher standard than usual after the shenanigans that Bush and Congressional Republicans have pulled the past 8 years. Mitt didn’t make the cut as far as I am concerned. Given his poor approval ratings, I apparently have lots of company.

Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 1:29 AM

csdeven viciously attacks all the candidates except Mitt, whom he supports. I support Fred but refuse to attack any of the other candidates. Do you get it yet? I was contrasting our two diametrically opposed philosophy regarding advancing our candidates.

csdeven holds to the politics of personal destruction, I want to hear the strengths and weaknesses honestly evaluated regarding each candidate. csdeven believes that the end justifies the means.

I believe that when the end justifies the means there is no atrocity you eventually will not be willing to commit to achieve your goal.

doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Speaking the facts about Fred is not attacking him. It is called vetting. The nomination is all about vetting.

You on the other hand refuse to vet Fred. You justify everything he does and have done so from the beginning. THAT is why you have people like me vociferously critiquing Fred. We were responding the the groupie mentality. And as the days go forward it is becoming clearer that the hype Fred created for himself is not coming to fruition. He is failing and possible will soon be out of the race. Some of us seen this in him from the beginning and I for one refuse to sit here and listen to complaints.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 9:00 AM

doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Doriangrey,

The original comment was poorly written and needed editing. Because it was poorly written it was difficult to comprehend:

Here is where we see the profound difference between you and I, look closely and don’t let it harm you. Mitt is not my candidate, look carefully how I have savaged him with lies implications falsehood innuendos and implicant distortions of the facts.

doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 7:25 PM

That’s all I’m saying.

Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 1:29 AM

Yeah, well I’ll be on a pander alert for Fred. To be quibbling over this stupid hunting issue is so silly.

Frankly I have never understood why the NRA makes such a big deal about hunter’s rights. Obviously the Founders intended for us to be able to hunt since hunting was necessary for survival. I can’t believe that the right to hunt is what NRA members are most concerned about, and if you can show me where Mitt Romney has ever threatened to take away the right to hunt, I’ll apologize and move on.

Buy Danish on October 5, 2007 at 11:53 AM

I’m not saying it isn’t ironic. My question for sebastian, to clarify, was why is it ironic for Mitt and not for other protestant republicans (such as sebastian) who agree with him on the gay marriage amendment position — seeing how either: a) the protestant God flip-flopped from his position with Moses and the patriarchs; or b) the Bible is only (100%)accurate until “society rebels against what the [bible claims]”.

Mitt belongs to a church that fought long and hard to it’s almost destruction for the right to marry as they pleased according to their religion. The republicans, at that time, used the federal government to enforce their morality on the states to eradicate the “twin relics of barbarism”, slavery and polygamy. They made laws to enforce traditional marriage using the federal government because the territory of Utah agreed with the principal. This attack on polygamy secularized marriage and brought it under federal regulation. That would be a non-Federalist position. In contrast, the Mormon prophets’ position on slavery was that it was a state issue.

Now you have the Mormons, and others, 150 years later, using the federal government to enforce their morality of marriage on Gays. And while I agree with their position, the irony to me seems is that you’d think after the federal government abused them that they’d be loathe to use the same stick on others.

The problem I see is that as marriage is now regulated by the federal government, what happens when the traditional marriage view isn’t in the majority anymore? Just seems like these things backfire.

How many times has a community tried to stand up for its “values” and ended up losing them? The town that has prayers before graduation or football games that balks at having non-Christians participate. What happens? No more prayers.

Maybe marriage and graduation prayers are different in magnitude, but if we use the federal government to regulate marriage, then courts get involved and suddenly marriage is gone and there’s just civil unions or something worse. You lose the thing you’re trying to protect.

And I’m going with A, God changes his positions, or did we all miss the change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant? I’m not sure it’s wise to label God a flip-flopper though.

Sebastian on October 5, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I agree that the federal government should stay out officiating the institution of marriage.

Jens on October 6, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2