Video: “Ready”

posted at 4:53 pm on December 28, 2007 by Bryan

Team Romney has its second new ad of the day firing off in Iowa. It’s a contrast with Huckabee this time around, making the rather obvious point that Romney is more ready to be president than Huckabee (so am I, for that matter, if you go by what Huckabee actually says most of the time). Earlier, they released a contrast with McCain to run in New Hampshire since he’s surging there. Not a bad ad, though it probably falls in the “negative” category that hardly anyone but the chattering class actually frets about. I certainly don’t care if an ad is “negative” as long as it’s factual. Tell me bad things about the other guy, tell me the world is falling apart and you can fix it, just don’t tell me lies.

More: Romney may be more ready than Huckabee — which isn’t saying much — but he still needs to do some studying. By the time Reagan was elected president in 1980, he had spent decades thinking, writing and speaking on the Communist threat. By 1980 he had a pretty good idea how to defeat it. He was, contrary to what Romney said on NBC this morning, a foreign policy expert.

CURRY: Most analysts would say, governor, that the events of yesterday will help your chief opponents Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Are you concerned, are you worried that your impact, that your campaign will be impacted negatively?

ROMNEY: Oh, I think we have to put the events of the world at a higher level than thinking about local politics. But I do believe as well that people recognize that what we want in a leader is a person who can actually guide America in a very challenging time. You look back to the — one of the great foreign policy leaders of our nation was Ronald Reagan. He was a governor, not a so-called foreign policy expert. He was a person who knew how to make difficult decisions and how to lead in times of crisis. And I think if you look at my life’s experience you’ll recognize that’s what I bring to the table.

We’re currently facing a threat that’s not all that similar to the Communist threat, but it will take similar close and patient study and long-term strategic thinking to find ways to defeat it. I don’t see any evidence that any of the candidates have cracked a book on the subject, or have studied how Reagan defeated the last threat.


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

Can’t wait to see the ad for Rudy.

MadisonConservative on December 28, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Nice Ad. And it mentions nothing about religion. Not a word. I like that–I’m sick of the religion aspects of this campaign.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Huck’s response.

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Fred will benefit from ads like this.

$240,941 @ .. . . . . . . . . . …….. . . .. . . . . \/

TheSitRep on December 28, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Yeah, that is Huck’s reply, Big S. But that’s just “I can’t respond, so let me try to claim the high ground.”

That’s been Hucks entire strategy anyway: “Everyone is out to get me, those evil bastards. I cannot be criticized on policy grounds, they all have a vendetta.”

As a Huck supporter, defend these charges–are you saying Romney’s ad is lying?

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:00 PM

I pick up on the word game with the commutations and pardons in contrast to just Romney’s pardon numbers really fast. I can’t find anything on his numbers of commutations but he should keep the wording consistent or people are going to dismiss the ad because it sounds like a shady sales tactic.

bj1126 on December 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Huck’s response.

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Millions to tell the truth.
You are in a bad position when some one telling the truth is called negative!

TheSitRep on December 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

If I was Romney, right at this moment I wouldn’t be using Condi Rice as my go to expert on foreign policy.

lowandslow on December 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

it sounds like a shady sales tactic.

bj1126 on December 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Same thing with the Rice quote. She said:

“The idea that this is a go-it-alone policy is just simply ludicrous. And one would only have to be not observing the facts, let me say that, to say that this is now a go-it-alone foreign policy,”

She did not call Huck’s foreign policy “ludicrous.”

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 5:04 PM

You are in a bad position when some one telling the truth is called negative!

TheSitRep on December 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Exactly. Huck’s record is terrible. If telling the truth about said record is called negative campaigning, so be it.

In fact, if that’s the best that Huck can do to defend his own record, he’s really in trouble.

thirteen28 on December 28, 2007 at 5:05 PM

lowandslow on December 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Yup, that’s the ad’s one glaring weak spot. Huckabee’s foreign policy is ludicrous, but hers isn’t a whole lot better right now.

Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Heh. We finally have a few Huckabee supporters. I was wondering where they were hiding, since apparently one third of the republican party supports him (according to the polls).

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:06 PM

Just for the record, citing Rice is weak, in my opinion. He’d have done better to have quoted something from Rush about Huckabee.

Rice at one point was my favorite…. what, two years ago? How far she has fallen!

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:07 PM

more ready to be president than Huckabee (so am I, for that matter, if you go by what Huckabee actually says most of the time

Yes indeed!

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 28, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Bryan Preston for President!

Jay on December 28, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Heh. We finally have a few Huckabee supporters. I was wondering where they were hiding, since apparently one third of the republican party supports him (according to the polls).

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:06 PM

I’d like to met some of these people myself sometime…and slap some sense into them. If Iowa actually votes to nominate this disaster I will actually look forward to the onslaught of blogs mocking their decision making abilities.

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Here’s some more fodder: Huckabee says that Mitt’s Mormonism isn’t reason to vote for or against Mitt. Also, Huck sez that if he wins Iowa, he’ll raise his speaking fees… because he’d be worth more.

Interesting article.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:12 PM

didn’t Huck state the other day he would nominate Duncan Hunter or someone like him for Sec. of Defense? If so, its a sign that his foreign policy is more playing to populism and to get votes and less actually being stupid. If my reading of the tea leaves are correct.

jp on December 28, 2007 at 5:14 PM

lowandslow on December 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Seriously, is there not a John Bolton quote to use on Huckabee?

jp on December 28, 2007 at 5:16 PM

It’s not that I’m a real supporter of Huckabee. I just see zero difference between him and Mitt. They both have nanny state tendencies in their past and both have huge flip flops in their past. That said, I don’t think either would make all that bad of a President and would be fine voting for either in the general election. Neither are likely to get my vote in the primary though.

I think a lot of these blogs, this one included have done a serious discredit to themselves with the attacks on Huckabee. While they may have been factual the complete indifference shown to the same flaws in other candidates while being completely outraged by them in Huckabee seems disingenuous at best.

bj1126 on December 28, 2007 at 5:17 PM

That’s an interesting argument, bj1126. In essence, Mitt, Fred, and Rudy are the same as Huck–that’s your argument.

I’d say, no, that’s not true. Mitt’s been hammered lots for two things: 1)alleged flipflops, and 2)being Mormon. Huckabee has campaigned on one thing: being the “true Christian” and social conservatism. His Fairtax is a ridiculous idea (I mean, sure, it might have theoritical merit, but for practical purposes, it’ll never pass, and he has no other ideas). Mitt has clear command of the facts; he is the kind of guy who would know more than you on just about any subject. Huck is appealing to class warfare rather blatantly.

And Huck doesn’t even offer any explanation for WHY he has changed. Romney at least says why and how he changed on abortion. You can disbelieve if you want, but Huck has given no credible reasons why he’s changed from a full-scale open borders guy, why he wouldn’t raise taxes (I’m okay with raising any tax you want!). Mitt had a far tougher job than Huck did in Mass.–and Mitt’s personal integrity is not even questioned.

Huck has lots of questionable ethics issues. There’s a LOT of reasons why I’d not vote for Huck. He’s a Democrat in Christian clothing.

I would agree with someone above–if I want a conservative Christian type, I’d rather have Bryan over Huck anyday. Or Michelle Malkin–any of whom would do a far better job than Huck.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:27 PM

I think a lot of these blogs, this one included have done a serious discredit to themselves with the attacks on Huckabee.

i’ve been told for years by someone that held an elected executive type role on the local level, that actually governing is a whole different ballgame from talking about it. People don’t realize the political pressures and realities that go into it, its very easy to politicize your record.

at the end of the day, we will have a POTUS that will be forced to govern Center-Right or Center-Left. Actually the first 2 years of Hillary/obama would be more LEFT because they would have a Dem congress, Senate and a Cabinet full of janet reno’s and a couple SCOTUS nominees coming down the pipe.

the Time is now to rally behind all the GOP candidates except for Paul, instead of constantly being negative.

one advantage to the Dems winning is it will focus all the hate and attention on them for awhile, which will rally everyone behind the GOP in 2012

jp on December 28, 2007 at 5:28 PM

bj1126 on December 28, 2007 at 5:17 PM

We have criticized every GOP candidate at one point or another, and haven’t gone out of our way to avoid criticizing anyone. Huckabee has attracted more than his share because of a) his meteoric rise in the polls and b) his tendency to say dumb or outrageous things that the other candidates aren’t saying.

To illustrate my point, the other day Huckabee tried to argue that Ronald Reagan was inexperienced on foreign policy when he was elected in 1980. That’s not remotely true, and I criticized him for saying that. Romney, offered the chance on NBC this morning to say something similar, noted that Reagan was a considerable foreign policy mind by the 1980 election. Romney was right, Huckabee was wrong. He’s consistently and irritatingly and gratingly wrong on things like that, things that no conservative ought to get wrong. That’s among the reasons he attracts so much heat.

Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Fred! is less than $1800 short of the $248K fundraising goal now (5:30pm Eastern). Go Fred!

bofh on December 28, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Actually, re-reading Romney’s statement, he got it wrong too. He started off right but then gets it wrong.

CURRY: Most analysts would say, governor, that the events of yesterday will help your chief opponents Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Are you concerned, are you worried that your impact, that your campaign will be impacted negatively?

ROMNEY: Oh, I think we have to put the events of the world at a higher level than thinking about local politics. But I do believe as well that people recognize that what we want in a leader is a person who can actually guide America in a very challenging time. You look back to the — one of the great foreign policy leaders of our nation was Ronald Reagan. He was a governor, not a so-called foreign policy expert. He was a person who knew how to make difficult decisions and how to lead in times of crisis. And I think if you look at my life’s experience you’ll recognize that’s what I bring to the table.

Why do these guys essentially have to keep arguing that Reagan didn’t spend decades studying how to defeat the USSR? Both Huck and Romney have gotten this one wrong.

Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Fred! is less than $1800 short of the $248K fundraising goal now (5:30pm Eastern). Go Fred!

bofh on December 28, 2007 at 5:29 PM

A LOT of people are wasting a LOT of money on this! I wish he had done beter myself, but to think he can still get the nomination now requires quite the level of cognitive dissonance.

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 5:45 PM

We have criticized every GOP candidate at one point or another, and haven’t gone out of our way to avoid criticizing anyone. Huckabee has attracted more than his share because of a) his meteoric rise in the polls and b) his tendency to say dumb or outrageous things that the other candidates aren’t saying.

That is such a load of bull. For the last 3 weeks you’ve had post after post bashing Huckabee about everything you can find going back a couple decades no matter how far he has reversed his current policy. You don’t have to dig but a few months in Romney’s past to find serious flip flops yet that is largely ignored.

To illustrate my point, the other day Huckabee tried to argue that Ronald Reagan was inexperienced on foreign policy when he was elected in 1980. That’s not remotely true, and I criticized him for saying that. Romney, offered the chance on NBC this morning to say something similar, noted that Reagan was a considerable foreign policy mind by the 1980 election. Romney was right, Huckabee was wrong. He’s consistently and irritatingly and gratingly wrong on things like that, things that no conservative ought to get wrong. That’s among the reasons he attracts so much heat.

At the same time Reagan is largely responsible for the illegal immigration problem we face today. His amnesty set the precedent for the last 20 years of lax border enforcement.

Either way we’re not electing them to be experts on Reagan. The threat we face now is vastly different than communist Russia. They mean absolutely squat to what is going on now and the case could be made that looking at this like a cold war is getting us deeper into this mess rather than winning.

Romney is right though, it’s about their decision making process. I don’t care about how well they’ve memorized Reagan’s history or whether they call it ICE or INS. I care about their character and what are the guiding factors in their thought process. In that instance I don’t see a whole lot of difference between Romney and Huckabee.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Yes that is essentially my point. Mitt has plenty of shady stuff in his past and a lot more flip flops than just abortion. Because they aren’t being highlighted on conservative blogs doesn’t mean they aren’t there. He’s also got the hybrid government health care thing he instituted.

Thompson has McCain-Feingold and a litany of finance indiscretions that are questionable not to mention no executive experience whatsoever.

Rudy is just plain openly liberal. Far more than Huckabee I think he would be the disaster if we nominated him. Pro amnesty, pro abortion, pro gun control… he’s more a JFK style Democrat than a Republican.

bj1126 on December 28, 2007 at 6:06 PM

bj1126 on December 28, 2007 at 6:06 PM

So, who do you support?

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 6:16 PM

That is such a load of bull.

Think whatever you want but don’t call us liars. Your perception != truth.

I was the first to bring up Thompson’s connection to McCain-Feingold, months ago. We’ve hit Rudy. We hit Romney on the MLK thing and many other things. I hit him in this very post — look up if you haven’t seen it yet. I tend to spend more time bashing Paul and the Democrats more than Huckabee, but that’s less a conscious effort as just that’s the stories that interest me. Huckabee just tends to be a magnet for bad blog reactions, though, because he tends to speak with one foot in his mouth. The other candidates have considerably lesser problems with that.

Re Reagan and the ’86 amnesty, true. And your point is? Huckabee would further that mistake if you go by his record, as would McCain. Both say they have learned their lesson, but Huck didn’t learn until he rose in the polls and got scrutinized. McCain claims to have learned after we killed off the last attempt at amnesty (and the polls told him the issue was killing him). Romney says he wouldn’t and his actual record is better than Huck’s. Thompson and Giuliani also say they’d be strong on immigration (though I don’t really trust Rudy).

Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 6:20 PM

By the time Reagan was elected president in 1980, he had spent decades thinking, writing and speaking on the Communist threat. By 1980 he had a pretty good idea how to defeat it.

Yup and seeing how there isn’t that much time to spare the best bet for any candidate D or R would be to enlist Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald (the latter of whom has several coherent proposals) as advisors. Muckabee’s Christmas ad confirmed my suspicion that PC only remains viable until the illusion is blown apart. The “Evil Empire” speech was only shocking/unsophisticated to the elite intelligentsia but ordinary people are not so stupid. If after 9/11 GWB had promoted an honest discourse on the doctrines of Islam instead of the “Islam is peace” mush this wouldn’t even be an issue. Supporters and opponents of the POTUS are influenced by what he says to a degree they do not even realise.

aengus on December 28, 2007 at 6:48 PM