Video: Mitt’s last ad in Iowa

posted at 12:13 pm on December 31, 2007 by Allahpundit

Is this snoozer really his parting shot before the caucus? Politico says so, but Huck’s ready to roll out some new attack ads within the next few hours that Mitt would be wise not to let go unanswered. (Expect abortion and dishonesty about his record to figure prominently.) Doubtless Team Romney has a little something on the shelf for Wednesday afternoon. In the meantime, am I reading too much into this one to see an echo of Huck’s Christmas ad in the treatment of the flag in the background? It starts out on the left where the “cross” did and then slowly moves right behind the candidate as the camera turns, a symbolic counterpoint to Huckabee’s “Christian leader” iconography/demagoguery. Or have I simply been so numbed by the tedium of campaign ads that I’m inventing secret messages to entertain myself?


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

Ha, I think you’re right about the flag, AP. It’s a subtle jab.

Vizzini on December 31, 2007 at 12:21 PM

You would think that someone, who spent his Republican political life in radically Liberal Massachusetts would know better than to make a statement like that? Are we that close to the election that the big lies are being tethered?

Turn around Washington? Indeed, sir.

Hening on December 31, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Where is he? A warehouse? These campaign schedules must be tight.

Limerick on December 31, 2007 at 12:23 PM

I like Mitt but Fred smokes him on many levels.

TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 12:26 PM

You’re right about the flag. It was so distracting I didn’t even hear what he said. AND I got sick to my stomach. Ya know, like playing a FPS video game.

csdeven on December 31, 2007 at 12:27 PM

When they point out the other candidates weaknesses it’s an attack ad. When they are positive and say what they want to do, they are boring. What exactly do you want the candidates to say? I think a guy who gets up there and stays on message and responds to criticism with a positive message and concrete answers would clean up.

peacenprosperity on December 31, 2007 at 12:39 PM

I like Mitt but Fred smokes him on many levels.

TheSitRep on December 31, 2007 at 12:26 PM

I feel the same way, but Mitt smokes Fred on one crucial level that overrides all others: he’s actually campaigning, running his ass off for the office…he’s trying and he’s very electable along with being a much better candidate.

Sad to say, I think a lot of that criticism of Fred has borne itself out…true or not, it LOOKS like he doesn’t care if he wins, and that’s just a deathblow to his campaign.

TheGoblinKing on December 31, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Mitt’s got somethin’ else that Huckabee doesn’t have…His looks don’t remind me of Pres. Charles Logan from 24. Huckabee is Charles Logan, same voice, same looks. Shallow, I know…Go Mitt!

Melba Toast on December 31, 2007 at 12:55 PM

TheGoblinKing on December 31, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Bingo.

As for the ad, it’s boring and should go in the warehouse dumpster. The flag is just a typical campaign ad prop, and I don’t see it as anything more or less than that.

The only thing to add is that Huck is making it very hard for me to vote for him if he’s the candidate. What a sanctimonious prig!

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Sad to say, I think a lot of that criticism of Fred has borne itself out…true or not, it LOOKS like he doesn’t care if he wins, and that’s just a deathblow to his campaign.

TheGoblinKing on December 31, 2007 at 12:42 PM

See-Dubya has already drafted a perfect response to this. I couldn’t agree with him more.

http://junkyardblog.net/archives/2007/12/fire-in-the-bel.php

Meanwhile, the dead-in-the-water candidate has hit almost 1,100 comments in just the last two threads alone.

Mitt’s last two threads just topped 20.

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Meanwhile, the dead-in-the-water candidate has hit almost 1,100 comments in just the last two threads alone.

The dead-in-the-water candidate has been the blogosphere favorite since day one. Don’t mean a thing. Go to a Digg post about Ron Paul and watch the comments pile up there. Dude’s still 3% nationally.

Allahpundit on December 31, 2007 at 12:59 PM

The dead-in-the-water candidate has been the blogosphere favorite since day one. Don’t mean a thing. Go to a Digg post about Ron Paul and watch the comments pile up there. Dude’s still 3% nationally.

Allahpundit on December 31, 2007 at 12:59 PM

We’ll see, won’t we?

It seems patently obvious that both in cyberspace and in the real world, Fred generates excitement while few if any of the other candidates (on either side) manage to do so.

Paul doesn’t count – he has a blimp.

And did you just say that the political blogosphere is meaningless? A little ironic considering your employment, don’t you think?

For the record, whoever you eventually back – I’m going to like hearing something positive out of you. Anything positive. You’re bumming me out.

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 1:05 PM

And did you just say that the political blogosphere is meaningless? A little ironic considering your employment, don’t you think?

Indeed. But the fact remains.

Allahpundit on December 31, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Meanwhile, the dead-in-the-water candidate has hit almost 1,100 comments in just the last two threads alone.

Mitt’s last two threads just topped 20.

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Yeah, right. In BlatherWorld this proves that Entelechy’s predicted avalanche is coming.any.minute.now.

Just one more reason why I don’t defer to Blather and on anything.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Just one more reason why I don’t defer to Blather and on anything.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 1:35 PM

I “see” that you’re getting a little frustrated.

;)

Why not join the rest of us and turn that frown upside down, sunshine?

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Somebody adds an extra word to a sentence and you call that frustration? A little nit pickish don’t you think?

Or have I simply been so numbed by the tedium of campaign ads that I’m inventing secret messages to entertain myself?

I’ll go with making them up for your own enjoyment, but I’ve heard if you play this one backward you get an endless loop of Hillary cackling.

RW_theoriginal on December 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Keep it up, blowhard. Your commentary is a farce and the more you speak the more obvious it becomes.

You don’t know morning from eve, you sanctimoniously attack me for posting a comment at 9 AM on December 24th, you argue about the definition of “terror attack”, you make an Orwellian claim that a thread about strict adherence to LDS theology isn’t about religion, you claim that there is only one definition of “saw” and using figurative speech is “lying for 30 years”, you think the number of comments on a thread is equivalent to poll numbers, you make tiresome, unoriginal and repetitive hair jokes, and so forth.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:17 PM

O my. Feel better now? Do you realize you just blew up at someone who’s not being hateful, but funny?

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:54 PM

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:54 PM

We are not amused.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:56 PM

We are not amused.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Um. Duh. And what’s this “we” stuff – got a frog in your pocket? ;)

I’m sorry if I riled you. But I have to point out that unless you’re arguing with an opponent in the same state of duress and angst…you’re wasting valuable energy and time.

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM

But I have to point out that unless you’re arguing with an opponent in the same state of duress and angst you’re wasting valuable energy and time.

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM

We are not amused is an expression, sorry you’re unfamiliar with it.

As for being in the same state of mind as Professor Blather and his tiresome shtick, no thanks.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Thanks for the clarification. If you’re referring to Queen Victoria’s oft said line. Yes, I’m familiar. If you’re referring to the Dr. Who episode with Queen Victoria in it, I’m even more familiar with that. Otherwise, I get the drift.

And your desire to stay out of that state, is a fine one. Tho, I’m afraid I’ve missed the “tiresome” stuff you mention. On that, I will be more watchful.

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 3:36 PM

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Flashback to just one reason why I can’t tolerate Blather’s blathering anymore -

I said:

I hereby submit the Buy Danish Dictionary® definition of Terror Attack:
An unprovoked attack on civilian or military targets that does not occur as part of ongoing military operations where we are engaged against enemy forces or enemy combatants.
Buy Danish on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM

The blowhard’s response:

You’re literally hurting my ribs. But in a good way.
So let me make sure I understand your latest dictionary offering: words can have multiple literal or figurative meanings – depending entirely on how you choose to interpret them and the degree to which a particular definition happens to spin objective fact towards your subjective desired reality – except that some words only have exactly one meaning, with said one meaning determined solely by you?
That must be wonderfully convenient.
You are priceless, dude hon. Come find me in a current thread. I desperately want to hear more.
Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Let’s just say that he has not endeared himself to me.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Understood. It was indeed snarky. Shame on you, Professor.

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Yeah, right. In BlatherWorld this proves that Entelechy’s predicted avalanche is coming.any.minute.now.

Just one more reason why I don’t defer to Blather and on anything.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Dear, smart, and exhaustively nitpicky Buy Danish,

I’ve said many times that I’d vote for your guy, or any other on our side, except Mr. Huckabee. If he’s the one I’ll vote for some insignificant 3rd party dude/dudette, as a protest, just because I can’t suffer not to vote. This you can take to the (bank).

I’ve also said a fiew times, and I repeat, that I appreciate your dedication to your guy, and your serious energy invested in proving it. What you fail to internalize is other people’s same emotions, or rights, or stupidity, as it may be. Either way, it is what it is, and we don’t have to agree. We’ll all rejoice or suffer, according to outcomes. I remember vividly similar emotions here ahead of Nov. 2006. We all now live with the consequences, and we fully deserve them.

On all your anti-Blather-blathering, especially of late – here’s the bottom line, because it’s year end and I don’t want to get too detailed – I’d prefer to have lunch/dinner with Professor Blather a million times over same with you. I know, you didn’t invite me – it’s just an abstract. I’ve read many of his comments over time, and he’s witty and entertaining. Of all here, he definitely is in that E-handful which I adore. You are way to thin-skinned and ‘perfect’, and while very smart, such people bore me in a jiffy.

Other than that, carry on, and I’ll still appreciate your comments for their substance.

Entelechy on December 31, 2007 at 6:08 PM

You don’t know morning from eve, you sanctimoniously attack me for posting a comment at 9 AM on December 24th, you argue about the definition of “terror attack”, you make an Orwellian claim that a thread about strict adherence to LDS theology isn’t about religion, you claim that there is only one definition of “saw” and using figurative speech is “lying for 30 years”, you think the number of comments on a thread is equivalent to poll numbers, you make tiresome, unoriginal and repetitive hair jokes, and so forth.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Good morning, sunshine!

And you left out blimp jokes. What were you thinking?

And not a mention of Jessica Alba? Sheesh.

But I have to point out that unless you’re arguing with an opponent in the same state of duress and angst…you’re wasting valuable energy and time.

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Indeed. Somebody’s a little obsessed up there, isn’t she? And her panties are in such a bunch!

If I had any more power, I’d be Fred.

We are not amused.

Buy Danish on December 31, 2007 at 2:56 PM

I’m more than a little amused. C’mon. This is funny stuff, if I do say so myself:

So let me make sure I understand your latest dictionary offering: words can have multiple literal or figurative meanings – depending entirely on how you choose to interpret them and the degree to which a particular definition happens to spin objective fact towards your subjective desired reality – except that some words only have exactly one meaning, with said one meaning determined solely by you?

I know the truth can sting, sweetie … and I know you’re so frustrated you’re about to burst … but that’s funny.

Why? Because it’s true, of course.

Understood. It was indeed snarky. Shame on you, Professor.

tickleddragon on December 31, 2007 at 4:45 PM

We are chastened. Yes, we are. We bow our heads.

But we are still amused.

I’d prefer to have lunch/dinner with Professor Blather a million times over same with you. I know, you didn’t invite me – it’s just an abstract. I’ve read many of his comments over time, and he’s witty and entertaining. Of all here, he definitely is in that E-handful which I adore.

Entelechy on December 31, 2007 at 6:08 PM

:)

God bless you, Entelechy. Not just for that post, but for pointing me over here.

I would have completely missed it, and you just made my year. The old one, not the new one. You’ll have to do better next year.

This was wonderful … now we are very amused.

But you’re paying for lunch.

And now I must drink. But we shall raise a glass to you, and we shall think fond thoughts of you.

Good morning everyone!

Happy Fred Year!

Professor Blather on December 31, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Heh, Professor, every penny w/b worth the laughter you’d repay with :) I’ll try harder next year! May your new year be a very good one, no matter what happens here, or in Nov. ’08. I’m thankful that you exist, and that I was privileged to know some of your thoughts, and especially your wit. May good follow you, and yours.

p.s. don’t drink too much tonight, else those dreams get really muddled :)

Entelechy on December 31, 2007 at 6:45 PM