Video: Mitt Romney, detective?
posted at 9:39 am on December 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
He needed something heartwarming after he got caught knocking Huck on the day the latter’s Christmas ad came out. Here it is, belatedly, a compelling spot that reveals something few of us knew about the man. Ambinder thinks that, to the extent there’s a target here, it’s Giuliani: Needing volunteers to find a missing girl in New York City circa 1996 supposedly doesn’t speak well for the mayor’s vaunted record on crime. Seems too subtle a point for most viewers to draw, though, and one missing girl isn’t going to throw the Giuliani crimefighter reputation into doubt. Besides, what does Mitt have to fear from Rudy? He’s fading everywhere and a nonfactor in the earlies early primaries.
No, I think the target here is someone else. Compare and contrast: The man who drops everything to helps rescue a woman in jeopardy from predators and the man who helps put predators back on the street and thereby places women in jeopardy. Hmmm.
Still a big lead in New Hampshire, incidentally.
More (Bryan): I was working on a post on this ad at the same time Allah was. My take is substantially similar, but with a twist. The story in the ad speaks for itself, and it’s powerful. And maybe this is just me, but the story that the ad tells immediately made me think of the parable of the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to search for the one lost sheep. If other evangelicals pick up on that, it’ll resonate. Paired up with AP’s thought above about the contrast between a man who puts criminals back on the streets with alarming frequency and a man who would shut his business down to lead the hunt for a lost girl, well, that’s likely to resonate too. And Romney needs a little resonance to start working for him. The Huckaboom has put Mike and Rudy in a tie nationally.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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:
Sorry. I don’t like it. Yes it happened. Well and good. Hat tip to Mitt. The ‘I approve this message’ tag at the end was a killer. If it had been an outsider spot, not connected to the campaign, that is one thing, but this just reeks of ‘guess what I did’.
Target: Huckster.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Maybe he’ll shut down the Fed Govt, and send the Fed employees to Pakistan to look for Osama?
AZCON on December 19, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Lots of positive personal behind the scenes stories of Romney without any (unless the dog in the kennel on the roof is one) negative. Despite statements on the campaign trail over the years that don’t sound conservative or contradict current verbal stances, actions while in office that support his conservative claims. I’ll take actions over words any day.
peacenprosperity on December 19, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Why couldn’t this guy praise Romney without Romney having to say he approves it? It sounds ridiculous, and makes it harder to distinguish between genuine speech and politically calculated comments.
If a newspaper, or Oprah, endorses a candidate, why doesn’t the candidate have to say “I approve this message” every time that person speaks?
If Romney wasn’t forced by some stupid law to do it, he shouldn’t have. It wasn’t an attack ad after all.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 9:48 AM
What is a campaign commercial supposed to say?
peacenprosperity on December 19, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Ask John McCain. It’s part of campaign finance law.
Bryan on December 19, 2007 at 9:49 AM
sorry. didn’t see your post while I was writing mine.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Being President is all about character. Mitt’s the man.
JustTruth101 on December 19, 2007 at 9:51 AM
I thought the intent was to identify the candidate behind attack ads. This is just plain silly.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2007 at 9:51 AM
That is my point. It is an official campaign spot. Geeez…I’m not trying to bag Mitt. I think what he did was a great thing. To me it is the same as donating to charity and then using that fact to get public pats on the back. Some would say that is fine since the charity got the reward, but that just doesn’t sit right with me. If his friends want to shout it out to the world then that is another thing.
Limerick on December 19, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Indeed.
Bryan on December 19, 2007 at 9:54 AM
I love that man.
Jared_MA on December 19, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I think an evangelist more than a lost sheep, would pick up on Christ’s teaching that if you announce your good acts in public, you have already received your reward.
If these things are done between you and your love of God, they should stay there and not be broadcasted for all to see.
Hening on December 19, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I eagerly await our standard anti-Romney trolls to begin talking about how Mitt is a robot who only cares about money.
Romney spends his time going on missions and making sure eveyone under his watch is safe.
For comparison, Fred has been a womanizer and sideline-sitter his entire life. “Trophy wife” indeed, Fred.
BKennedy on December 19, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Greaet sarcastic post, dissing the trolls and then becoming a troll…great, that was really good timing and funny…the “trophy wife” line is a zinger, did you thing of that yourself?
right2bright on December 19, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Maybe if Bain had just taken out an ad like this in the New York media market, rather than sending all of its employees traipsing through Central Park, they would have gotten results a little faster. It’s a good story, and good for them for doing, but with the resources that Romney had, there are surely much better ways than amateur sleuthing.
Big S on December 19, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Eh, I think it’s ok. At least he’s not tooting his own horn over something he didn’t even do.
4shoes on December 19, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Yeah. I especially like the ones where they talk and then say I approve this message. No, really? I’d like it if they said, “I’m so-and-so. John McCain, Russ Feingold, I want you to know I approve this message.”
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Did it work?
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM
On a serious note, good for Mitt, taking care of business partners is not only good business, but very kind.
Where did they find the girl? The only information I found was that his daughter went to a rock concert, and after 20 hours some women called up and said the girl was staying with her.
I hope his (fathers and Mitt) response wasn’t one of panic about a unhappy or spoiled teenager running from home.
right2bright on December 19, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Only after they made the evening news, if you check the “official” story on Romney’s website.
Big S on December 19, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I don’t see this as having anything to do with Rudy’s term as Mayor. It speaks for itself.
And may I say that some of the negative comments about this from the I don’t heart Mitt crowd are ludicrous. This one really stands out –
It is unseemly to inspire people through example. We have to keep good deeds a secret! We only want to hear about the bad stuff!
It seems to me that this is a thread where if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all or risk looking like a jackass.
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Ah.
Spirit of 1776 on December 19, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Newsmax wrote about it in April. Here is the link that “Medicated” provided on another thread last night that goes into detail about what happened.
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Sorta on-topic; didn’t see it covered anywhere else. While Huckster approved too many pardons and such, Romney approved zero… including the denial of a request from an Iraq War vet looking to have his record cleared so he could become a police officer.
His crime? Shooting a friend in the arm with a BB gun… when he was 13 years old. Apparently Romney was more concerned with future political ramifications than actually serving his constituents.
Mitt’s justification? A ridiculous one:
I believe in being tough on crime, but refusing a war veteran a pardon for a very minor crime (the BB didn’t even break the skin) committed at the age of 13 so he could become a police officer? A lame act of putting electoral politics over actual governance.
Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 10:43 AM
That’s a fair criticism.
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I can honestly say that made my mind up. Absolutely positively more character and integrity than any three others running combined. He’s like a throwback to the 50s or something, an honest, good man, and that is a rare thing indeed.
You can judge what a person has inside by what he does outside, and him sending his 50 peeps to NYC and creating a media buzz to find his daughter should tell you what he has inside…fast on his feet, quick thinking, cares for his people, takes charge, anything to get results.
How can anyone NOT want this man to be President?
TheGoblinKing on December 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I’m glad this kind of information is getting out. One of the downfalls of George H.W. Bush’s ‘92 campaign was that he didn’t talk enough about himself personally, and especially his WWII pilot experience and being rescued at sea when his plane was shot down.
And BJ Clinton was doing what in 1996 while Mitt was doing this?
Brat on December 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I wonder why charges were filed.
DrSteve on December 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM
So that Mitt could make this commercial years later – it’s all part of HotAir’s plan to give great press to their annointed leader.
psrch on December 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM
My post was in reply to Bryan’s comment.
Danish, you not only look like a jackass with your overreaction to my reply to someone else’s comment, you sound like a Democratic wuss with that nonsense.
We’re all for a Republican President so chill, and save your insults for the Liberals.
Hening on December 19, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Me too. When I was 13 (and been caught) it would’ve resulted in having my BB gun taken away and being grounded; had the police been called they wouldn’t have made an arrest without significant pressure to do so. Also, the kid who was shot with a BB would’ve been taunted as a giant wuss.
But now… yeah, I could see it happening, especially on the East Coast.
Hollowpoint on December 19, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Actually, *I* am not for a Republican President, *I* am for a Conservative President. Fiscal, social and The Long War (which includes illegal immmigration). If the Republican Party nominates a liberal policitian as its candidate, I will sit out the election and hope the Democrat candidate wins. If a liberal Republican wins the Presidency, it will end up moving the entire party to the left and conservative movement will take a step backwards. Instead of having two parties, one mostly conservative and one mostly “progressive”/socialist, we will have two parties, one mostly liberal and the other mostly “progressive”/socialist. And the results of a liberal Republican winning would be played in the media as the death of conservatism.
Personally, I could care less about these stupid ads. I am not swayed one way or the other on these meaningless anecdotes. I only care about things that reflect how the candidates will be on the main policy issues:
* The Long War
* Illegal Immigration
* The Economy
* Social Issues (signing/vetoing legislation and nominating Supreme Court justices and other judges)
* “Global Warming”/Emmissions
In addition to that, I want a President who will not put up with the crap/lies/propaganda of the Left (which includes the Democrat Party and their propaganda arm of the mass media). I want a President who can communicate his/her ideas and who will stand up for those ideas, no matter the political fallout and not be politically correct. In short, I want a leader.
I am a conservative and believe this country flourishes best adhering to conservative principles. And I don’t see any good happening from allowing the Republican Party to move left on many issues. The way I see it, the only way to preserve the conservative movement is to adhere to conservative principles and values. That means voting for a conservative Republican in the primaries and then NOT voting for a liberal Republican in the general election if he is the nominee. It is better the Democrats take the country left and the conservative movement stay alive than to allow the conservative movement to die as the only Party which even allows conservatism to exist to move leftward.
What I believe we should all be doing is making a list of our main policy issues and what we want from our President on those issues. Then rate each candidate on the issues as either Good/Acceptable/No Good. If a candidate has “No Good”s for important policy issue(s), then he is eliminated from consideration. Once that candidate is eliminated based on policy issues, there is absolutely no reason to go back and consider them, no matter how many of their meaningless touchy feely ads they put out. If they aren’t right on the policy issues, nothing else matters. Not how they dress, not how charming they are, not how many times they go to church. A President is for enacting policy, for foreign and domestic. What does it matter if he dresses well, is charming and goes to church, yet is wrong on all the policies?
I know many here do not agree with my philosophy on this, but so be it. I am a Conservative first, Republican-voter second. I see no point staying loyal to the Republican Party, if they do not stay loyal to conservative principles.
Michael in MI on December 19, 2007 at 12:07 PM
I sound like a Democrat because you made a silly comment? Does the fact that you were responding to Bryan absolve you of criticism?
The Parable of the lost sheep has nothing at all to do with keeping silent after rescuing someone who has gone astray.
Frankly, I don’t think what Romney did has much to do with that Parable at all, since Romney did not leave the ‘99 sheep’ behind but took them with him to help out.
In any case, there are plenty of things one could criticize Romney for, but that particular criticism is ludicrous, and trying to use the Bible as an excuse to needle Romney is what made it particularly galling.
IMO of course!
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I’ll take a doer over a talker any day. Romney has a distinguished track record of being a doer.
Sorry, haterz.
mattshu on December 19, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Do you mind me asking if you have children of your own?
This story, which I first heard by word of mouth and not through any media outlet, is what brought me to Romney in the first place. I’d be lucky to have a friend, let alone a business partners so willing to help bring my family back together. When he talks about the strengthening the American family, believe it.
Medicated on December 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I tend to be an “abundance of caution” man myself, but that’s insane. I can understand why it’s something that would have been taken seriously if clearly intentional, or 13 y.o. vs. 8 y.o. or some other aggravating circumstance (and I don’t know the circumstances). But kids the same age messing around with their BB guns, one kid goes to pick up the soda cans and set them back on the sawhorse and the other accidentally lets one fly? No way. That was regular wear and tear in my day. Guess I’m officially old now.
DrSteve on December 19, 2007 at 2:40 PM
My comment was related strictly to the relation of what an evangelical might think given the circumstances. That was the topic before I arrived at the scene. It just wasn’t meant to be as deep as you have interpreted it.
You’re leaking gall is based on a perception that is a disconnect from my original point. Accusing me of “using” the Bible is nonsense. The topic of Scripture was part of the original article that I was giving my opinion about. It had nothing to do with which Republican candidate the ad was about, and was more about anyone approving a message after the message was how wonderful that person was.
If whatever I said offends, galls, gets your panties in a twist, that’s fine. Just at least get what I said, and what the point was correct. If you sound like a Democrat, don’t blame that on me. You need to work on that on your own.
Hening on December 19, 2007 at 3:08 PM
How my support of what a Republican candidate did makes me sound like a Democrat is beyond me.
My reaction to your comment was not because I was “offended” by your comment (that would be a typical Dem response). My reaction was based entirely on the fatuous nature of your argument, which I intuitively sense had just a bit of wee partisanship behind it. I found it galling because you used the Bible in what I view as a disingenuous excuse to bash Mitt.
What Mitt did in 1996, as a private citizen, is a story that deserves to be told. It showed admirable qualities such as leadership, loyalty, and compassion. If Fred, or Huck, or any of the candidates had a story like this to tell, I would welcome it.
The idea that candidates cannot discuss their past good deeds is absurd. How are we supposed to choose our candidates if these aspects of their biography can’t be told? Are we only to hear about what they have done as policy wonks?
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 5:01 PM
First of all, I have already voted for Mitt in an election.
Secondly, I have no horse in this race…yet. I’m waiting for better minds than mine to decide since they all seem tainted at this point. It is the suggestion that my entry into this thread is a wee “partisan”, when what attracted me to the discussion was the question by Bryan what the evangelists would think, or how they would react to this type of story. It was a fair question that did not reflect on the specific candidate, or at least that’s how I understood it.
Third, if people wish to list their attributes in order to win votes, that’s just peachy with me. If this was a situation that someone paid for an ad and had someone tell a story about how super someone is, it would sound better if that super person didn’t end the ad saying that they approve. I don’t care who the candidate is, that’s just not very tasteful (or the taste isn’t very good).
You and I will most likely be both pulling down the same lever or punching the same area chad on election day. My point has been that you seemed to have read something into my post that was not there, or was was not intended by me. Also, my discussing a view of Scripture is different from “using” it as a tool to trash someone. If that was not true, I wouldn’t be posting in this thread for the better part of the day. ‘Twas the Scripture comment that drew me to the discussion and not Mitt’s persona.
Shalom…….
Hening on December 19, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Acting consistently the same way throught a term in office based on principle means he is a flip flopper who is acting that way because of electoral politics?
You have an agenda that is disrupting your logic.
Resolute on December 19, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I apologize that I misconstrued your comment as just another partisan opportunity by another commenter to bash Mitt. Sometimes it seems that there is nothing this man can do that will satisfy the demands of some voters who are predisposed to dismiss him.
I accept and appreciate your explanation, but it still makes no sense to me. I don’t understand why an evangelical would object to this.
While it reflects poorly on one’s character to be boastful in one’s private life, when one is running for public office it seems not only proper, but necessary. Is Huckabee not touting his biography as he runs for President? How about Fred? How about McCain’s war time courage and heroism?
Kerry did it and it came back to bite him, but that’s because he was using his service in Vietnam to make us vote for him, while we all knew how he slandered his fellow troops, and so forth.
That is what the law requires, and it is John McCain’s doing. That, among other things, is why McCain is near the bottom of my list, despite his sterling record on the War (minus his unhelpful position on torture).
Peace!
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 7:05 PM
What???? Maybe I misunderstand your comment?
I am a Mitt supporter, and spend an inordinate amount of time defending him from unfair and often outrageous attacks (usually about his religion). Did you read my conversation with Hening???
That being said, I don’t understand why someone should not be pardoned for a minor incident involving a BB gun when they were 13. Pardons should not be given cavalierly, but justice is not infallible.
Buy Danish on December 19, 2007 at 7:14 PM
The point is Hollowpoint somehow contorts consistent behavior into pandering (ie flip-flopping). You quoted him and said that was fair. Acting consistenly and not changeing ones views or actions is now evidence of pandering? No – since that is totally illogical that is evidence Hollowpoint has some kind of agenda.
Resolute on December 19, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Yeah, I immediately saw this as a subtle attack on Rudy.
Mark Jaquith on December 20, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Comment pages: