Video: Mitt’s anti-jihadist ad

posted at 10:46 am on October 12, 2007 by Allahpundit

I’m guessing this is partly damage control for his remark at the debate about bringing in the lawyers to help figure out how to deal with Iran. It’ll serve him well with the base but I wonder how this rhetoric plays among independents. Same problem as in the last thread: Bush cried wolf about Saddam’s WMDs and now every invocation of a dire threat by a Republican is seen through that prism, whether they’re right or not.

I’m glad they didn’t opt for the ominous music/dark images cartoon treatment for the subject matter, but the setting here is a little odd, isn’t it? “Come, let me show you my backyard — and tell you about this century’s nightmare.”

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

yawn?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on October 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM

I know he is a good guy buy he seems a little too edwardsy.
Ya know in the fixin’ his hair kinda way.

TheSitRep on October 12, 2007 at 10:54 AM

I told you guys these candidates were going start to try and break away. With the obvious collapse of Fred’s campaign looming within 60 days or so, Rudy and Mitt have to make their moves.

This is a great ad. A perfect example of laying out the threat. Not too soft and not over the top. He presented a course of action and made it quite clear that Iran will not get nuclear weapons.

Unless Rudy can get evangelicals to believe he is head and shoulders better than Mitt on the subject of security, you just saw the next president of the United States of America.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM

The drums at the end are kind of cheesy.

But it’s a good message – he at least uses the words “violent radical Islamic fundamentalism.” That’s a start.

Slublog on October 12, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Here we go again. Increase our military by 100K. How?
Mitt after the last debate I have crossed you off my short list. Sorry and I really thought you had promise.

Guess it’s over
Call it a day
Sorry that it had to end this way
No reason to pretend
We knew it had to end
Some day
This way
Guess it’s over
The kicks are gone
Whats the use of trying to hang on
Somewhere we lost the key
So little left for you and me
And it’s clear to see
Too much too little too late to lie again with you
Too much too little too late to try again with you
We’re in the middle of ending something that we knew
Was over
Too much too little too late to ever try again
Too much too little too late lets end it being friends
Too much too little too late we knew it had to end
And it’s over
Yes it’s over

LakeRuins on October 12, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I like the picture of Mitt “strengthening our intelligence services.” It really lends a lot of credibility to this ad.

Big S on October 12, 2007 at 11:06 AM

He’s willing to utter the word “caliphate”. That’s a plus in my book. I don’t know if it will help him get elected, but hopefully it will help to focus the discussion on the political goals of jihadists and their ideology. Just calling it terrorism and talking about fighting terrorism isn’t enough.

forest on October 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM

I don’t know, you guys…This is getting kind of interesting now. The Christian right is not going to support Romney. Can their vote make/break him? I like him and think he is the most “presidential” (depite some of his loony left baggage), but can he win? Should he win?

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Have you recently checked poll numbers and donations? Mitt managed to raise just $500,000 in the last three months. While Giuliani has the support of 29% of likely primary voters, Romney just reached 15%. Fred’s moved up a point to 18%.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 11:22 AM

I’m guessing this is partly damage control for his remark at the debate about bringing in the lawyers to help figure out how to deal with Iran.

I thought that question was about an consulting Congress before military action, although the hypothetical was Iran. His answer, from a legal perspective, was perfectly correct. There are a myriad of nuances to figure out if the President wants to take military action. There is well settled Supreme Court precedent that dictates what a President can and cannot do without the consent of Congress. Legal advice in a decision of this magnitude is not only the right way to go, but the best way to protect yourself, if your the President, from armchair quarterbacks in the Congress and around the country.

Troy Rasmussen on October 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Yeah, but Giuliani and Fred can’t win.
Or can they?

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Increase our military by 100K. How?
LakeRuins on October 12, 2007 at 11:02 AM

There are lots of ways to do it. The Navy and the Air Force are drawing down. They have been for a while.

You can loosen the standards.

Increase incentives to re-up.

The president can ask for enlistments for the good of the country.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM

God (or Smith if you’re Mormon) bless him he is trying his best. A little Reagan, a little JFK…a walk in his backyard, a few pics of him signing documents in a suite, his sincerity but still be casual. He is trying soooo hard, and we cringe…like a bad actor trying to say his lines, it just doesn’t work. Maybe in a few years he will grow up and be his own person, then we can judge him for who he is, not who he wants to be.
We’re pullin for you Mitt…keep a tryin.

right2bright on October 12, 2007 at 11:31 AM

I have to admit, this is a very effective ad. As AP said, don’t know how this will play with indies but this ad does show a certain level of awareness about the problem we are facing. That may seem like a low bar (how could you possibly not know the problem) but many others are unwilling to point it out. He also, having properly named the threat, then listed specific ways to combat it; ways that are currently under fire from those on the Left and in the MSM. That tells me that if he is willing to support what is controversial in a campaign, then he is more likely to support it once the campaign is over. It goes further than the standard political ad line of “I will strengthen our national defense.” Never have been a Mitt fan, but the clarity of this ad is refreshing. Kicking Iran at the end was nice too.

Weight of Glory on October 12, 2007 at 11:32 AM

The Christian right is not going to support Romney.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM

When push comes to shove, the Christian right will reject Rudy and support Mitt, IF Mitt can convince them he will be as tough on terror as Rudy is. People want to vote for a social conservative.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 10:59 AM

If anyones campain is over in about 60 days it will probably be Mitt’s. I hope I am wrong, cause I like Mitt but failing to see the obvious is stating to make me worry about you cs.

conservnut on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM

So why can’t he raise more than half a million, and continues to poll lower than Rudy and Fred, and much, much lower than Clinton?

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

The Christian right is not going to support Romney
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 12, 2007 at 11:21 AM

I don’t know. Something to chew on: I’m part of said Christian Right, and I would honestly have an easier time voting for Romney than Rudy. You can thank St Augustine for that. Granted, he’s not my first choice, but…

Weight of Glory on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

You know CS – I have a son in the Navy. He is a real smart guy. How about we don’t cut him. Has it ever occured to you that we stop cutting the smart guys from the side of the increasingly steep pyramid?

Babs on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

obvious is stating starting to make

Sorry, still asleep.

conservnut on October 12, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Have you recently checked poll numbers and donations? Mitt managed to raise just $500,000 in the last three months. While Giuliani has the support of 29% of likely primary voters, Romney just reached 15%. Fred’s moved up a point to 18%.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 11:22 AM

National numbers are meaningless. Mitt leads in Iowa and NH and several other states.

Money isn’t a problem. Mitt has 1/4 of a billion dollars to spend if he felt like it.

The more people know about Mitt, they more they like him. His problem is stuff like this. He wasn’t being tough on terror or a big advocate of the military. I think we’ll see that change very soon.

BUT, my main point is that all things being equal in the terror area, Mitt will swing the Christian right and moderates in general.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Fred needs an ad like this with Spence Abrahams alongside.

JiangxiDad on October 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM

He wasn’t being tough on terror or a big advocate of the military

Why?

JiangxiDad on October 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM

O/T

We need to offer prayers for Ted Kennedy and family. He is in surgery for a partially blocked in his neck. He is expected to recover fully.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Mitt will swing the Christian right and moderates in general.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Well, he better start swinging.

conservnut on October 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM

I’m waiting for the candidate who is brave enough to make an ad showing him water-boarding a terrorist for info, while saying, “I’ll do it myself if I have to!”

Weight of Glory on October 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM

but the best way to protect yourself, if your the President, from armchair quarterbacks in the Congress and around the country.

Troy Rasmussen on October 12, 2007 at 11:24 AM

This was a case of being over prepared. In a month or so, when the emotions subside, cooler heads will see the wisdom in his remarks.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:42 AM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Right. New Hampshire. The state than nominated John McCain in 2000 and Pat Buchanan in 1996. Iowa which nominated Bush over Reagan.

Money isn’t a problem. Mitt has 1/4 of a billion dollars to spend if he felt like it.

Steve Forbes has billions and lost. So did Ross Perot.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 11:42 AM

I like the ad.

Spirit of 1776 on October 12, 2007 at 11:43 AM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM

The two best people I know have ever known are Christians.

That comment was an example of why they are the best. My hat is off to you, sincerely.

JiangxiDad on October 12, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Bush cried wolf about Saddam’s WMDs

You mean, due to a dishonest media, it is perceived that he “cried wolf”, right? (Honestly asking whether you believe that “Bush cried wolf” here)

RightWinged on October 12, 2007 at 11:53 AM

btw, I saw this Log Cabin Republicans / Mitt ad running on Fox News earlier this morning… I’m not even 100% sure whether they’re attacking or supporting him.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4

RightWinged on October 12, 2007 at 11:54 AM

So why can’t he raise more than half a million, and continues to poll lower than Rudy and Fred, and much, much lower than Clinton?
amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

The cash on hand numbers are not the same as money raised numbers. That is why they always give the two numbers. Mitt raised $10 million last quarter.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM

It’s a start. Expose the terrorist-enabling Dems, Mitt, and I’ll back you. Enough New Tonism with the Fifth Column. We grassrooters want to hear that you’ll deal with the treasonous among us the way W has sadly refused to do. Go for it – you’ll be amazed at the resounding response waiting to be unleashed.

Halley on October 12, 2007 at 11:57 AM

conservnut on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

You can claim it’s obvious, but do you have anything except your partisanship to back it up? Fred’s numbers drop the more people know him, Mitt’s increase the more exposure he has. He leads in Iowa, NH, and several other states. That isn’t a guarantee, but it is not an indication that he will fail.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:00 PM

You know CS – I have a son in the Navy.
Babs on October 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM

You lost me there.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:02 PM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM

He has a total of $10 million, but only $500,000 of that actually came from people other than his own checkbook. Hence, he only has enough support to raise half a million dollars. Which brings me back to my point about Forbes and Perot. They were both billionaires. They probably had billions of dollars to spend on the election. Problem? Not enough actual votes behind that. Mitt’s only raised $500,000 from the people and only polls at 15% nationally.

The millions Rudy, Fred and others have raised, have mostly come from actual voters who support them not only financially, but will at the polls.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Why?

JiangxiDad on October 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Why was he not being tough? I don’t know. I can only guess he felt his social conservative bona fides had to be repaired first. He didn’t have a flip flop on the war on terror to fix.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:05 PM

conservnut on October 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM

When you have 150 Christians rejecting every candidate by name except Mitt, the pitch is on the way.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:06 PM

CS, no response yet on the fundraising (or lack thereof) of Mitt? His poll numbers representing half of the support nationally that Rudy has? The fact that both Iowa and NH have nominated candidates in recent history that didn’t get the nomination?

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:11 PM

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Those are different campaigns. The point is that there is way more pointing to success than to failure. And with Rudy being the only other viable candidate right now, Rudy is the competition. In order for Rudy to beat Mitt, he has to be seen as more competent to wage the war on terror. If Mitt can been seen just as competent, then Mitt wins hands down because Rudy is a social liberal.

Comparing Steve Forbes and Ross Perot to a guy who was a successful governor, businessman, and saved the Olympics is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:03 PM

You are wrong. The money raised during the quarter does not show up as cash on hand the minute it is pledged. It cannot be counted as cash on hand until it is in the bank. Mitt had $10 million pledged in the third quarter. Rudy had $11 million pledged.
Look, you need to get educated on this because I am not going to sit here and argue with you about it. Call your favorite candidate and ask them how they get the numbers.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:18 PM

RightWinged on October 12, 2007 at 11:54 AM

hahaha

It’s an ad designed to look like it’s Mitt’s ad, but it is really an attack by the LCR.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Halley on October 12, 2007 at 11:57 AM

I would love to see that!!!

jdawg on October 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:12 PM

The point is that there is way more pointing to success than to failure….

Yes, if we remove the lack of support in the polls and the measly fundraising, he’s doing great.

Ross Perot and Steve Forbes are both businessmen who oftne polled better at their time than Mitt polls today.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM

hahaha

It’s an ad designed to look like it’s Mitt’s ad, but it is really an attack by the LCR.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Hmmm… if so, who are they supporting?

RightWinged on October 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM

All I want is a candidate who will fight Islamic world domination, support the right to life, 2nd Amendment, less government, less taxation, elimination of the nanny state and support a marriage amendment. Gosh, I’m easy to live with, aren’t I?

MNDavenotPC on October 12, 2007 at 12:31 PM

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Get educated about fund raising numbers.

And again, national polls mean nothing. We don’t have a national election, we have 50 statewide elections. Why is it that you people put so much focus on national numbers? Oh yeah, I remember. It’s because your candidate isn’t polling the best in state polls. Oh, never mind, I am totally wrong. I know why you want to use those numbers! Because Hillary is leading in the national polls and you want her to win. Silly me!

Perot and Forbes never ran a state. Perot was nuts, and Forbes was one dimensional.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I’m sorry, but who mentioned “cash on hand” before you did? I said raised “in the last 3 months”, not total cash on hand. If I got my numbers wrong (yours still put him behind the candidate you think he’ll beat), I’m sorry. But I didn’t say cash on hand. I said “in the last 3 months”.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM

RightWinged on October 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM

I do not know.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM

And again, national polls mean nothing. We don’t have a national election, we have 50 statewide elections.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM

And please, do tell me who won the Iowa primary in 1980. NH’s in 2000 (the last time there was an opposing Republican candidate)? Or NH’s primary before that in 1996? Please compare with who won those races nationwide.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM

GOOD GRAVY!!!

I know exactly how you got your numbers. Mitt has $9 million cash on hand and that includes an $8.5 million loan from himself. That leaves $500,000. All that means is that he was spending every dime he had in the bank and loaned himself 8.5 million.

He still raised $10 million on top of that.

Look dude, this is it. I’ve never seen you act this irrational and I’m not amused. I’m gonna give you a while to get up to speed on this and until you do, don’t bother responding. Call Hillary’s campaign and ask them how she counts her numbers.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:39 PM

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Sorry, you have worn out my patience trying to educate you. Call Hillary and ask her which numbers mean more.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:42 PM

I do not know.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Their website does not say who they support but it was definitely a hit piece on Mitt.

Talon on October 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I’m guessing this is partly damage control for his remark at the debate about bringing in the lawyers to help figure out how to deal with Iran.

Or maybe good ol’ csdeven is a little closer to the Romney campaign than he admits. Didn’t I ask cs the night before last for quotes or links from Romney on the Islam issue?

I question the timing…. ;)

Connie on October 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:39 PM

No, actually I didn’t misinterpret them. I read an early MSM report with little data (surprise!), and proceeded to the blogosphere where the early reports there must’ve. And, by the way, I apologized for that in the comment above. I got my numbers wrong. However, A) I didn’t say “cash on hand”, and B) NH and Iowa (where Mitt leads) have nominated candidates that haven’t even gotten the nationwide nom. in recent history, much less the Presidency.

And how ironic that the commentator who has his own countdown whenever a Fred post goes up should call me irrational.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Talon on October 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM

I tend to dismiss them because even though the sound bites were completely accurate, they lacked the context of his work in MA and his conversion to pro-life as a candidate. That is standard fare for campaigns, but it’s usually red on blue and not red on red.

Really, who can they support? That ad would indict Rudy and Fred also. So they must be looking at a lower tier candidate. I think their wasting their money, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:47 PM

This ad is great.

We need leaders who understand the objective of our enemies and who can articulate the problem to the people. Bush is a failure at this.

If anything we need more of these ads.

VinceP1974 on October 12, 2007 at 12:53 PM

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Agreed.

Talon on October 12, 2007 at 12:58 PM

And how ironic that the commentator who has his own countdown whenever a Fred post goes up should call me irrational.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM

That countdown is a poor reflection on those who post it. They refuse to stay on topic because they cannot defend the guy.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM

I think that the “Cash on hand” bit is a little deceiving. Romney may only have 500,000 more cash on hand than he did before from donors (not himself), but he raised a ton of money. The difference? He spent a ton of money–i.e. used the funds contributed to him to, you know, actually run a campaign.

If I ran and got 5 million in contributions and never spent a dime, I’d have plenty cash on hand too. Doesn’t mean I’m going to win. The point of fundraising is to, you know, raise funds to spend on the campaign. Not just bank them and point to the account size.

As for the ad, it’s fantastic. Need to see more of them!

Vanceone on October 12, 2007 at 1:00 PM

That countdown is a poor reflection on those who post it. They refuse to stay on topic because they cannot defend the guy.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Hey, dude, I agree. I’ve defended you in the past. I just don’t like being called irrational. I admitted that if my figures were wrong, I’m sorry, I read erroneous reports. However, I understand the difference between cash on hand and raised in the quarter. I also know that Iowa and NH have nominated candidates who haven’t even gotten the nomination in the past.

Romney is in my top 3 for my vote. I personally wish he was doing better.

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

amerpundit on October 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Ok, well I missed the apology.

Peace and cheers.

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I saw this Log Cabin Republicans / Mitt ad running on Fox News earlier this morning… I’m not even 100% sure whether they’re attacking or supporting him.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4

Ouch. That hurts him.

And his ad?

[...] to do that, they must collapse freedom-loving nations, like us [...]

He makes it sound like it is feasible for terrorist groups to do so. That’s a pathetic view of America.

[...] increase our military by at least 100,000 [...]

Empty rhetoric, unless he means he’s going to try to draft people. In which case, Canada is going to have a serious illegal immigration problem.

[...] and monitor the calls al-Qaeda makes into America [...]

This is another thing he should ask his lawyers about.

[...] and we can and will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons [...]

Unless negotiations don’t work. In which case he’ll look like an impotent bully.

So, to sum up: Bush + silly Islamic words + Abortion rights – 2nd Amendment = Romney = Boo.

Mark Jaquith on October 12, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Or maybe good ol’ csdeven is a little closer to the Romney campaign than he admits. Didn’t I ask cs the night before last for quotes or links from Romney on the Islam issue?

I question the timing…. ;)

csdeven is Romney!

aengus on October 12, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Empty rhetoric, unless he means he’s going to try to draft people. In which case, Canada is going to have a serious illegal immigration problem.

In a country of 300 mil, you really don’t think we can add 100k voluntarily via incentives, etc. I do not agree. Especially post-Bush.

Spirit of 1776 on October 12, 2007 at 2:30 PM

He makes it sound like it is feasible for terrorist groups to do so. That’s a pathetic view of America.

Empty rhetoric, unless he means he’s going to try to draft people. In which case, Canada is going to have a serious illegal immigration problem.

This is another thing he should ask his lawyers about.

Unless negotiations don’t work. In which case he’ll look like an impotent bully.

So, to sum up: Bush + silly Islamic words + Abortion rights – 2nd Amendment = Romney = Boo.

Mark Jaquith on October 12, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Not one of those points has one ounce of intellectual honesty as their base.

The point is that if we don’t fight them it is entirely feasible.

The Navy and the Air Force is in draw down right now. That means they do not try to retain and they are not relaxing their requirements.

Wire tapping is legal. He knows that.

Did he rule out military options? No. So how do you come to the conclusion that if negotiations fail he’ll look weak?

Jeeze! I wonder when I’m going to be able to ignore such shallow posts…..

csdeven on October 12, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Good ad. What’s not to like.

“…and monitor calls al-qaeda makes into America”. Didn’t some goofy federal judge just declare that to be illegal?

jaime on October 12, 2007 at 6:10 PM

To tell you the truth, this sounds like bad science fiction.

Jihad? Caliphate?

How the hell did these words, these things ever manage to insinuate themselves into the “normal” vocabulary of the West?

How did they ever get any power or traction in our world without being crushed like the verminous, maniacal scum that they are?

The most grotesque thing is… it’s all-too-true.

The banality of the evil, as matter-of-factly presented here, makes the underlying militant lunacy we face -from resurgent Islamic imperialism- that much more horrific.

It’s like your doctor calmly saying: you have an alien life form growing in your flesh.

Damn the fools in power in the West for ever allowing this menace to come this far and become this strong.

They should have destroyed it in its malignant infancy.

Now we have to have rote t.v. commercials speaking about “jihad” and the “Caliphate” as if they were hemmorhoids or erectile dysfunction.

(Not that they aren’t that, too.)

profitsbeard on October 12, 2007 at 11:03 PM