Video: Mitt makes a play for the porkbusters

posted at 11:21 am on October 24, 2007 by Allahpundit

His latest spot, coming soon to South Carolina where he’s suddenly very much in the hunt. This may signal a momentary retreat from the social con red meat on which he’s been gorging lately; as Mitt himself will happily tell you per his three-legged stool analogy, nominees cannot live by Christian conservatives alone. So here’s his appeal to the fiscal conservatives, exquisitely timed to coincide with news that drives home the point rather forcefully. Note the killer final line here about change. At whom might that be directed?

All that said, Mitt should fire his advance team. Just for this.


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

I feel like playing with my daughters barbie stuff right now.

tomas on October 24, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Heh. Are you implying that Gov. Romney has a plastic Ken doll quality about him?

Because Ken never spoke out against “the jihad,” I’d remind you.

Allahpundit on October 24, 2007 at 11:25 AM

That’s a good ad. And that picture is hilarious. Make that a Mitt screencap in the future.

BadgerHawk on October 24, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Nice ad. He’s credible and factual. I like the Mr. Fix it and Best Businessman in America quotes.

All that said, Mitt should fire his advance team. Just for this.

The caption from the link should be…..

“So, where do you want me to pack it?”
Posted by: DS Juice at October 23, 2007 03:00 PM

Bwahahahaha!!!

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:27 AM

if he keeps insisting on using that bizzarely beautiful garden background, well, i have an idea for a commercial when he starts campaigning in maryland…

AdrianG on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM

At whom might that be directed?

The dems, and Hillary specifically.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Alas, no.

Allahpundit on October 24, 2007 at 11:30 AM

The “change” card may be a little difficult for any Republican to play right now.

amerpundit on October 24, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Fudge packing pretty boy pretender!

sonnyspats1 on October 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM

The “change” card may be a little difficult for any Republican to play right now.

Goldberg makes a good case that it might be even harder for Hillary to play that card. I don’t know. Mitt’s strategy of separating himself from the excesses of the party seems pretty shrewd.

Slublog on October 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Not a bad ad, although can he win down here. Eh, we’ll see.

AP, can you post this picture below the ad for balance

Still laughing about it.

sunny on October 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Alas, no.
Allahpundit on October 24, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Ahhh. Bush.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:36 AM

oops you have the link up there already…my bad

sunny on October 24, 2007 at 11:37 AM

All bulls***. No politician, Republican and Democrat, will ever care to do anything that curbs pork barrel spending. Mitt, stop fooling us.

mram on October 24, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Slublog on October 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM

Slu, Goldberg makes a good case, but he has to remember that part of those approval ratings aren’t people getting tired of Democrats because of Democratic policies, so will vote for Republicans. Part of that low-approval is because Dems aren’t going after Bush enough and have failed in their fights against Republicans (S-CHIP, Iraq Timetable).

The other factor is the media. You and I both know how selective the media will be in reporting facts between Hillary and a Republican.

amerpundit on October 24, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Sundae is a good day to take the high road.

RushBaby on October 24, 2007 at 11:43 AM

All that said, Mitt should fire his advance team. Just for this.

AP, keep that pic handy for your post about a year from now comparing HillaryCare to MittCare.

Brat on October 24, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Fudge packing pretty boy pretender!
sonnyspats1 on October 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM

But he is practicing safe fudge packing.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM

At whom might that be directed?

I thought Hillary too.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I thought Hillary too.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Yeah, me too. He said “as republicans, change begins with us”. Could it be a valid point to argue that Bush isn’t a true republican? I think so to a certain extent.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Wt…h?

Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Wt…h?
Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Those dang mistake prone keyboards strike again!

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Why are there so many people hating on Mitt? Guiliani isn’t even conservative and Thompson could never handle himself against Hillary.

davenp35 on October 24, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Oh, Metrosexual Mitt; is there any group you won’t pander to?

He’s against pork and for small spending… yet he’s for ag subsidies (to pander to Iowa), in favor of corporate welfare (“investment”) for the auto industry (while pandering to Michigan) and in favor of federal bailouts for homeowners facing forclosure (also while pandering to Michigan). Education? More money! Medicare? More money!

I have a feeling that if Mitt were speaking in front of a group underwater basket weaver enthusiasts, he’d offer federal subsidies for “investment” in waterproof wicker.

Not only does Mitt lack a core principle from election to election, he can’t keep his principles straight from one minute to the next in a single election. Sorry, Ken Doll; don’t trust ya enough to buy a used car from you and sure as hell not enough to vote for you.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Why are there so many people hating on Mitt? Guiliani isn’t even conservative and Thompson could never handle himself against Hillary.

davenp35 on October 24, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Mitt isn’t conservative either- he just plays one on TV. Thompson handled himself against Rudy (and won the exchange) in the last debate; he’d take down Hillary too.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Yeah, me too. He said “as republicans, change begins with us”. Could it be a valid point to argue that Bush isn’t a true republican? I think so to a certain extent.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Yeah, maybe, but why do you want to backhand the sitting president for primary voters (ie the base)? His (Bush’s) 24% is from the base. I think it more inline with his (Mitt’s) last debate performance where he redirected criticism to Hillary. I could be wrong, but one seems a non sequitur to me and the other seems a continued thought.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Gee, imagine my shock to see Hollowpoint attacking Mitt. He’s even more reliable than csdeven on Fred–I’ve seen threads where csdeven hasn’t shown up.

I’d maybe listen to your concerns more, Hollowpoint, if you could articulate why Mitt deserves your self-righteous wrath more than Guiliani, McCain, or Thompson.

But since you cannot keep from making personal attacks against him, I have to wonder if you are just dressing up some good old-fashioned Anti-Mormonism bias against Mitt.

Because you NEVER, EVER, EVER have given Mitt any credit for anything he’s ever done. He did save the Olympics, he did a great job in Taxachuessetts, and frankly, while you might have some points with social con “flip-flops” Mitt has never had problems with cutting spending, just as he says in this ad.

But like I’ve said before, Mitt could have the ghosts of Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson all stand on TV and publicly tell you to vote for Mitt and you’d bash him for voodoo or something similar, and give five reasons why those ghosts don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

Good job on being so reflexively anti-Mitt! I can set my watch by your appearances!

Vanceone on October 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM

I don’t know that I’m buying Dick Morris’ claim that single women will vote in droves for Hillary. Surely some of those women are red-blooded heterosexuals who will get a crush on Mitt.

Hollowpoint,

ZZZZZZZZZZ. I can go back and nitpick Fred Thompson’s positions on things too, but I won’t be able to find anything about him running a business.

For you to pretend that Mitt would be a profligate spender is just asinine. Moreover, the fact is that he has conducted his life as a conservative and there is nothing you can prattle on about that will change that fact.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 1:15 PM

I agree. I’m just reacting to AP’s status as God on HA. Too cowardly to stand up to him I guess. ;-)

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:50 PM

I agree. I’m just reacting to AP’s status as God on HA. Too cowardly to stand up to him I guess. ;-)

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Lol. I think AP’s instincts are pretty good, i just think he is wrong here.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 2:01 PM

I’d maybe listen to your concerns more, Hollowpoint, if you could articulate why Mitt deserves your self-righteous wrath more than Guiliani, McCain, or Thompson.
Vanceone on October 24, 2007 at 1:42 PM

I’ve made no secret that I’m in Thompson’s camp, but I’ve said that I was disappointed in his vote for No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold; both positions he’s backed off on or reversed.

As for Rudy- perhaps you should revisit the last Rudy thread; I’ve not been easy on him either.

And McCain? Who cares? Well, except perhaps for Rightwingsparkle, who I’ve given a bit of grief to about her support for McCain.

Rudy- Sanctuary city, pro-amnesty, gun grabbing, socially liberal RINO who’ll drive away social conservatives.

Mitt- Flip-flopping, gun grabbing, big government, pandering snake oil salesman RINO who’ll say anything and spend limitless amounts of money to try and buy the election. The Republican version of John Kerry with no consistant political philosophy. Nice hair though.

McCain- No explanation necessary.

Huckabee- Big government, amnesty supporting nanny stater who’s simply a less hawkish version of GW Bush.

That pretty much leaves me with Thompson, who has a strong federalism stance and record to back it up- and being of the libertarian-right wing of the Republican party, that appeals greatly to me, despite Thompsons faults and blemishes on his record. Pro-gun, anti-amnesty, pro-immigration enforcement, small government, anti-jihadi, an actual record of supporting constructionist judges… in other words, the only conservative front-runner with a conservative (though not 100% perfect) record.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM

For you to pretend that Mitt would be a profligate spender is just asinine. Moreover, the fact is that he has conducted his life as a conservative and there is nothing you can prattle on about that will change that fact.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Did you miss the debates, in which he came out in favor of the massively expensive Medicare reform bill, in favor of ag subsidies, in favor of corporate welfare, in favor of bailouts for those facing foreclosure? Are these positions consistant with fiscal restraint?

Or take his pre-Presidential campaign statements in favor of upholding Roe v Wade, his current support for more federal gun control, his suggestion that the unconstitutional line item veto shouldn’t have been challenged in court, etc, etc, etc? Hardly what I’d call a conservative record.

But feel free to continue ignoring facts that don’t suit you.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 2:10 PM

And you call giving legal advice to terrorists, lobbying for dictators and abortion clinics, against victims of asbestos poisoning, and funneling campaign cash to his son, a conservative record?

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:17 PM

i just think he is wrong here.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 2:01 PM

What out! AP will call down the lightning!

lol

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:18 PM

What out! AP will call down the lightning!

I’m wearing rubber soled boots today. It’s all good:)

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 2:22 PM

I would comment, but any negative comment against Mitt is deemed a bigoted comment. He is protected by the “Mormon Card”.
Gee, what a swell guy, and a great family man, and a perfect businessman, and he never raised taxes and he has always been a Reagan conservative. Always fought and won against those Kennedy dems. And he is handsome and talks like my dad…he is as pure as the driven snow. Perfect ad, he is always so sincere, no doubt a common man who worked his way up the corporate ladder all by himself…he understands all of us, he is just like us. He would have made a great soldier, probably a purple heart at least, if it wasn’t for that bad luck of having to serve in France on a mission…but I know he wanted to serve, he told us so. Mitt never lies, his faith won’t let him deceive or lie. What a swell guy.

right2bright on October 24, 2007 at 2:23 PM

…killer final line here about change. At whom might that be directed?

Obviously somewhat at Bush (“biggest spender since LBJ”). But for me it goes all the way back to “Leader” Trent Lott saying “I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina.”

eeyore on October 24, 2007 at 2:40 PM

always been a Reagan conservative.
right2bright on October 24, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Not true. He has “evolved” over the years into a Reagan conservative. It is a credible evolution at that.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:43 PM

I’m wearing rubber soled boots today. It’s all good:)

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 2:22 PM

LOL

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Not true. He has “evolved” over the years into a Reagan conservative. It is a credible evolution at that.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 2:43 PM

Over the years? More like overnight. Just in time for his everything-to-everyone campaign.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Hollowpoint,

Reagan, a pro-choice Democrat, evolved into a Reagan Conservative.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Reagan, a pro-choice Democrat, evolved into a Reagan Conservative.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:04 PM

True, but he evolved over the course of decades- not in the months preceeding a particular campaign.

If he served in a position in which he campaigned and ran as a conservative since his term in MA, I’d find him much more credible as a conservative. Now? Not very credible at all, given his campaign strategy of trying to please everybody all the time on all issues.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Hollow Point,

How about his stance on stem cell research while he was the Governor of MA? How about the fact that he vetoed 250 bills that the liberal Democrat legislature pushed?

Romney as been consistent in his move to conservative positions, as have many of us, and as I noted earlier he certainly leads his life as a conservative.

I would comment, but any negative comment against Mitt is deemed a bigoted comment. He is protected by the “Mormon Card”.
right2bright on October 24, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Sayeth r2b who then goes on to comment at length (for what it’s worth, considering the emptiness of the content).

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Here’s how Romney is going to cut spending.

He’s going to give free education, health care, and legal services to the developing world. I think he should start in Mexico. Then, at least some of them won’t have a reason to come here. Just this morning we were successful in defeating the Dream Act. Romney wants to export it as a government service.

If you can stand going into the sewer that is Crooks And Liars, check out the link. Watch the video there.

jaime on October 24, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Jamie,

Don’t you think Romney is talking about ways that we can win over hearts and minds? Like what we did in Thailand after the tsunami, which was funded by private donations along with government stewardship?

Mitt Romney’s positions on immigration belies your claim that he is in favor of anything like the Dream Act.

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Don’t you think Romney is talking about ways that we can win over hearts and minds?

Probably. But he’s telling us up front that he’s going to spend $50 Billion dollars on it (or there about), which I suppose includes the $30 Billion Bush has planned just for Africa. That doesn’t fit very well with the claim he just made in the ad at the top of this post to “cut spending”. Or maybe he’ll cut Social Security, or the military budget as an offset. I don’t know.

Anyway, cutting back on some of the unAmerican “entertainment” that we export would probably be more effective at winning hearts and minds overseas.

Mitt Romney’s positions on immigration belies your claim that he is in favor of anything like the Dream Act.

Right. But I was drawing a parallel between the type of spending he proposes in his Iowa video and the Dream act. Free education, free medical care, etc., for non-citizens.

jaime on October 24, 2007 at 4:00 PM

How about his stance on stem cell research while he was the Governor of MA?
Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:34 PM

IIRC (too lazy to check at the moment), his position on that “evolved” as well.

Look, I’m not suggesting that he was an absolutely horrible governor with no redeeming qualities at all- he wasn’t. However, given the philisophical crisis the Republican party is in, it’s not a time to be taking chances on someone once listed by Human Events as being one of the Top 10 RINOs.

Plus his message just hasn’t been consistant on the campaign trail- he’s for strict constructionist judges, but he’s against challenging unconsitutional laws; he’s pro-gun but in favor of a federal assault weapon ban, he’s for low spending but for subsidies and big government programs like Medicare reform, etc, etc, etc.

He’s just not solidified a political philosophy and thus one really can’t know what his politics really are. The flip-flops combined with the slick pandering just doesn’t inspire confidence.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Probably. But he’s telling us up front that he’s going to spend $50 Billion dollars on it (or there about), which I suppose includes the $30 Billion Bush has planned just for Africa. That doesn’t fit very well with the claim he just made in the ad at the top of this post to “cut spending”.
jaime on October 24, 2007 at 4:00 PM

And that’s another example; forgot about that one. He sure does have a lot of new and creative ideas for spending money for someone who’s supposedly going to cut spending.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I suspect pilot error…

Jaibones on October 24, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Riiiiight. We certainly know where “What’s a dollar?” stands. He lobbies for scum and gives legal advice to terrorists and funnels campaign cash to his son. The guy is the least conservative candidate on the rep side.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 6:27 PM

I would comment, but any negative comment against Mitt is deemed a bigoted comment. He is protected by the “Mormon Card”.

I’m Mormon, but I don’t take criticism of Romney on issues as anti-Mormon bigotry. I’m still undecided for the nomination, so all information about Mitt – good, bad, and ugly (like that Keebler Fudge Shoppe photo…ewww) is helpful.

After all, I have very few kind things to say about Harry Reid that have nothing to do with where he goes to church on Sundays. Dingy Harry has no religious immunity in my book, and neither does Mitt.

sulla on October 24, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Buy Danish on October 24, 2007 at 3:34 PM

The other guy, who is love with Mitt, knows exactly what I am talking about. Not surprised you don’t understand. Everytime someone disses Mitt, his lover on HA begins with the Mormon bigot card.
Sulla gets it, Mitts other lover doesn’t. You can disagree without being a bigot.

right2bright on October 24, 2007 at 7:31 PM

You can disagree without being a bigot.

Disagree – great. Calling him a draft dodger? Less than great.

It (the Mormon ‘thing’) is an issue though. In one of the Spencer Koran thread there was some happily bantered comparisons between Islamists and Mormons. I am neither, but neither are either the other.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Disagree – great. Calling him a draft dodger? Less than great.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Still, you can be certain that the MSM would “investigate” the draft dodger charge against Rudy or Mitt, though there’s a stronger case to be made against Rudy.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Major OUCH!

Mitt loses a key evangelical endorsement.

As bad as this is for Mitt, I have a lot of respect for this gentleman. He didn’t switch to another candidate and he didn’t say that Mitt did anything to change his mind. He simply prioritized his role as a man of the cloth. They should ALL do the same. Hats off to him.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Still, you can be certain that the MSM would “investigate” the draft dodger charge against Rudy or Mitt, though there’s a stronger case to be made against Rudy.
Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Sure, but what MSM may or may not do doesn’t effect the credence I give to an argument. Nor do I give much credence to repeated assertions without support (for example r2b calling Mitt a dodger or you calling Hunter obsessed).

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:05 PM

A Jewish guy laments the bigotry leveled at Mitt.

Classy guy. Good for him.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Sure, but what MSM may or may not do doesn’t effect the credence I give to an argument. Nor do I give much credence to repeated assertions without support (for example r2b calling Mitt a dodger or you calling Hunter obsessed).

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Given how much time Hunter spent in the debates on trade- especially and absurdly in response to a question about fixing Social Security- I’m not sure that it’s unreasonable to say he’s obsessed with the issue. An exaggeration perhaps, but if so a slight one.

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. Speaking of bigots…… Bigotry on display in all it’s self righteous splendor. They must be sooooo proud.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Hollowpoint on October 24, 2007 at 9:10 PM

I’m not here to defend or argue Hunter’s positions, but I do like things argued on their merits. I don’t think it’s obsessive to state your beliefs if they are interconnected.

I’m fairly certain his view on trade is a function of his view on manufacturing. And I think his view on manufacturing is a product of his view on defense. He gets labeled as a protectionist by some here, but I think he probably believes the relationship between all three would open up more money if we had more manufacturing jobs in the US.

Whatever the merits (or lack depending on your view) it is worth noting the integrity of his view point. The reason that the aggressor nations in both WWI and WWII eventually succumbed to the Allies was lack of manufacturing and lack of raw materials. Also true of the South in the Civil War, ie there is a historical pattern here.

It may very well be that we have Sean Penn evolved our way past a point in which we don’t have the leverage to secure all things we need should another conflict of a large scale nature arise, but I can see the impetus for his argument. It is, in a way, a variation of the argument that we need energy independence.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:28 PM

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 8:53 PM

Thanks for that link. Interesting.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:28 PM

I’d love to see them ALL do that. The level of discourse would calm significantly.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 9:45 PM

I’d love to see them ALL do that. The level of discourse would calm significantly.

csdeven on October 24, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Agreed.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Er, that should be:

It may very well be that we have Sean Penn evolved our way past a point in which we don’t have to have the leverage to secure all things we need should another conflict of a large scale nature arise, but I can see the impetus for his argument. It is, in a way, a variation of the argument that we need energy independence.

Spirit of 1776 on October 24, 2007 at 9:54 PM

What a beautiful man. I feel like I’m watching the OC when his face fills the screen. I think Mitt is a GREAT actor. Law & Order will need a replacement in ’08.

Mojave Mark on October 25, 2007 at 12:43 AM