Video: “Not Politically Correct”
posted at 3:10 pm on December 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
A shrewd way of wringing a few centrist votes out of his social-con positions, casting Mitt in the role of free-thinking anti-elitist rebel. Just one quibble: When it comes to Mitt’s domestic policies, much depends on when “when” is. 2007? Sure, PC dragonslayer all the way. 1994? Nuance.
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 hate the ads that pander to the social cons. They may work, but I still hate them. What is Mitt gonna do, stop people from fooling around and divorcing?
RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Mitt’s got much bigger trouble than this coming up…
DCJeff on December 7, 2007 at 3:18 PM
The more I listen to this man, the more I can’t wait to vote for him as president.
madmonkphotog on December 7, 2007 at 3:18 PM
RW Wacko: No, but look at it this way: How can McCain, Rudy, or Fred really challenge Mitt on the family values thing? Romney’s saying, in essence, “I’m pro-family, and I lead by example.” Only Huck (as far as I know) can possibly say the same thing. On the Dem side, Hillary can’t say this–seriously, family values is a nightmare issue for her. I’m not sure about Obama, and Edwards at least probably doesn’t want to bring up the fact his wife has cancer and he didn’t drop out to help care for her.
So this is an area Mitt can use that only possibly Obama and Huck can match him on. Who else can lead by example, not just words?
Vanceone on December 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Kudos.
madmonkphotog on December 7, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Vanceone on December 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Are social cons that insecure about family that they need a frickin’ president to tell them how great it is? “Leading by example” won’t accomplish anything but making the religious right feel all warm and fuzzy.
Big S on December 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I hear you, Vanceone. I just think he’s already shown that with his other ads with him by his wife, talking about his kids and stuff. For me, that is the perfect way to highlight the difference b/w him and, say….Rudy. I just personally like hearing more about policy, I guess. I favor Mitt at this point more than the other candidates, btw, partly b/c of his successes in the private sector and b/c he seems like a good man. Rudy is a sleaze, imo.
RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM
you know, im with you on that. i like him primarily for his proven management ability, and his stated willingness to review every major federal agency for waste and redundancy. i know our first MBA president (bush) doesnt say much about a businessman in the whitehouse…but romneys got proven results as an excellent manager with a keen eye for improving what he’s managing.
ernesto on December 7, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I like Mitt overall, but I don’t think that ad really squares with his record in Massachusetts. Granted, those were losing issues given the numbers in Massachusetts, but he didn’t strike me as being out front on any of them while he was there.
pedestrian on December 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM
As a centrist, I must emphatically disagree. I agree with RightWingWacko, sounds like it’s aimed at the social cons. Nothing in that ad sounded centrist to me. And the only thing rebellious is his expectation that no one will actually research his stances (read: pandering to liberals) as Mass gov.
You’re kidding, right? They publicized it for cash, for crying out loud.
SouthernDem on December 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM
This guy worships a con-man as a prophet.
Just as a good jihadist emulates Muhammad, Mitt is just emulating his prophet.
tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I’m not sure, Pedestrian. Of all the candidates, Romney had the rubber meet the road, as it were, in Massachusetts on marriage. I think that’s the initial issue that made people start looking at Romney on a national level: the gay marriage debacle that happened up there. If you remember, Mass’s highest court said it was legal (and mandatory) to allow gay marriage. Romney had to pull off an incredible effort to not make Mass. into the Gay marriage Las Vegas. So he single handedly prevented a constitutional crisis back then (the whole issue of the Full Faith and Credit clause thing).
That’s why I also think this is a good issue for Mitt. I would like to see more policy as well, but I think his record on the DOMA and in Mass. shows he is really committed.
On a side note…. my girlfriend is a pre-school teacher, works with 3-5 year olds. She told me that every day, one of the bus drivers almost breaks down into tears, because on the way home, one little girl is saying (in a wistful, longing voice) as each kid leaves the bus, “he has a mommy. She has a mommy.” The little girl has two daddys, I guess. The poor little girl really, really wants a mom. I guess I’m seeing the effects of this entire social values thing first hand.
Vanceone on December 7, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Actually, you’re seeing it fourth hand, and likely have no idea what you’re talking about in this case. If this sob story’s even true, perhaps the little girl’s mom died or something. In any case, even if she does have two dads, it’s likely that they’re doing their best to raise her and give her a chance to succeed in life.
Big S on December 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Say exactly what you mean, or stop trying to start a whispering campaign, troll.
WasatchMan on December 7, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Thats some fine religious tolerance on display there tommylotto. You sound like a real bright bulb there. Seriously. I’d like to meet you. You sound awesome.
Zetterson on December 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Deja vu.
peski on December 7, 2007 at 4:09 PM
When is he gonna get to the part about killing terrorists?
saint kansas on December 7, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I always thought you were paid by the Giuliani campaign to monitor blogs and speak up for your candidate. Thought that about some others here too. Wasn’t sure that was kosher but you were generally informative and polite and friendly.
What you just said is vile. Some would say similar things about the Catholics. Apologize or go home.
JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 4:24 PM
If it comes down to Mitt v. Hillary “It takes a Village” Clinton, then…quite possibly.
sulla on December 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM
By emulating his prophet, do you mean Mitt is smiling a lot, building things like crazy, and performing global acts of charity?
Ooh, scary.
sulla on December 7, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Maybe centrist is the wrong word. While the message will certainly appeal to social cons, I think also appeals to those who don’t consider themselves so. All three of the points made are pretty mainstream attitudes and he is taking advantage of the overlap that is obviously there and AP is just pointing out the centrist target of that appeal.
Dusty on December 7, 2007 at 4:33 PM
No doubt the Mormon thing has baggage, but Mitt seems like a good man with the right motives. The Mormon dogma will not have a negitive effect on his decision making.
Mitt seems to be “case hardned” enough to do the job.
saiga on December 7, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Oh shut up! For someone who can present arguments cogently and thoughtfully, I’d expect more from you.
You’re not helping Rudy one bit with this either, BTW.
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I’m really starting to feel repulsed by the Republican party…due to the caliber of candidates. They don’t deserve to win.
Fred caught my eye, but has been breathtakingly disappointing…I still hold out some vague hope he’ll pull a blinder from left field and blast ahead…but then I shake my head at my own foolish optimism.
Ron Paul has a great deal more going for him, except his isolationism. The man is unelectable, however. Nobody that stinks of truther kookerism is getting anywhere. Guilt by association. He tolerated the _wrong_ bedfellows…and his personal manner is like a shrill & whiny old fart.
I hope RP runs as an Independent. It’ll give me an opportunity to participate in some creative destruction and siphon enough votes away from Republicans to secure a Democrat in the White House.
Maybe _then_ we’ll get our act together and demand infinitely more from our candidates…the pain of a liberal administration will be a harsh astringent indeed.
And we’ll thoroughly deserve it.
Ochlan on December 7, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Bigot much?
davenp35 on December 7, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Hey, sometimes its fun to throw rocks at hornet nests just to see what happens. Would it make any difference if what I said was true, or at least that I honestly believe it to be true?
I think Joseph Smith was a con-man. I do not think he is a prophet, and I think he made all that LDS stuff up out of thin air. My belief in this regard is not really all that controversial. Most people who are knowledgeable about the history of the LDS church (who are not adherents) agree with me. Joseph Smith was a con-man that made stuff up to create a false religion. He apparently was charged with glass-looking, a common con of the time where the con-man pretends to be able to find treasure for a fee. His story of Israelites migrating to the New World is nonsense. I do not believe him. I think he was a liar who lied to enhance his station in life and to gain influence over his followers.
Mitt just the other day proclaimed to the world that he embraces this man (that I find to be a liar and a cheat) as a prophet. Can this explain some of Mitts conduct?
We have gone over and over how Mitt has changed his positions on various issues at convenient times to enhance his political career. When running for Governor of an overwhelmingly pro-choice state, Mitt compellingly tells the story of a close relative that died due to an illegal abortion and this created an epiphany for him that abortions should always be legal and safe. Then months before running for President seeking the nomination from pro-life Republicans, he has another epiphany, less credible, based on research into stem cells that caused him to become ardently pro-life. I do not believe him. Either he was lying to Massachusetts or he is lying to the Republicans now, or maybe he really doesn’t care either way and he lied to both. The point is that Mitt has a long, almost exhaustive, lists of issues where he has flip flopped for political convenience. This ad is just another example of Mitt selling the voters on a false version of Mitt that he thinks they want. He is conning the voters.
This type of feigned conviction is replete in the LDS church. The US will not allow Utah into the union due to polygamy, bam, LDS church has a revelation from God ending polygamy. The US threatens to take away the church’s tax exempt status, bam, another revelation from God permitting blacks to become priests. These revelations, just like Mitt’s epiphanies all came at very convenient times.
My prior post was a rather caustic / humorous way of saying that Mitt’s famous flip flops have ample precedents in his religion. Even the purported word of God changed as late at 1981 where the racist phrase “white and delightsome” was changed to the more politically correct “pure and delightsome.”
None of this is intended to be a blanket insult of all Mormon people, who, on whole, I find to be some of the best people this nation has ever produced. My wife and consequently my children are descendants of Brigham Young (not that special, he had 56 children with his 16 wives). Though my wife is not practicing, many in her family do, and they are all very good people.
Nevertheless, his church, which I believe to be provably false, which I believe was founded by a con man and which I believe has historically been run by con men, has produced a politician like Mitt, who rightfully has the worst reputation in this campaign for flip flopping for political convenience. Am I a villian for making this connection?
tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I agree.
Califemme on December 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM
No, but I wonder how vocal you are to your wife and her family re: the con of LDS.
None of us can know the absolute truth in these matters, but one person’s religion is just as easily another’s Voo-Doo. ALL religion has some ritual or tradition that an atheist/agnostic would just view as stupid, or Voo-Doo. With Mitt, he obviously believes in Joseph Smith as being a prophet, and nothing anyone says will convince him otherwise. But all in all, the Mormons seem to be on a pretty straight and narrow path. As for the polygamy thing, many of the men of LDS were actually persecuted (many massacres), and what other option did they have than to institute the polygamy thing? I don’t condone it, but if they felt that the only option their women (and all their children w/out fathers)had was to shack up with men who were capable for caring for multiple women/children, so be it. And, the church certainly gave up on the idea that polygamy was obviously NOT necessary in the modern times. Two hundred years ago though, and you might have agreed it was the best option these women had.
Again, I don’t condone it, but neither am I willing to judge w/out knowing all the facts.
Califemme on December 7, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I never thought I would say this but I could not agree more!
KBird on December 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM
gee, I thought a “con man” bilked the yahoos with snake oil he’d never take himself, then cleared out of town before they got wise.
Every prophet I’m aware of stuck around until they died, and held themselves to the same standards they preached.
“Con man”…You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
sulla on December 7, 2007 at 6:23 PM
It is funny how articles against Romney are down to almost a formula. All the verbs on postive things he did he “opposed” “stood up for” and “Veto” liberal things in MA. The negative (or liberal) things described the most they can ever do is he simply “said”
Resolute on December 7, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I would fight and die to protect his right to believe in his voodoo nonsense, but I reserve the right to hold a man’s voodoo nonsense against him if he decides to run for President.
Mitt has the right to the free exercise of his religion, and he has the right to not be automatically disqualified by law from a political post due to his religion. No more. He does not have the right to anyone’s political support and there is no constitutional prohibition against voters taking his religion into account in decided whether or not to vote for him.
There was a massive hypocrisy embedded in his speech in that he sought tolerance from “fellow Christians” for his Mormon beliefs while at the same time he fomented intolerance in these same people towards secularists.
tommylotto on December 7, 2007 at 7:05 PM
MM better keep an eye on this site to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand, if it does you can bet it will be referenced on the MSM
KBird on December 7, 2007 at 7:08 PM
What happened to everyone calling me a bigot? Cat got your tongue?
tommylotto on December 8, 2007 at 10:57 AM