Video: Log Cabin Republicans take revenge on Mitt
posted at 12:35 pm on October 4, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
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 Next »
he’s toast
D2Boston on October 4, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Yawn…
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 12:49 PM
So this is in revenge for Mitt campaigning against gay marriage? Well, I’m keeping an open mind. Can anyone here make the case for gay marriage?
RushBaby on October 4, 2007 at 12:50 PM
He’s supporting the stupid FMA? Get’em LCRs! Between his gungrabbing and this stupid FMA crap, I’m not a fan of Mitt. I see no reason for FMA, its obnoxious, you know he’s just pandering and he doesn’t support it.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 12:53 PM
*sigh*
This is why I don’t join groups like the LCR…
It might be a stretch to say this will be the first impression most voters get of Mitt, unless no one has watched any of the debates or…reads.
Are Republican voters really going to be swayed by an LCR ad anyway?
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 12:57 PM
The line Jon Lovitz used when impersonating Harvey Fierstein.
“I just want to be loved, Is that so wrong?”
P.S No I don’t support gay marriage.
GoodBoy on October 4, 2007 at 12:58 PM
I personally don’t care either way on gay marriage, I think both sides are putting too much worth into gov’t power. I think it just speaks to what a disengenuous douche Mitt is. He doesn’t believe in this FMA crap, and its a transparent pander of the worst kind, and I’m glad the LCRs are giving him a b*tchslap for it.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Ha. Front runners, on both sides, taking both sides.
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 12:58 PM
logjammin’ republicans…awesome
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 12:58 PM
But that’s not what they are doing. They don’t have the courage to attack him on this issue with which they disagree. They are using a dishonest, back-door attack because they lack the courage of their convictions.
Letting your sexuality define your life is not a good idea.
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Why should anyone have to? Where is the government authorized to dictate the private betrothals of Americans?
How could any law be passed defining ‘traditional marriage’ and _not_ be inherently respecting an establishment of religion? First Amendment anyone?
How can anyone seriously consider amending the Constitution in such a way that it includes a constraint on _we the people_ rather than the government?
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 1:03 PM
That last sentence wasn’t meant for you BC. It’s a general statement. Too many people, straight and gay, let their sexuality rule their lives.
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Er, I’m not teh ghey(NTTAWWT), but really, I don’t see any difference, if Mitt can be disengenuous and lie about what he thinks, I see no reason for the LCRs to feel like they have to play, er, straight up either, and really, nothing they put up is factually incorrect.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:06 PM
I’m not longer surprised when people on the Right embrace the dishonest tactics of the Left when it suits their purposes.
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Hell hath no fury like that of a homo scorned…
D2Boston on October 4, 2007 at 1:09 PM
From the LCR website:
RushBaby on October 4, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Is that directed at Mitt, the LCRs or both?
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Diaphragms, tossed salad and now back door attacks
Perhaps HA stands for Homoerotica Anonymous?
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 1:12 PM
This isn’t going to play well in Iowa.
And anywhere else, for that matter…
Timothy S. Carlson on October 4, 2007 at 1:12 PM
you’re 100% right
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 1:13 PM
And the fact that they use video of Mitt saying those things isnt going to help Mitt. On the other hand as we have just seen with both O’Reilly and Rush context is everything, it is entirely possible to use a out of context quote right out of the individuals mouth to smear them.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I’ll wait for Mitt or his campaign to set the record straight. Most of this stuff is old, and I haven’t seen him try and put them in context(if there is any other context than “I wanna be elected”), I think he’s simply “evolved” his opinions. But point taken.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Rush and O’Reilly both went on to clarify, and it was obvious what both meant, I haven’t heard Mitt do that either.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:25 PM
it is entirely possible to use a out of context quote right out of the individuals mouth to smear them.
doriangrey
Well, that is true. However, this was “caught on tape”. What did Mitt say? He said this. Is it open to interpretation? Nope. Roe V. Wade is the law of the land and he was, at some point, fine with that. Based on the 20 years ago comment, we can be sure that this was a long time ago.
The problem that nailed Kerry for the Dems will now be an issue for Mitt, should he get the nomination. Some might call it Flip Flopping, others might call it “pandering to folks who vote in the primaries”, but it will be a problem for him.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 1:27 PM
You don’t think it’s possible to dislike a candidate for multiple reasons? (I dislike most of candidates for multiple reasons, personally.)
Pro-abortion and anti-gun records are two issues that will bother a lot of Republicans. You think they magically don’t bother gay Republicans?
Tanya on October 4, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Letting one or two issues define you is pretty stupid as well. To hell with all these special interest groups and their stupid ads.
Gay marriage, gun control, and abortion are such over-hyped, exaggerated issues in a presidential race. I think these should all be state and/or local issues, and in most cases they are. If the so called Christain right wants to bail on a cadidate because of one or two issues, then screw them. What’s going to happen when the nominee is finally decided?
Are more idiot Republicans going to sit home and not vote, are they going to back a third party candidate, which will put Hillary in the White House for certain?
Picture 8 years of Clinton and more than half the Supreme Court changing hands. Not to mention near certain control of Congress the entire time. It takes a while to root the Democrats out.
reaganaut on October 4, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Personally I find it extremely difficult to determine whether he went on to clarify anything or not based on 10 second video clips.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Oh please, its a couple of 10 second video clips, without the full context of the speeches this amounts to exactly what Media Matters attempted to do to Rush and O’Reilly. Just because they are Republicans and conservatives does not mean they get a free pass when pulling cr@p like this.
Oh and for disclaimership, (like that word I just invented?) I’m a Fredhead, not a Romneyite…
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 1:34 PM
If the LCRs are trying to destroy Mitt, its because they think he does not align with them. That is a good thing for real Republicans. Will the average Republican viewer of this ad be smart enough to realize that? Thats another question entirely. I hope so.
Zetterson on October 4, 2007 at 1:37 PM
DG,
It’s a couple of 10 second clips that are unequivocal with regards to content. Looks more like a Q&A to me, but that’s just me. He said what he said, while devoid of context, I can imagine that someone asked him what he thought about abortion, or the polices of Ronald Reagan and he answered them.
Pretty sure someone could track down when he said it and under what circumstances. I’d imagine there will be a clarification at some point from Mitt’s team.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 1:39 PM
True…but using sexuality to try to define someone elses life isn’t a good idea either.
And nothing Mitt is saying is “taken out of context” either.
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Sorry I’m just not buying it, 10 seconds is no where near enough to derive context from.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Yeah, except the left has a nasty new and even more wretched Spooky Lookin’ Weapons Ban waiting in committee should they win or get a gun grabby RINO in ‘09. If you hand gunowners a choice between a candidate who will take their guns and a candidate who will take their guns…a lot of them will just stay home, and for a lot of people, this is their number one issue.
As for abortion, the next pres could be picking three new Supremes, so pro-lifers also have a lot riding in 08. They have to rely on someone who will put people in the courts favorable to their position, and if they don’t buy that a candidate will put pro-life judges in, they’re gonna stay home…
Look, you can usually get away with deviating from ONE major GOP(I mean real GOP, not RINO elite) plank, but once you deviate or look like you’d deviate from two or more, as Rudy and Mitt both look weak on both these issues, you’re asking for trouble and a big internal revolt. Might suck, but its the truth, and you or I are never going to change that.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:43 PM
A 10 second clip completely lacks context, if you think what LCR is doing is OK then you need to support Media Matter for their doing the exact same thing to Rush and O’Reilly. If you didn’t support Media Matter but do support LCR for doing this there is a word in the dictionary to describe you…It hypocrite…
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 1:46 PM
To clarify, if you don’t give these groups something to fight for, they won’t, and you’ll lose, even if you can offer them status quo over major steps back, that’s something, and they show up, but if you offer them steps backward, they’ll bail.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:48 PM
He’s not talking about the 10 second clips, and neither am I. We’re saying if Mitt’s been taken out of context, his campaign or he himself needs to dredge up the rest of the video from those 10 second clips to bring up the necessary info to show that he was taken out of context. I don’t have access to that and neither does he, but I imagine Mitt’s campaign would be able to get it.
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 1:51 PM
It is not in the interest of families with children to have a segment of the population who want to subvert marriage, because they are excluded from marriage. For instance, the excessive sexuality and violence in “entertainment” results in part from attitude that attacking traditional families is really, truly cool. For this reason, it’s important to co-opt the gays into marriage–whether they want it or not.
If you look at the gay groups that oppose gay marriage, you’ll really understand why we don’t those people speaking for all gay people.
thuja on October 4, 2007 at 1:54 PM
I never said I support LCR….and I certainly don’t agree with Media Matters. Much less, Mitt Romney.
I don’t see equating Media Matters and what they did to Rush and Bill O, with LCR and this ad against Mitt. If you can show somewhere that Mitt thinks otherwise to his comments shown, be my guest.
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Now _that’s_ Machiavellian ;-)
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Youtube link to debate footage found in ad
Discuss!
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Let me see if I understand this. Log Cabin Republicans don’t support Romney because of his shifting position on Roe V. Wade?
Yeah, I’m sure abortion is a really important issue to gay men since it impacts their lives so directly and so poignantly. How many times have they had to take their boyfriend in for an abortion? Gosh, if only Mitt had let them get married this situation would never have happened!
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I don’t care if they call themselves republicans. They can never be truly conservative if they identify themselves by what they do with their genitals.
The actions of the candidates in the past, not campaign words, will let me know whom I should trust.
peacenprosperity on October 4, 2007 at 2:04 PM
I can’t let this one go…
Being against abortion is a human rights issue. Gay men are human. What’s so strange about it?
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Not even if it’s a fiscally responsible buggering?
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 2:14 PM
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM
It’s strange because if they really care about Human Rights they will be following Romney’s current stance on the issue, and his stance on Stem Cell research and other Brave New World concepts, and not going back to the days of his campaign against Ted Kennedy.
Romney is a great advocate for conservative values, and to try to destroy him because of a tantrum over Gay Marriage does not tend to bolster your argument that gay men really care about abortion, particularly since if you eliminate Romney, you’re left with___________?
a. McCain who can’t win
b. Thompson who probably can’t win
c. Rudy who is way to the Left of Romney on abortion.
d. Hillary
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM
I dont have to, I’m not on Mitt’s campaign staff nor one of his supporters. But if you cant see the similarities of tacking a 10 second clip from a speech from Rush or O’Reilly and a ten second clip from Mitt while leaving out the context of those speeches I dont know what to tell you.
It was intellectually dishonest when Media Matters did it and its Intellectually dishonest when LCR does it. If we cannot condemn LCR for this level of intellectual dishonesty then we have no moral or ethical right to indignation when Media Matters does it.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM
DG,
Mitt said it, and I provided a link with all the context you need. It was a debate with Teddy Kennedy in October 1994, in which he was asked point blank by a questioner if he supported Roe Versus Wade.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Mitt not my first choice(yet) but have to admit that I now regard him as a sleeper. He just quietly keeps coming and I am starting to admire him for that. Wonder if he’ll fool everyone in the end and walk away with the whole thing? He’s seems to be a compromise candidate–maybe he’s the guy that can appeal to moderate Dems and Reps? on more fronts than Hill, Rudy or Fred?
jeanie on October 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Mitt looks like a Presdent, talks like a President and if he gets to run against Hillary will be President. After all, who do you vote for, a Stalinist or a Republican?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Are you intentionally being this obtuse? This isnt about what Mitt did or did not say. It is about the tactics used by LCR. Using a 10 second clip without context is detestable, its politics ala Clinton. Yes it is up to Mitt to clarify what he said, or let it stand. But that is entirely besides the point.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM
JetBoy must really be making a jackazz of himself if I find myself agreeing with doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM and earlier.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 2:33 PM
While I agree with you, I have to point out that the criticism of people letting “sexuality rule their lives” ONLY comes up in the context of gay people. Rack your brain and try to think of a time when a straight person was accused of letting “sexuality rule their life” and there was no gay context.
Loundry on October 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Here’s the difference: Kerry (like Hillary) flip-flopped from one day to the next in one campaign.
It is perfectly normal to become more conservative as one matures and gains wisdom and knowledge. From a personal standpoint, I was a Democrat until 1994. Does that mean that I am somehow unqualified to espouse Conservative/Republican values and ideas and have to live with my past mistakes, like voting for that trash, Billy Jeff, the first time around?
I believe in redemption :)
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
No worries… I cant imagine it will be too much longer before I put my foot somewhere it shouldn’t go and you can safely return to ridiculing and despising me… :p
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Using a 10 second clip without context is detestable,
The clip was used in context, which is what I thought the issue was. Mitt said what he said, clear as a bell, when asked a direct question about the topic of Roe Versus Wade and his apparently anti Ronaldus Maximus stance.
The concern here should be “is Mitt sincere or does he say whatever he can to get elected?” It shouldn’t be “OMG! POLITICAL SMEAR AD? Why, I never!”
I’m sure you were up in arms about the Kerry ads showing him to be a Flip Flopper by using 10 second clips. Stuff and nonsense. It’s politics, and at this level pretty much the entire game.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM
That’s a very demeaning thing to write, but it really cuts to the heart of the matter: to many conservatives, the love that two gay men have for each other cannot possibly be as serious or real as the love between a man and a woman.
Furthermore, it seems you think that gay people are so trivially stupid that they could only understand abortion in terms of birth control after casual sex.
Loundry on October 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
No I don’t think you have, and yes I was appalled. I do not now, now have I ever subscribed to the politics of personal destruction. I think that anyone who does is despicable.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM
If you’re gonna let some dude stick his pee pee in your poo pot he’d better love ya a whole bunch
And buy dinner
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM
LOL.
Thanks!
thuja on October 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
It is perfectly normal to become more conservative as one matures and gains wisdom and knowledge. From a personal standpoint, I was a Democrat until 1994. Does that mean that I am somehow unqualified to espouse Conservative/Republican values and ideas and have to live with my past mistakes, like voting for that trash, Billy Jeff, the first time around?
I believe in redemption :)
Buy Danish
Of course it’s fine to change stances as one matures and learns more. The problem is that Romney has been rewriting his past. The other problem is that I don’t think he’s been able to mount a successful response to the charges of being a flip-flopper.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
When the subject of gays comes up, there are always some conservatives who simply can’t resist delving into lush detail about the mechanics of gay sex.
Loundry on October 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
OK, JetBoy the “jackazz” is back….Name-calling, the prefered weapon of the Left. :-P
So in order for me (I’m gay btw) to “care about human rights” is if I support Mitt Romney? And as for Romney’s “current stance”, dang…he flip-flops like Hillary and Kerry. You sound like you work for Mitt’s campaign. I’m not being anti-Mitt…I’m just defending the LCR ad for what it is.
So please….try to stop telling people how they should think. Try to convince ‘em to vote Romney, that’s fine. But he’s far from the presumptive nominee right now. Don’t count Fred and Rudy out…
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Mitt tried to run away from being a conservative when running against Kennedy, he denied being a Reagan conservative, and now he is a “born again” conservative. Nobody (including him probably) knows what Mitt stands for. He panders to whatever crowd he thinks is listening (is he with the NRA today?), that is why he was such a “good” consultant, and why he would be such a disaster as a President.
We need a leader, not a panderer.
A philanderer or a panderer…either way someone gets screwed.
right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
First Amendment protection of religion? That ship sailed a long time ago.
Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, 1862
Poland Act, 1874
Reynolds v. United States, 1878
Edmunds Act, 1882
Edmunds–Tucker Act, 1887
The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States, 1890
There’s a certain irony in a Mormon wanting to use the federal government to define traditional marriage to restrict gays from marrying.
For Republicans, it’s business as usual for 150 years.
Sebastian on October 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I work as a packer in a fudge factory…I’m qualified to comment on such things.
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Nor is there any shortage of individuals to express their outrage shock and dismay at what has throughout all recorded human history been the most predominate reaction to homosexuality.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Sorry….I just don’t see the connection. LCR has done nothing “intellectually dishonest” shen they show Mitt clearly stating his views. Albeit from a few years back.
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Good examples…although I have to say that simply because unconstitutional laws/acts/judgements have been allowed to pass unchallenged, we should not consider them as de facto constitutional amendments/nullifications. We should highlight the mistakes of the past (overturn them where possible) and use them as a platform to ensure no further violations occur.
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM
No I don’t think you have, and yes I was appalled. I do not now, now have I ever subscribed to the politics of personal destruction. I think that anyone who does is despicable.
doriangrey
There must be a really short list of politicians you admire. Did you despise it enough in 2000 and 2004 to sit those elections out?
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM
And that is where the dishonesty comes in. They are very well aware that the context in this situation is one of historical placement. As I have said many times now I am no Romney supporter, my only dog in this fight is that I believe as conservative republicans LCR needs to employ tactics that are not taken from the Clinton book on dirty political tricks.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Yes that list is very short, Goldwater, Reagan, Madison, Adams, Washington. And no I have never cut my nose off just to spite my face. The notion of sitting an election out in protest is the absolute zenith of STUPIDITY.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
You want to repeal the anti-Polygamy laws?
Sebastian on October 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Of course I do.
I will mail a fresh turd to the first person to retort “I suppose bestiality is OK too?”
Ochlan on October 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
DG,
The notion of sitting an election out in protest is the absolute zenith of STUPIDITY.
Yes it is. The problem is that you (general you, not the actual you) end up voting for the least repulsive candidate. Rarely is there a guy that comes along that says what he means and means what he says.
The thing going on with the LCR taking Mitt to the woodshed is that they are Republicans. Just imagine what could be done by the Clintonistas in a federal election using similar footage.
I look at all elections as a strategic exercise. Based on what I’ve seen with regards to this, Mitt is done as a viable nominee.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
I take it a bit personally, as you might imagine, notably because your disgust is grounded in pure bullshit. But it’s so much easier for you when you’re on the giving end of that abuse rather than the receiving end, right?
Loundry on October 4, 2007 at 3:24 PM
The clip was in context 20 years ago! Ronaldus Maxiumus was also pro-choice when he began his political career.
Loundry on October 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I have explained some reasons why it is disingenuous for the LCRs to use statements Mitt made 20 years ago about abortion here – Danish on October 4, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I’m not disputing Mitt’s viability as a candidate, just the tactics used to bring that point home. I don’t believe using such tactics on the Clinton’s would be a good idea, because I find those tactics objectionable.
Besides there is such a staggering wealth of scandal hiding in the Clinton closet that all the republican party needs do is bring it out in all of its glorious context and Hillary is in a world of hurt.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM
That’s just it…what exactly do you see as the context here? That somehow LCR is twisting or distorting Mitt’s words…using them out-of-context? If you missed:
…check out the entire context of his link there to the YouTube vid of the debate in question. The LCR ad is nothing similar to what Media Matters did, which was to make it appear Rush said something he really did not say. That was dishonest….the LCR ad is not.
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 3:32 PM
My my, it doesn’t take you long to flip flop does it? I thought this was about LCR’s being for Human Rights and therefore opposing abortion!
But thanks for proving my point that it’s a tantrum and payback over gay marriage, which, by the way, even the Dem candidates don’t support.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 3:33 PM
JetBoy,
Dude, I’m on your side with this one. Probably a bunch of other ones as well. The Youtube link shows that it was contextual.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
A constitutional amendment that could work might read “Congress shall make no law requiring recognition of any marital union other than between one man and one woman.” Or something like that. That would leave states free to allow for any sort of union they’d like but not require a state whose population sees things differently to recognize a union other than between one man and one woman.
I think this would work, but saying so doesn’t mean I support it. I think government should stay out of solemnizing unions. That states began doing so came from two things: inheritance concerns; and state religion. The first can be handled by our more than adequately staffed legal profession through contractual agreements and wills. The second… well… there really shouldn’t be a state religion; but a religious marriage could just easily be solemnized by the religion of one’s choice without interference or oversight by the state as it can with such. Insurance is a tertiary concern which can be handled by these private (insurance) companies getting over their greed and allow people to designate at will a partner. But, that, of course, should be controlled by market forces.
Jens on October 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Yes it is exactly the same thing, the LCR ad is missing 15 years of context.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Why is it especially ironic that a Mormon 120 years later (or more depending on perspective) might think about marriage differently than his patriarchs and matriarchs? Most protestants also think about marriage differently than their patriarchs and matriarchs did (e.g. Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah).
Jens on October 4, 2007 at 3:46 PM
What’s wrong with you? When did I ever flip-flop? I’m not for or against gay marriage…although I don’t see how half of straight marriages ending in divorce is somehow “sanctified”…or how gay marriage somehow destroys the “institution of marriage”…what institution?
For what it’s worth, I’m gay…pro-life…and Republican, conservative in my values. I don’t like Mitt, and I didn’t before I ever saw that ad. I like Fred, but Rudy will, IMHO, get the GOP nod, and if so I’ll support him. If Mitt should get the nod, I’ll support him too, over Hillary or whoever it’ll be.
Like I said….campaign for Romney all you want. He’s not the GOP candidate yet….far from it. Look at the polls!
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 3:47 PM
DG,
15 years of context? More like a couple, because as far as I know, he didn’t change his stance when he was the head cheese of Massachusetts.
Krydor on October 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Excellent point and one we both can agree on. I really see no need to employ Clintonista dirty tricks on him though.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
You are being intellectually dishonest, if you do not see this advertisement as anything other than a smear attack.
It does not date the comments when they were initially said. You are quite aware they are not of recent vintage. As to Rommney being a flip flop…please illustrate when he has changed his mind on conservative values he now endorses.
Changing ones mind from one position to another is not flip fflop. Constantly moving between them would be. Please provide the example of him constantly moving between them. I am not aware of such.
MarkB on October 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
And that is the whole point here. Context. Using a 15 year old speech to paint a picture of positions a candidate might hold today without recent historical context is intellectually dishonest.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:52 PM
No, but they will be swayed by Mitt’s own words with happen to be quite evident in that add.
Once again, we see supposed conservatives simply ignoring anything their guy says and stubbornly supporting them, instead of admitting that they might have been mislead.
Embarrassing.
Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 3:52 PM
One has to wonder why these people believe this guy won’t suddenly “change his positions” once again, the day after the election.
Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 4:01 PM
One more time:
JetBoy,
You ask what’s wrong with ME? Is it a human rights issue as you suggested or not? Is abortion why the LCR oppose Mitt or not, or is this just a phony issue aimed to destroy him because of his stance on gay marriage?
If abortion is the issue, how can they support Rudy?
Try to stay focused!
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Well said, and yes, it is a smear ad. I love the way JetBoy tries to pretend it is a principled stance on abortion and human rights.
See above^^^. He is more conservative now, not saying one thing on Monday and something else on Tuesday.
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Where are we seeing that or are you just having a bad reading comprehension day?
I don’t see that as an invalid question and it is one Mitt is going to have to answer.
doriangrey on October 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM
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, right? Geez! Hypocrisy.
Errr … possibly because he’s RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT as a conservative? You think?
When he’s running in a liberal district, he’s a liberal.
When he’s running in a conservative district, he’s suddenly conservative.
Like magic.
Face it. He’s a fraud.
Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Look up:
Gregor on October 4, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Gregor,
Perhaps how he leads his life is a really big clue?
Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Danish, read the following veeery slowly: I am not pro-gay marriage, and Rudy is not my first choice.
And pro or anti-gay marriage is but one issue. I don’t vote for anyone based on one issue. I vote on the entire package. So far as I know, Fred’s against gay marriage…but he’s my number one guy right now.
Again, you seem to be mad mostly because this LCR ad paints your man Mitt in a bad light. And you’re grabbing at every excuse in the book to bash anyone who doesn’t have Mitt as their first choice anyway.
JetBoy on October 4, 2007 at 4:26 PM
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
JetBoy,
I don’t care about what you are or what you believe. I am very specifically referring to the fact that the LCR chose to make Mitt’s position on abortion an issue.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »