Video: The secret McCain attack ad on Romney — produced by Mitt’s own guys

posted at 2:20 pm on December 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

You’ve seen all the footage before but it’s expertly applied and deliciously capped by the “He’s right” kicker. If only that line didn’t apply equally well to Maverick. Click the image to watch.

mccain-secret.jpg

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

What makes the ad particularly powerful for the McCain team, though, is that it was produced by media wizards who now work for Romney. Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer are veterans of the Bush campaign, which so effectively used John Kerry’s words against him. They moved from Bush to McCain, but left and moved to Romney after the McCain operation imploded. When they were McCain guys, though, they helped put together this ad and pushed for running it, according to McCain aides and advisers.

Ouch.

Spirit of 1776 on December 28, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Quite an ironic twist at the end.

amerpundit on December 28, 2007 at 2:27 PM

I’d take Mitt over McCain ANY day!

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM

What a farce. McCain is the biggest RINO in this race. I also noticed that he didn’t include anything about illegal immigration in that ad. Interesting. I wonder why?

Zetterson on December 28, 2007 at 2:31 PM

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Yeah, because you’re a Mitt supporter.

Bad Candy on December 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM

eh………this kinda stuff irks me.

In business sales I take the ‘do not knock your competition’ approach even when led into it by the customer.
Not saying I am holier then thou, just believe in the get more flies with honey approach.

Like most people I want to know what the candidate will do on issues not what the other guy will do. They all are guilty of it, even my man Fred. Guess I’m a dinosaur. Then again I’m not parlaying for the biggest house on the block.

The fellas that put this together, to me, simply went to a different job, and are doing their job, as contracted, with their new employer.

Limerick on December 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM

It’s just sort of bizarre to see John McCain attacking another candidate for a lack of conservative principles. It’s almost like they’re both attacking themselves.

Gregor on December 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Oh. Yikes. I don’t much care for Mitt anymore but that still stung.

Somehow there’s more to a punch of it when you see it (no pun intended, mostly) rather than read it. Seeing him at his flipping-floppiest, even when you already know he said it ….

Yikes. Maybe its the absolute conviction in his eyes when he condemns Reaganism and cheers abortion that’s so stunning. Does he have any core beliefs at all?

Well, where are the usual suspects to start the spinning?

This ought to be good. I wish them luck. I wouldn’t even know where to start.

For the record – if we’re foolish enough to give Mitt the nomination, you just saw the exact ad the Democrat nominee will be playing against him ad nauseum ad infinitum.

And I dare even the thirstiest of the Kool-Aid Krowd to say that its ineffective.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM

… of a punch to it.

I dyslexic I am think.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 2:57 PM

davenp35 on December 28, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Yeah, because you’re a Mitt supporter.

Bad Candy on December 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM

I don’t trust Mitt as far as I can throw him, but I trust McCain even less. Try your logic on me.

tickleddragon on December 28, 2007 at 2:58 PM

eh………this kinda stuff irks me.

In business sales I take the ‘do not knock your competition’ approach even when led into it by the customer.

Limerick on December 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM

This sort of talk has always confused me. So, Presidential campaigns should be limited to “positive” talk? Are you saying that if you know your opponent is a dirty scumbag you would allow people to go to the polls not aware of it? What if you knew your opponent had sold out his/her country for cash? Would it be the “right thing to do” to simply keep it to yourself and possibly allow the person to become President?

We’re dealing with scumbags of monstrous proportion here. Almost every candidate currently in the race are lying, cheating, frauds.

As an American citizen, I’d prefer to be aware of this before I cast my vote.

Gregor on December 28, 2007 at 3:00 PM

It’s just sort of bizarre to see John McCain attacking another candidate for a lack of conservative principles. It’s almost like they’re both attacking themselves.

Gregor on December 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM

And that’s probably why he never ran the ad or even put his voice to it.

Yeah, because you’re a Mitt supporter.

Bad Candy on December 28, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Well, I’m not particularly a Mitt supporter, but I do prefer him over McCain.

To be quite honest though, at this point I just don’t want Huck. They all look incredible next to him.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 3:01 PM

I think that ad would have been more effective months ago in NH before Mitt dealt with those charges and people had time to judge him.

It still might hurt in states like SC, MI and places where people haven’t been as focused on the race.

But overall, ouch. That will leave a mark.

Drew on December 28, 2007 at 3:05 PM

And I dare even the thirstiest of the Kool-Aid Krowd to say that its ineffective.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Again, Mitt isn’t exactly my guy, but I fail to see how that ad could at all be effective.

None of it is news. Either you accept that he’s changed his positions or you don’t. The ad shouldn’t change anything.

Besides, if the candidate is Hillary, she’s really the last person who would want to punish someone for the wrong opinion on a specific issue. She already has her Iraq vote cross to bear.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Typical politics from both. Say what is expedient to your needs without any core to base those opinions on. McCain held back because the snakes he hired from Romney have worse on him that he doesn’t want to come out. You don’t think for one minute Mitt could be elected and re-elected in Massachusetts if he was a conservative. McCain is a liberal chameleon. He cannot get elected in his own state. He is like Shrillary. He will say and do anything, the truth be damned.

volsense on December 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Again, Mitt isn’t exactly my guy, but I fail to see how that ad could at all be effective.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Right. A man attempting to run as a true social conservative and giving feature speeches on his faith couldn’t possibly be hurt by footage of himself condemning Reaganism and guaranteeing support for pro-choice positions, all with unshakable zeal in his eyes.

Yup. That won’t have an impact on the vast swath of undecided moderates in the south and Midwest.

Heck – I’m sure the “I voted for it before I voted against it” (or is that backwards) ads had no impact on the Kerry campaign, either.

I’ll bite though: so who is “your guy?”

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM

He will say and do anything, the truth be damned.

volsense on December 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Um … as opposed to Romney?

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 3:14 PM

To be quite honest though, at this point I just don’t want Huck. They all look incredible next to him.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Agree, but I don’t want Huck, Mitt or McVain.

tickleddragon on December 28, 2007 at 3:19 PM

I see why McCain didn’t run it…. he’s the last person to talk about straying from the conservative plantation. Heck, the guy was seriously considered to be jumping to the Dems at one point.

Here’s how I see Mitt: The guy never really focused much on politics growing up. He was in France during his father’s campaign, so he was out of that day to day bit. He came back, went to BYU and Harvard. What happens to people who go to Harvard? It’s not like it’s a bastion of conservatism. He worked in Mass. All the people around him were libs, for the most part. So that was all he was exposed to.

Fast forward to getting elected. Suddenly, he has to think about this stuff. And he figures it out: liberalism is fake. So he comes home, as it were.

Once you have to deal with liberalism, you see it is messed up. And I think he thought long and hard about stuff. Reagan wasn’t perfect (he didn’t cut spending enough), and I imagine Harvard certainly was bashing Reaganomics to him.

He went to Utah, though, to run the Olympics. Utah is the farthest from Mass. politics as you can get. It was in Utah he was exposed (for the first time in a political sense) to conservatism; that it actually existed. And he absorbed it. His governership only cemented the fact that you have to be conservative to be right. So now, he’s made the journey from liberalish because that’s all he knew or was exposed to to conservative now.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 3:22 PM

For the record – if we’re foolish enough to give Mitt the nomination, you just saw the exact ad the Democrat nominee will be playing against him ad nauseum ad infinitum.
Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Yup.

Ex-tex on December 28, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Yup. That won’t have an impact on the vast swath of undecided moderates in the south and Midwest.

You’re worried that moderates will be worried about Mitt’s moderate positions?

Heck – I’m sure the “I voted for it before I voted against it” (or is that backwards) ads had no impact on the Kerry campaign, either.

I’m sure it did, but with those we’re talking about months in between votes, not years. If people cannot accept that Mitt has changed his mind, then they can’t accept it. Why would this video change anything?

I’ll bite though: so who is “your guy?”

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I don’t like any of them. I had hopes for some, but I know too much this election to find anyone to be to my liking.

My guy will be the Republican pick. I haven’t even decided if I’m going to vote in the primaries.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Agree, but I don’t want Huck, Mitt or McVain.

tickleddragon on December 28, 2007 at 3:19 PM

I’d take the latter two over him any day. I’d also take the latter two over any Democrat any day. I’m compromising no matter who gets the nomination. There isn’t a single candidate I really like. At least all but Huck appear to be on the right side when it comes to the war.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Utah is the farthest from Mass. politics as you can get. It was in Utah he was exposed (for the first time in a political sense) to conservatism; that it actually existed.

Perhaps not as far as you think.

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Big S : Yeah, Rocky. Proof that big cities are havens for liberals.

He’s liked in SLC, but the rest of the state loathes the guy. To the point where the rest of the state was punishing SLC because of him.

Rocky is by far the most detested politician in Utah as a whole. He’s a liberal (big on global warming) and he’s anti-mormon. Tell me, how well do you think THAT goes over in Utah? He’s got the support of the liberal types who live in SLC itself, but that’s it. I don’t even know if he sets foot in Utah county, the most conservative county in the entire US, I think.

Utah is so conservative that where I live, half the time the elections are between the Republican candidate and the Constitution party candidates–the Dem’s don’t even run anyone.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 3:47 PM

He’s got the support of the liberal types who live in SLC itself, but that’s it.

Two links.

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM

So? Rocky SHOULD be grateful to Mitt: Mitt singlehandedly saved the city he represented from mockery due to the Olympics. Note, though, that Rocky admits he’s a Mass. Liberal Dem.

As for the Mitt endorsement: Rocky wasn’t as insane in 2003. He hadn’t gone off the deep end as much then.

Mitt wouldn’t endorse him now, that’s for sure.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Link

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Media mercenaries go to the highest bidder, or who they think will help their resume the most. Nothing even a little surprising here.

TBinSTL on December 28, 2007 at 3:58 PM

So what, Big S? It’s true–one party politics is a bad idea. Even in Utah. It just means the liberal types call themselves republicans. Our old governor was one of those types, Mike Leavitt.

I’d rather have some small Democratic involvment to keep the republicans honest.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM

If McPain is the nominee i’ll be sitting out the ’08 presidential contest. He is farther left than Bush and GW is 75% liberal.
Mitt was saying what he had to(with in reason) to be elected, him nor Rudy can change the constitution single handily…abortion back to states rights and put an end to the bs about abortion.

oldernslower on December 28, 2007 at 4:04 PM

His governership only cemented the fact that you have to be conservative to be right.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Utah is so conservative that where I live, half the time the elections are between the Republican candidate and the Constitution party candidates–the Dem’s don’t even run anyone.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 3:47 PM

It’s true–one party politics is a bad idea.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Dude…

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 4:08 PM

What? There’s nothing contradictory in what I said. Conservatism is what I believe in.

Utah is conservative.

But that doesn’t mean one party politics is a good thing. I’d prefer the constitution party or something to replace the Dems, but two party politics at least has a chance to keep government and party types honest. It’s like Massachusetts–if there was a viable party, think Kennedy could get away with murder? I don’t want the Republican party to become corrupt either, or take all our votes for granted.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:13 PM

I’d rather have some small Democratic involvment to keep the republicans honest.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM

and vis versa…often I think the Clintoon yrs seem so good to some(democraps) was due tothe congress being controlled by Repubs.

oldernslower on December 28, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Utah is conservative.

Except for all of the “big city liberal” types Mitt hangs out with.

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 4:16 PM

It’s just sort of bizarre to see John McCain attacking another candidate for a lack of conservative principles. It’s almost like they’re both attacking themselves.

Gregor on December 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Exactly. I think that ad would sting more if it came from an actual conservative, but since it came from a guy like McVain who joyfully stabbed conservatives in the back time and time again in the last 8 years would French-kissing Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold … well, I’m not quite as swayed. Others might be, but not me.

What a farce. McCain is the biggest RINO in this race. I also noticed that he didn’t include anything about illegal immigration in that ad. Interesting. I wonder why?

Zetterson on December 28, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Oh, perhaps because McVain has made common cause with Ted Kennedy over the issue while complaining about the GD fence and losing is hair-trigger temper over the issue with guys like Cornyn, whom he told to basically go f**k himself.

I’d love to see someone bring that incident into a campaign ad. Not only would it show how dedicated McVain was to selling out citizens to illegal aliens, it would also highlight his volatile temper.

thirteen28 on December 28, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Big S, I know you have an axe to grind, but let’s be realistic: Mitt was in Utah to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Not the “small town Utah” Olympics.

All the cities except for Heber city that had Olympic events are ski towns, like Aspen. So, perforce, Mitt HAD to hang with the city leaders…. most of whom are liberals.

Until he dealt with the state government, which is conservative.

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Anybody but Huckaromney.

blackrepublican on December 28, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Have you seen this?

Big S on December 28, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Um, Big S–what does that have anything to do with anything? Huck’s a smooth talker–and I’d never vote for him, ever ever. The guy is a liar, and he is the one candidate, even considering Democrats, who is against my faith. To vote for him would be particularly stupid, don’t you think? For me, at least?

But it’s clear you are a Huck supporter. Are you also in favor of his religious baiting, of all the other reasons pretty much the entire conservative movement has rejected him?

Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Abortion: As technology increased to see what was actually going on I can see how someone could change their mind. I mean I remember what I used to think back when it was only legal in the first trimester.

Gun Control: Again I can see how someone could change their mind. It all sounds good at the time, but then the data comes in and you realize that as long as one person has one it won’t work, ever.

The Reagan line is the nail in the coffin. I fail to see how someone could live through the Reagan era and NOW think differently.

- The Cat

P.S. (sigh) I remember back in my day when we would support our allies, ignore our fake allies, and fight our enemies (financially, physically, and spiritually)

MirCat on December 28, 2007 at 5:57 PM

A few comments to cheer up Blather.

1. The Log Cabin Republicans already did the McCain ad, and did it better, so there’s nothing new here.

2. I hate the voice of whomever it is that Mitt’s team hires to do voiceovers. Memo to Mitt: hire new talent.

3. McCain was always liberal and is still a liberal (the single exception being his position on the War in Iraq).

Mitt was a liberal, but has moved to the right and will stay there. If it comes down to the two of them, I have to go with Mitt who is a conservative now, when it matters.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2007 at 8:08 PM

McCain = Rhino, Romney =rhino Guliani = Libino
Thompson = Conservative Huckabee = All the above

bones47 on December 28, 2007 at 8:57 PM

What a great spot. Hillary will run a clone of it if Flip Romney is the nominee.

He’s such a fake, but at least he’s pretending to be on the right side of the issues now. I’d put a clothespin on my nose and vote for him if it came down to it but I’d take a shower right after.

Mojave Mark on December 28, 2007 at 11:26 PM

I still like Romney, especially above McCain. You have to go waaaay back to get footage that makes Mitt look bad, and he’s explained his reasoning for switching on abortion, so it really doesn’t bother me. The gun thing … okay, yes, that’s weird. But it’s trivial. McCain wanted/wants amnesty for all illegals and did not support Bush’s tax cuts, which have benefited Americans and our economy.

As someone in tourism on Sept 11, 2001, I still cringe to think what could have happened to our economy back then. I still so appreciate President Bush’s resolve in making our economy strong in the aftermath, and his success in protecting American soil from further attack since.

Bottom line, America needs a true conservative in office. McCain and Huckabee are not conservatives. Give me Thompson, but if he can’t garner enough support in time, I’m a Romney fan.

eucher on December 29, 2007 at 9:06 AM