Video: Mitt runs the conspiracy theorist gauntlet

posted at 7:46 pm on October 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

Via SLC, questions about the Bilderberg group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and even, of course, 9/11. He handles them all with aplomb — but aplomb sucks. When are we going to see someone go off on these turds? Rudy wouldn’t do it, Fred wouldn’t do it, McCain wouldn’t do it, and now Mitt won’t do it. Newt’s the only one who even approached brusqueness. I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

Hey, I wonder which candidate they’re supporting in the Republican primary.


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

but aplomb sucks

According to who?

There you go again AP, stirring up the pot.

Seriously though, I agree, who is going to give these smelly hippies a beard yanking….

Mcguyver on October 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM

I like Mitt But… Yeah that was pretty wishy-washy.

:P

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on October 6, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Al Franken did pretty good.

SouthernDem on October 6, 2007 at 8:06 PM

He should have jumped down and slapped those dirtbags up along side the heads. Enough smiling and pandering to those morons . . . they’re not going to vote for any Republican so tell them to blow it out their ears or the orifice of their choice.

rplat on October 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM

I thought he handled it well enough. I don’t care if a candidate doesn’t go off on some truther as much as I care that he will flat out disagree with them and then reiterate his stance on the issue.

Guardian on October 6, 2007 at 8:12 PM

I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

Not gonna happen buddy. Not in those words anyway. These candidates are too scared to hang it out there. They’ll go up to and touch the line but will not cross it. I suppose it’s because they want to appear presidential and not get into a pissing contest with kooks.

csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 8:16 PM

I think he handled it pretty well. He doesn’t want to lend credibility to those imbeciles by devoting too much effort to his answer.

I guess a clear, ringing “You people are f*cking idiots”, or even an eye-rolling “F*ck off”, would have been a little more satisfying, but I’m OK with Romney’s response.

jaime on October 6, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Ya know…. I miss the Ole Cowboy Bush… the one we had right after 9/11… the one that had the whold dang world worried about what he would do… and so walked very softly for awhile…

Kinda like Reagen and the Iranians when he was first elected… give my hostages back or stand by for WAR… TOTAL WAR!… and it worked…

I’m tired of being reasonable… lets see some Righteous anger and some passion from our politicians..

Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 8:18 PM

No matter what these d-bags throw at them, I believe they should remain tactful as Mitt did. Flipping out at them just adds fuel to their fire.

Verbal Abuse on October 6, 2007 at 8:18 PM

How about this AP, lets have a discussion on just how the MSM will crucify the first republican candidate that does take on these crazies? They give the dem candidates a pass on tacitly accepting the premise of 9/11 being an inside job and I suspect that would find some way to marginalize any rep that excoriates these loons.

csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Danny Bonaduce for President!!!!

Kowboy on October 6, 2007 at 8:25 PM

who the hell is Willi Rodriquez?

ctmom on October 6, 2007 at 8:26 PM

Hey, I wonder which candidate they’re supporting in the Republican primary.

Guliani?

:-)

Good Lt on October 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Giuliani told the the ferret guy he was nuts. Romney should have done the same. I think he should worry more about the primaries than the general. He sure didn’t show leadership with that answer. I saw deflection, avoidance, and not the slightest hint that he disagreed with the premise of the question.

JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 8:32 PM

ah, (sheepishly) forgot to click on the Giuliani ferret link. But at least we know what Giuliani wants to say to a-holes. What does unfettered Mitt want to say? His base shouldn’t have to ask that question.

JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 8:35 PM

I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

I’ll do you one better: I pledge to vote for whichever candidate goes “Buzz Aldrin” on those douchebags.

;^ )

Spiny Norman on October 6, 2007 at 8:36 PM

“If Hillary gets in she will make you take a friggin bath before your mandatory rectal exam you stinking tool ”
THAT would cement my vote.
Nothing less

bbz123 on October 6, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Gantlet, not Gauntlet, no matter wot Clint Eastwood says.

BJ* on October 6, 2007 at 8:45 PM

I pledge to vote for whichever candidate goes “Buzz Aldrin” on those douchebags.
;^ )
Spiny Norman

I must have watched that clip more than two dozen times. Buzz for President!

deesine on October 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM

I’m also content with how Romney responded to the “9/11 Architects for Truth-er” guy. The “shrinking violet” screed applied to Romney in the video seems more to support the 9/11-Fearers’ mentality than it does common sense.

I’m not sure how Romney might have responded any differently that would satisfy some here, because had he gone off emotionally like the Fearer is planted in hopes that he would (or others will), it’s a win for the 9/11-Fearers.

Romney was clear that he disagrees and said as much; he even insisted as much.

The audience had more airtime at the event that Romney did.

Soros funds the 911fortruth.org or something close to that, a website org. (among other activism), who all support and campaign for Ron Paul, by the way. Not like they’re eager for a Republican Party win, for starters.

I’m content with Romney’s response here and like his direct responses to the other rambling conspiracy questions, too (that he’s not the fulfillment of the conspiracy-theorists’ expectations).

S on October 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM

There he goes again, looking and sounding presidential.

paulsur on October 6, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Oh man, I was just hoping those brave questioners would have said something about Skull & Bones so we could have seen… well, you know, bro!

http://www.publicspeecher.com/2007/09/19/videos-dont-tase-me-bro-andrew-meyer/

Even funnier, I was planning on posting this comment all the way through, and these losers have the audacity to put that audio clip (“Don’t tase me bro!”) at the end of the video, obviously unaware that it’s not their “I have a dream” moment, rather it’s one of their most embarrassing moments, and they’ll be mocked for it for all time. That clip is comedy world wide, yet they’re using it as if it’s going to be a rallying cry? Wow, these people are more delusional than I realized.

RightWinged on October 6, 2007 at 9:15 PM

I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

Sir Tancelot probably would–which is why he will get my vote in the primary unless there is a strategic reason why it should go elsewhere. Perhaps you should reconsider portraying him as a nut.

On the other hand, I suppose candidates–including Tancredo–tend to be nice to these morons so that their opponents won’t have some sound bit of them being mean to morons. When it did become a moral imperative not to be mean to morons?

thuja on October 6, 2007 at 9:19 PM

A little off track but still about Mitt: I got his flyer in the mail today and I just loved the fiscal reforms on it. The 2 I like best were”…..eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for anyone with adjusted gross incomes under $200,000…” and “…lower income taxes across the board…”. There were many things on there that I also liked, but these were my favorites. The signs have started to go up in front yards here in NH and Mitt is showing up more and more often. As a Giuliani supporter, I’m still not in Mitt’s camp, but I’m really looking at him now.

jeanie on October 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM

Cubs suck.

Jaibones on October 6, 2007 at 9:34 PM

What is it with white liberals and dreadlocks?

.

GT on October 6, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Where’s a taser when you need one?

SouthernGent on October 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM

I saw deflection, avoidance, and not the slightest hint that he disagreed with the premise of the question.

JiangxiDad on October 6, 2007 at 8:32 PM

1st off, what specifics was Mitt supposed to respond to from the first guy? His question was another meandering rant of random comments about agendas etc from a loon. What agendas specifically? He gave none and any savvy candidate only answers the questions and does not assume what the person means. He gave him a vague answer to a vague question. Notice how he answered specifically to the questions from the gal. He gave specific answers to specific questions.

Mitt did say he disagreed with the idea that the towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges. You can find it in the last 30 seconds of the video. He even explained that he has researched the issue and explained the reason for the insulation on the “I” beams. At that point he did the wise thing which is to walk away from insane people who aren’t interested in answers and only engage you in order to continue to spew their talking points. These truthers are nuts or ignorant fools and in either case, there is no reasoning with them. They’ve already decided and that is that. They are just like the Paulites and the Fred groupies.

csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 9:48 PM

Whoever is handing out spines these days would you give one to each and every Republican candidate.

Have some emotion will ya.

Mojave Mark on October 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM

AP,

Sometimes I have look up words in a dictionary to read on your postings and that is a good thing:)

terryannonline on October 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM

I suppose an incoherent question deserves an incoherent answer.

Seriously though, I don’t think it matters. That’s what being psychotic means: an angry denial encourages these lunatics exactly as much as gladhanding does. The only thing they deserve is to be ignored.

It looked like those questions all came from the same crowd. Who the Hell was Mitt speaking to anyway? It’s not always possible to prevent some homeless guy from accosting you on the street, but a candidate should try to weed the psychos out of his campaign rallys.

logis on October 6, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Mojave Mark on October 6, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Here is an opportunity for you to explain exactly what Mitt should have said to each of the three. Please be SPECIFIC.

csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

but a candidate should try to weed the psychos out of his campaign rallys.

logis on October 6, 2007 at 9:57 PM

You are mistaking Mitt’s approach with Hillary’s. SHE is the one who “handles” the crowds and questions she gets. Mitt’s appearances are part of his “Ask Mitt ANYTHING” approach to getting his message out. He does not “handle” the crowd. THAT takes balls.

csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 10:02 PM

I almost believe that these wackos are there,at Mitt’s
function to any way or shape discredit,or hijack his time.
It’s typical,classic libspeak,like calling a talk radio show.”I love the host and show,but”.
Every time these loons are talking to a Republican candidate,here it comes”As President,I’m sure you would
take seriously your oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States”.
DUH,So what the implication here,only lib’s will up hold the Constitution,so for both party’s isn’t it a given.
Republicans need to ignore these groups.

The Twin Towers,whats amazing to me is these nutcases
and the controlled demolition.
Don’t these people realize that the Twin Towers became
the worlds biggest jackhammers.All that weight and speed
hurtling to the ground,any structures near by,including
number three,you would think that the structual integrity
would be in question by the shear weight of both buildings
hitting the ground.

canopfor on October 6, 2007 at 10:11 PM

Civility doesn’t get you anywhere these days, it seems.

WasatchMan on October 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

WasatchMan on October 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Maybe just not in politics.

terryannonline on October 6, 2007 at 10:15 PM

First off, I think he handled the questions fine. But also, the video is heavily edited. We have no idea what he may or may not have said after these statements.

Two, if a candidate were a member of Bilderberg or CFR, would they admit it? How do we know that any of them aren’t other than their say so?

Sebastian on October 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM

No doubt we would have all preferred to hear Mitt (not that I support him) tell this bearded dimwit that the whole conspiracy thing is a pile of donkey feces. But you can’t expect a candidate running for office to tell an idiot that he’s an idiot. People would think he’s intolerant (sorry, but they do, even though sensible people know that an idiot’s an idiot).

The troofers will be around for the next four decades, at least, in my view. Get used to the wishy-washy shuffleboarding. Mitt was civil, which is all we should expect at this stage.

May G-d rescue us all from the preponderance of morons on this planet.

thejackal on October 6, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Ronald Reagan to heckler at convention: “Aww, shut up!”. Followed by thunderous applause and a partial standing ovation. What happened to those Republicans?

amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Here is an opportunity for you to explain exactly what Mitt should have said to each of the three. Please be SPECIFIC. csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

The first guy I would have started snoring into the mic while he asked his never ending question.
The second lady I would have said “Hey, you’re kinda cute. Would you like to be the laundry girl for my campaign staff?”
The third guy I would have asked him how long ago it was that he stopped taking his medication and whether or not the staff KNOWS that he’s off the hospital grounds… SECURITY!

Mojave Mark on October 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM

I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

But, but, but that’s not Presidential </pander>

But it would be sooooo satisfying.

steveegg on October 6, 2007 at 11:48 PM

These jackasses deserve to get the James Oddo treatment, but, sigh, it’s not going to happen. I’m waiting for Macaque to show up and push them to their limits, like he did to George Allen. This is how Dems win elections now and all our candidates have to be very careful as it’s only going to get dirtier.

Jeanie on October 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM

I am torn between Rudy and Mitt myself, probably leaning slightly towards Mitt. Maybe Rudy could be Attorney General? I’m just glad I don’t have to vote in the early primaries.

Keep up the reporting from New Hampshire!

Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 12:06 AM

I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

-

Welcome to the ranks of single issue voters. ;-)

Herikutsu on October 7, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Two, if a candidate were a member of Bilderberg or CFR, would they admit it? How do we know that any of them aren’t other than their say so?

Sebastian on October 6, 2007 at 10:34 PM

There is no way that their membership would not be in the public record. The Left loons are acting as if these are nefarious secret societies, which is ludicrous. I’d love to be a fly on the wall of some moonbats talking about these groups and eavesdropping on their wacky conspiracy theories. Ideally I’d have cartman at my side, armed with joints and a guitar.

Bilderberg.

AND

C.F.R.

Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Romney handled the morons with more dignity than they deserved.

Janitor “Willie” Rodriguez’s “bomb-from-below-just-before-the-plane-hit” story didn’t even lure him back to Jim Morrison’s unctuous Rasta-clone.

(Willie sounds, from skimming various sites online, like a nobody looking to make a name for himself by becoming a lamprey eel attached to the conspriacy theorists’ butts.)

The Great Brilliant Evil Conspiracy… that then forgot to plant the WMD’s in Iraq.

Riiiiiight.

profitsbeard on October 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM

I’m voting anybody but Hillary. It is a pretty simple idea, really. No matter which Republican wins the nomination, no matter if I do not agree with all they profess. It is infinitely better than what the Stalinist Hillary Rodham Clinton would do to this country. I truly believe she represents a danger to our way of life.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 7, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Mojave Mark on October 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Mitt isn’t running for the office of elementary school playground president.

csdeven on October 7, 2007 at 1:44 AM

Agree with AP.

The GOP loses authority and credibility when it adopts New Tone. New Tone = accepting enemy-enabling douchebags like the Truthers as moral equals. Enough already. Enough.

Halley on October 7, 2007 at 3:11 AM

I hereby pledge my vote to whichever candidate will kindly inform these douchebags that they are, in fact, douchebags.

Here’s a song for you, AP.

http://www.animatronics.org/strangers/strangers.htm

Texas Nick 77 on October 7, 2007 at 7:07 AM

I’m voting anybody but Hillary. It is a pretty simple idea, really. No matter which Republican wins the nomination, no matter if I do not agree with all they profess. It is infinitely better than what the Stalinist Hillary Rodham Clinton would do to this country. I truly believe she represents a danger to our way of life.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 7, 2007 at 1:15 AM

I’m not quite there. If the Republicans were to nominate Brownback (and obviously Paul), I’d vote for Hilary. With Brownback’s combination of Bush-like theocracy plus Bush-like softness on immigration, I’d rather take my chances with Hilary’s self-claimed moderation.

thuja on October 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

I’m not sure how Romney might have responded any differently that would satisfy some here, because had he gone off emotionally like the Fearer is planted in hopes that he would (or others will), it’s a win for the 9/11-Fearers.

Well, personally, I’d like to hear him (or any other candidate) say something like, “You’re wrong about this, and your theories have been debunked time and time again. I’m not going to entertain any more questions from the likes of you, because you’re unserious and uninterested in actually learning anything.”

What is it with white liberals and dreadlocks?

They like to pretend that they’re Rastafarians so they can convince themselves that smoking pot is some kind of sacrament.

Farmer_Joe on October 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

To AP & Everyone:

Scumbags are guys, douchebags are gals.

Although it is a tough call with that thing with the deadlocks.

TwinkietheKid on October 7, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Yeah, the Council on Foreign Relations is at least as pro-American as the United Nations…. so why should there be any suspicion ?

sarc/ off

Maxx on October 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Ronald Reagan to heckler at convention: “Aww, shut up!”. Followed by thunderous applause and a partial standing ovation. What happened to those Republicans?

amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Heh

Guardian on October 7, 2007 at 1:22 PM