Hugh Hewitt: Mitt had an objectively great day, and if you disagree, well, you don’t much matter anyway

posted at 8:54 pm on December 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

This is one of those posts where you remind yourself afterwards that Hugh is not, in fact, a spokesman for Mitt and therefore it shouldn’t be held against Romney in any way. But the fact that you even have to remind yourself isn’t exactly good news for the campaign.

And yea, the punditocracy looked upon what Mitt hath wrought and said, “It is good.”

Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. Why? Because Romney is running for the GOP nomination, and his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this and give a speech…

Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney.

Italics in the original. It’s not so much that I disagree — there was nothing objectionable in the speech and it’s bound to bring a few fencesitters over to Mitt’s side — but insisting repeatedly upon its success as an objective fact is a weird rhetorical ploy which reads like a transparent attempt to delegitimize critics as being, in an almost clinical sense, out of touch with reality. Why not just say, “With Rush, Hannity, and Mark Steyn swooning, early indicators are that Mitt’s speech is a smash”? Of all the people commenting today about this, there’s only one who sounds like he’s coming unglued. And it ain’t any of Mitt’s critics.

A little more, in case you thought your opinion mattered:

Some early takes on the speech from conservatives were less enthusiastic than mine, and that just means that a pundit or two had a bad morning, and their analytical skills of the GOP race less trustworthy than before.

But to persist in minimizing the success of Romney’s speech or the talent and passion with which it was delivered calls to mind my favorite Irish saying: When everybody says you’re drunk, you’d better sit down.

Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn’t matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren’t. The folks listed above matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next –the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.

Among the pundits whose analyses of the race are forever marred by their reaction to the Romney speech are Hitchens, David Frum, Bill Bennett, J-Pod, and of course yours truly. Take note.

Exit question: Does Hugh need to “sit down”?

Update: Predictably, one of Hugh’s defenders is already questioning my motives. Flashback to Tuesday night: “I hope he knocks it out of the park on Thursday”.

Update: Says Bryan, “I liked Romney’s speech quite a bit, but Hugh is making out like it was the St. Crispin’s Day speech as delivered by Winston Churchill in the Sistine Chapel on the first Christmas with Nazi bombers overhead.”

Update (Bryan): Picture a wind-swept city, husks of bombed-out buildings littering the vista, smoke columns rising as far as the eye can see, enemy bombers droning overhead. Then, to the podium, in that greatest of cathedrals, on that very first Christmas, comes a man…

This may be the speech that a certain pundit heard today, Agincourt, 2008.

“O, that we now had here
But just one Great Man of those men in the past
Who used to lead—Reagan!”

What’s he that wishes so?
My fellow Americans? No, my fair cousins:
If we are markt to lose, we have enough
to show our country’s loss; and if to win,
The more common the men, the greater the glory.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not Great Men more,
By Jove, I am not covetous for auld;
Nor care I who doth lead upon the party;
It yearns me not if a man the bid wins;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires;
But if it be a sin to wish the commons rule,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my cozs, wish not a man from the past:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great a freedom,
As no “Great Man” should think he rules for me,
Instead of rules with me. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Americans, through the host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart, a subject shall be made,
And Crowns for others taken from his purse;
We would not govern in that man’s company
That fears fellowship to fight with mere us.
This week is call’d the feast of Thanksgiving:
They that created this day so fought to make
All free, and law be not by Great Men made,
But of the people, by the people,
And for the people. They that lives’t now
Doth yearly on the vigil feast their neighbors
And say ‘Together this we should do:’
Then will they make their case and show their plans,
And say, ‘These ideas we will vote Election Day.’
All men forget; yet all shall be for naught,
If we remember not advantages
That free men bring that day: common people
Familiar with their lands and household worlds—
Nary a king, “Great Man” or “expert”,
Journalist nor pundit, shall over free men
Be by flowing words a common will deny.
This civic will the good man teach his son;
And Election Day shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be triumphant,–
We Free, We Happy Free, We Americans.
For we that day that cast our votes in free
Rule we together; be we ne’er so vile,
This day shall our wisdom show forth:
And “Great Men” in our land now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurst they were not there;
And hold their statecraft cheap whiles any speaks
That voted with us upon Election Day.

Thanks to reader Scott for kicking it iambic pentameter old skool.

Update: See-Dub makes a great point.

[Hewitt] is a fellow who wants to get people involved in blogging, who believes in grassroots revolutions through electronic networks, and who touted An Army of Davids alongside his own book on the subject, Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World. The idea behind the overhaul of Townhall.com when it was bought by Salem Media, the company that runs Hugh’s show, was to enable exactly this sort of politically influential blogging revolution to unfold. Ordinary, politically aware people would start up their own blogs at Townhall and fuse with talk radio to form a new grassroots media network that would challenge the old network of elite, mainstream columnists and reporters. That was a great idea. That was 2006.

This is 2007:

“Finally, a note to my angry e-mailers: It doesn’t matter that you don’t like Rush or Dr. Dobson, or that I thought Harriet Meirs got a raw deal. Your opinion of who ought to be the GOP nominee doesn’t matter beyond your vote, and then only if you are a GOP voter, which most of you aren’t. The folks listed above [Steyn, Rush, Hannity, Dobson, Barnes, Krauthammer, Medved] matter. Because they earned the respect of the voters who decided the past two presidential elections and who will decide the next –the patriots and the values voters, the investment class and the national security-minded.”

Translation: Do you know who I am? I’m Moe Greene! I made my bones when you were going out with cheerleaders!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I wonder if HH realizes that The Speech(TM) didn’t change anything about Romney (his policy and past governing)…

Lord Nazh on December 7, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Thanks to reader Scott for kicking it iambic pentameter old skool.

Great poem, but dude, you don’t know your iambic pentameter from your trochaic tetrameter. I’m telling Bill Bennett; he’ll skool your a$$.

saint kansas on December 7, 2007 at 11:59 AM

I’ll tell you what is creepy about Mormons. Do a search of Native American DNA studies and see how many research papers are coming out of BYU. They are so invested in the concept of Israelites in the New World that they will twist science to prevent their beliefs from being proven false. It smacks of trutherism.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Thank you Mr. Cogburn!

Looking at site…

is good.

saint kansas on December 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Yeah, it’s hard to beat models wearing fine patriotic and Second Amendment-supporting (but I repeat myself) apparel while toting firearms. There’s something about a woman who smells like cordite…

(And seriously, I have no connection with their business, linking it is just a friendly shoutout. But a “Peace Through Superior Firepower” t-shirt does make an excellent Christmas gift.)

ReubenJCogburn on December 7, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Mitt’s obvious omission offended me almost as much as Bush senior’s statement that atheists shouldn’t have the right to vote. I could care less what kind of God-fearer he is, but Senior kept me from being a GOP-voter for about a decade.

shirgall on December 7, 2007 at 12:32 PM

It was an excellent speech.

It is fairly humorous, that in order to take exception to the speech, the conversation becomes one of ad hominem attacks on those supporting the speech, (albeit they may be somewhat over the top in their praise).

I hope Mitt wins, in my opinion he has more excellent character and leadership skills. Duncan Hunter would not be bad either.

MarkB on December 7, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Our children will remember Mitt Romney’s “Religion” speech in the same breath as Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” speech I feel. Textbooks will cite its delivery as a landmark day. It truly marks a sea change in Romney’s candidacy and I switched my support to his behalf.

IntheNet on December 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM

I hope Mitt wins, in my opinion he has more excellent character and leadership skills. Duncan Hunter would not be bad either.

MarkB on December 7, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I’d be interested in knowing if Mitt’s speech won over anyone who wasn’t going to vote for him prior to the speech, and why.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Activists, pastors in Iowa question impact of Romney speech

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS/712070374/-1/caucus

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Romney Spokesman Won’t Say If Atheists Have Place In America

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It’s a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney’s speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. “It is as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They’re wrong,” Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 1:33 PM

“It is as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They’re wrong,” Romney said…

Only a con-man babbling into a hat about nonsense like ancient Israelites migrating to the New World can establish a new religion in America…

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Here is the single most idiotic and ridiculous reply on this thread thus far…

“Our children will remember Mitt Romney’s “Religion” speech in the same breath as Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” speech I feel. Textbooks will cite its delivery as a landmark day. It truly marks a sea change in Romney’s candidacy and I switched my support to his behalf.”

Unless it’s sarcasm, of course. If it’s sarcasm, then it’s dead on.

Warner Todd Huston on December 7, 2007 at 1:56 PM

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 1:33 PM

It’s official: America is dead. The grievance-mongers killed it.

Only in the New America do a bunch of petty, worthless journalists use the occaision of a speech which should unite everyone into a grievance-mongering opportunity for some afflicted minority. It’s the the Commucrats insistence on electing “a uniter” when they spend 100% of their time, effort, and energy dividing the country.

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 2:04 PM

I switched my support to his behalf.

IntheNet on December 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM

From Romney to Romney?

Connie on December 7, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Is The High Reverend Huckster to some Evangelicals what OBL is to some Sunnis?

Yes and no.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM

As I said on another thread, at least Hewitt is up front about his bias. How many New York-based writers and bloggers are in Giuliani’s corner and won’t admit it?

WasatchMan on December 7, 2007 at 2:26 PM

I don’t think I have ever seen so many trivial comments on one thread. Try these for the bottom line and get a life.
1) It was a really good speech
2) So what if he didn’t mention every little group by name?
3) Why does HH’s opinion change the speech content?
4) Mormon’s are not a “fringe religion”. The hard to believe
stuff is just more recent historically not harder to
believe.
5) Mitt is right on that this country was founded by
religious people and that is part of our heritage.

duff65 on December 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Unless it’s sarcasm, of course.

Of course…

IntheNet on December 7, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Indeed:

4) Mormon’s are not a “fringe religion”. The hard to believe
stuff is just more recent historically not harder to
believe.
duff65 on December 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Form NRO:

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

“Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.”

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM

That robot would decide our fate in a microsecond.

James on December 7, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Mitt’s gotten himself in a little trouble…the story is being held for the moment but should break soon…

DCJeff on December 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

It’s all about pecking order baby! The evening news kicks the radio talk show hosts, who kick the bloggers, who kick the commenters! “Stuff” rolls downhill…..

TBinSTL on December 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM

duff65 on December 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM

It was a good political speech for a crafty politician, because it seemed benign, but it was nevertheless designed to divide and rip this nation apart and advance his interests at the nation’s expense. Mitt’s purpose was to pander to the evangelicals and divert attention away from the fringe cult he is a member of by whipping up hatred against a common enemy — the evil secularists. “Don’t worry about my undergarments and Joseph Smith’s seer stones, worry about those damn godless secularists trying to drive God out of the public square.” It was not a speech of tolerance. It was a speech of hate. It was not a speech of unity, but division.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Romney is a Mormon? Really? Who knew?

mikeyslaw on December 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM

DCJeff on December 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Say exactly what you mean, or stop trying to start a whispering campaign, troll.

WasatchMan on December 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM

DCJeff on December 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Say exactly what you mean, or stop trying to start a whispering campaign, troll.

WasatchMan on December 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM

He made a similar comment and got exactly the same response on a different thread.

peski on December 7, 2007 at 4:08 PM

It was a good political speech for a crafty politician, because it seemed benign, but it was nevertheless designed to divide and rip this nation apart and advance his interests at the nation’s expense. Mitt’s purpose was to pander to the evangelicals and divert attention away from the fringe cult he is a member of by whipping up hatred against a common enemy — the evil secularists. “Don’t worry about my undergarments and Joseph Smith’s seer stones, worry about those damn godless secularists trying to drive God out of the public square.” It was not a speech of tolerance. It was a speech of hate. It was not a speech of unity, but division.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 3:29 PM

No tommylotto, it was a speech designed to remind America what unites us that was turned around by media thugs and hacks who ignored all valuable content and saw it only as just one more chance to play identity politics, this time with atheists as the agreived, insulted, and offended minority. When you’ve got a Fifth Column that evil and corrupt, all of us should be on guard. Don’t fall for their idiotic ploy.

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Hugh is an unmitigated shill for Mitt and it WILL hurt Romneys campaign, if he should make it to the big battle.

His pomposity irks me so!

omnipotent on December 7, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don’t support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120707A

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don’t support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120707A

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM

I take it then that these people, like the rest of the media, have a hearing and reading problem.

What Mitt did was say “take it or leave it. I’m not backing down from my faith.”

If people are really going ballistic over “Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were only reserved for faiths we agree with” then that is their prerogative to be whiny, thin skinned fools with no concept of what makes America great.

The American media is deplorable, now more than ever. They have no virtue and no soul.

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Here is Michigan Romney’s father is a well remembered governor, especially after the last two. We have a lot of union libs and a lot of religious conservatives.

Voters here don’t want a radical or a crook and they don’t want to lose their homes. I haven’t met anyone who even heard about the speech

I do not see Mormons attempting to dismantle my nation

I am more threatened by radical anti-theists who are erasing religious expression in direct contradiction to the intent of our Constitution. They are doing this by erasing parts of our Constitution. It has degraded quality of life and coarsened public behaviours to our detriment

I am absolutely threatened by islamic fundamentalism, which intends to replace my Consitution completely

Who doesn’t like Donny and Marie Osmond?

Hewitt has to slow down and let some air out of his tires

entagor on December 7, 2007 at 4:39 PM

No tommylotto, it was a speech designed to remind America what unites us ….
BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM

By “us” both you and Mitt mean (and only mean) those who adhere to a faith that accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God. And you and he seek to divide “us” from “them.” And by “them” he means: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. He seeks to divide this nation and enhance his campaign by fostering intolerance. He just wants the bigots to be on his side.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Sorry AP, but you couldn’t possible be more wrong…Hugh has been dead on with all his points. It blows mind mind that so many conservatives still support liberals like Giuliani or Huckabee, or candidates that stand zero chance of getting elected like Thompson. What candidate do you think would do the best job with all the following topics (and I don’t mean just one or two)…winning against Hillary? Illegal immigration? Managing our economy? Appointing proper Supreme Court justices? Fighting a war on Islamic extremism? I thought that Mitt’s speech will go down in history as one of the best candidate speeches ever given in the history of our nation. Cynicism is great when directed at our enemies. It’s moved into canabalism now that people who long-ago decided to oppose Romney, can’t even view his speech in an impartial manner.

davenp35 on December 7, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Romney is a Mormon? Really? Who knew?

mikeyslaw on December 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM

I know, it surprised me too–you never hear about it. I also heard a rumor that John Kerry might have served in Vietnam.

ReubenJCogburn on December 7, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Our children will remember Mitt Romney’s “Religion” speech in the same breath as Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” speech I feel. Textbooks will cite its delivery as a landmark day. It truly marks a sea change in Romney’s candidacy and I switched my support to his behalf.

Dus thay teech inglish in scool no mor?

hillbillyjim on December 7, 2007 at 5:15 PM

I would have said grammar, but that is almost an anachronism these days.

hillbillyjim on December 7, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Our children will remember Mitt Romney’s “Religion” speech in the same breath as Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address” speech I feel. Textbooks will cite its delivery as a landmark day.
IntheNet on December 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Hugh, is that you?

Ridiculous- it was a good speech, but not that spectacular; it was a well delivered speech of platitudes that’ll be forgotten before Christmas.

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 6:02 PM

By “us” both you and Mitt mean (and only mean) those who adhere to a faith that accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God. And you and he seek to divide “us” from “them.” And by “them” he means: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. He seeks to divide this nation and enhance his campaign by fostering intolerance. He just wants the bigots to be on his side.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 4:52 PM

I see. So, you can’t read or listen then. Considering the point of Romney’s entire speech is that religion shouldn’t divide us. Only the atheists are making a big stink out of this (he exluded us! WE’RE VICTIMS!) and taking it out of context, as the opportunistic bastards usually do.

Atheists prove time and time again the only higher power they care about is numero uno. This is why the majority of the country loathes them. They turn a speech about religious tolerance and religious liberty into a pity party for the people who SPIT ON EVERYONE ELSE’S faith as STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.

Woe is you tommylotto, you’re offended! Go back to supporting your baby-killing marriage hating lapsed Catholic which you hold in such high regard because he failed to keep the precepts of his faith.

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 7:13 PM

During show-downs with the worst international threats, how well will America unite behind Mitt?

maverick muse on December 7, 2007 at 7:27 PM

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 4:52 PM
BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Ahhh… there’s few things I enjoy more than wathcing a Rudy troll and Romney troll trolling each other. More, faster please.

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 7:41 PM

I see. So, you can’t read or listen then….
Only the atheists are making a big stink out of this… as the opportunistic bastards usually do….
Atheists prove time and time again the only higher power they care about is numero uno. This is why the majority of the country loathes them…
… the people who SPIT ON EVERYONE ELSE’S faith as STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE…
Go back to supporting your baby-killing marriage hating lapsed Catholic…

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Thank you for proving my point about how Mitt’s speech was designed to divide and foment hatred.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Well Fred’s dead. Time to take down the Mormon…

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Thank you for proving my point about how Mitt’s speech was designed to divide and foment hatred.

tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 7:43 PM

You see what you want to see tommylotto. You came into Mitt’s speech with preconcieved notions, and you got what you wanted out of it.

Shall I throw a pity party for you tommylotto? Are you offended? Heaven forfend we forget about the atheists when giving a speech about faith in America. They’re upset no one mentioned their reactionary, hateful, condescending nature to people of all faiths. Only the atheist cannot live and let live with persons of faith around them, they always have to bring everyone down because even they admit their belief is empty.

Quite frankly Romney acted with his usual class and charm. Atheists (or at least media thugs and leftists) decided not to give the same benefit of the doubt.

What a surprise, the people who believe only in doubt not giving the benefit of it to anyone else.

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Ahhh… there’s few things I enjoy more than wathcing a Rudy troll and Romney troll trolling each other. More, faster please.

Hollowpoint on December 7, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Considering Fred is getting steamrolled by Manic Minister, who DOES have the animosity towards atheists tommylotto so loathes, you’re hardly in a position to talk.

BKennedy on December 7, 2007 at 8:25 PM

I’m an Iowan born and bred who now resides in the People’s Republic of MN. The more Mitt talks the faster he is dropping in the polls and it has nothing to do with his Mormon faith. The people of Iowa recognize a fake conservative who governed as a liberal and once his record has been exposed, they are dumping him along with Rudy! They will not vote for another liberal Republican who will not get immigration right…PERIOD!

sabbott on December 8, 2007 at 9:12 AM

They will not vote for another liberal Republican who will not get immigration right…PERIOD!

sabbott on December 8, 2007 at 9:12 AM

I guess that explains Huck’s surge.

tommylotto on December 8, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Of all the front runners Fred gets immigration right.

Fred state America.

Mojave Mark on December 9, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Dude…

you all went way overboard attacking Hugh on this.

Mitt DID have an objectively good night and most everyone attacking Hugh is agreeing with it and just being outraged that he said its undeniable.

y’all need ta chilax on this one

Drunk Report on January 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3