Video: Mitt delivers roundhouse kick to Huckabee — via Chuck Norris
posted at 1:05 pm on January 2, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A goof, of course, on Huck’s most famous ad. It should have been presented as “Chuck Norris facts” to parallel that spot, but the line about how both men love Chuck more than atones for the missed opportunity. If Chuck wanted to “choke those guys out” before — in a Christian way, of course — wait until he sees this. Awesome.
Update: Commenters are asking if this is an official Romney ad. Yep — his web guy sent it to us. The “I approve this message” kicker is conspicuously missing, though, isn’t it? Own it, Mitt. Own it.
Update: Maybe it’s because the ad is web only? Doesn’t Romney approve those, too?
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:
Hah – who paid for this?
Hannibal Smith on January 2, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Fantastic ad, but how do you know it’s Romneys? Aside from the “Two good men” part?
I.E. McCains signature “paid for by Romney” tagline is missing?
It’s fun, though. And I like it!
Vanceone on January 2, 2008 at 1:07 PM
But…But…Huck is Christian!
All kidding aside, good ad.
amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I like it!
davenp35 on January 2, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Real mature.
Hilts on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM
If you click on the actual Youtube link, you’ll see the video is sponsored by Romney’s campaign.
Outlander on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I’m wondering if this is a web-only ad? If so, do they have to put the “I approved this message” kicker up?
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Stay classy, Mitt.
What a load of garbage.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Yeah. He should’ve done something more mature like announcing at a press conference he’s canceling an ad, while playing it for a room full of reporters with cameras.
amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
This is an ad that Romney will not release, just like Huckabee did.
/snark
LakeRuins on January 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
To answer my own question: McCain/Feingold has an internet loophole.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Awesome.
Vizzini on January 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
“Say, don’t Mormons believe Satan and Jesus are brothers?”
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Dude! Get over yourself. Are you seriously upset about that? Please tell me you are joking and not really that bitter.
Zetterson on January 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Exactly!
davenp35 on January 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Again, something classier would’ve been playing an attack ad for a room full of reporters, while announcing you’re canceling it? Oh, and then claiming you canceled it just a half-hour or hour before, when television stations were notified 2 hours before not to play it?
amerpundit on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Who cares who made it? I just want the information. I can make up my own mind about the content. This doesn’t seem like a Romney ad though…
DfDeportation on January 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM
You know, maybe the Huck supporters can tell me: if the Reagan coalition is dead…. who, exactly, does Huck plan to build a new coalition with?
Huck’s writing off the strong defense/foriegn policy people and the fiscal conservatives in breaking up the Reagan coalition.
Who replaces them? I just don’t see a whole heck of a lot of social conservatives that aren’t fiscal conservatives too.
Vanceone on January 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM
This ad is a lie! Norris said he’d use the “chokehold”. Norris will “choke them out”!
DfDeportation on January 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM
nice boot to the head.
TexasDan on January 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Best ad I’ve seen so far.
MadisonConservative on January 2, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Now there’s a good use of Chuck Norris for a presidential campaign.
frankj on January 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM
I don’t think web only stuff does have to have that tag.
I am sure Maverick will get around to closing that loophole (aka free speech) as soon as possible.
Drew on January 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Chuck Norris does not need a chokehold. He simply inhales all the air around his hapless victim, thus depriving him of oxygen.
Bigfoot on January 2, 2008 at 1:40 PM
lol thats a great ad
Mojack420 on January 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM
You guys are easily impressed, I guess. Eh, to each their own.
As for Huck’s ad pull, I’m torn on that one. At first glance, it definitely reeks(sic?) of pulling a fast one. But then you hear about the 150k the cash strapped campaign had to swallow because they pulled the ad. Then on top of it we find out later they also pulled mailers and radio ads. That’s an awful lot of work(and cash) for a publicity stunt that very easily could go wrong.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM
A+++++++ would play again!
Vincenzo on January 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM
By the way, why hasn’t there been any talk on here about Romney-care including a $50 co-pay for women wanting abortions?
Guess you guys just like to pick and choose what suits your agenda best.
Ah, well.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Heh. At the feet of the master, you have learned.
Huckabee: Like an Aw-Shucks Columbo with the throwaway zingers.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Orrrrrr you could just look the other way like Slublog, I guess.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Geez. You’re like Huckabee’s Hugh Hewitt around here.
I don’t like the $50 co-pay for abortions plan. But such low co-pays are part of health care. My own health insurance plan has a $20 copay. If the procedure is legal in his state, then any healthcare plan developed for that state has to make it part of the plan.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I should clarify – my own plan has a $20 copay for abortions.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Saw a story on the local news last night about RomneyCare taking effect yesterday in Massachusetts. One giant step toward socialized medicine, thanks to a supposed Republican. He looked so very pleased and proud when he signed it, too. They even played a clip of Mitt on the presidential campaign stump touting RomneyCare and saying he hopes other states follow suit, and that it’s part of his federal plan to spread such universal health coverage as well.
The local coverage was pretty positive toward Romney and RomneyCare. Only a sentence or two, almost an afterthought, about how RomneyCare is not sufficiently funded and already faces problems as hundreds of thousands sign on.
aero on January 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I should note that I live in liberal Austin, TX, where the media’s positive attitude toward a Republican candidate cannot be considered a good thing.
aero on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Lol.
As a matter of fact, I addressed this very issue yesterday (can’t remember what thread I was on!). It was a falsehood in the famous ad that never ran, along with the squirrelly claim that there were no executions under Romney…in a state where there is no death penalty.
Anway, it’s required by Massachusetts law, Dude.
Here ya go -
FACT: Under State Law And Court Precedent, If The State Is Funding Health Care Benefits It Cannot Refuse To Provide Abortion Coverage:
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM
For $50? Hm. Nice deal for extinguishing a life.
As for being the “Huckabee Hugh Hewitt”…eh, not really. As you can see above, I give both sides of the negative ad fiasco. My defense of the Huck comes more from being annoyed with the ‘follow the leader’ mentality I’ve seen develop on HotAir regarding attacking Huckabee. It’s gotten annoying and waaaayyyy over the top, so here and there I decide to fight back.
It’s that simple.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Chuck Norris fears Jack Bauer and even Huck knows it
Mojack420 on January 2, 2008 at 2:08 PM
So why aren’t you as hard on Huckabee for taking money from the company that produces the morning after pill? After all, Romney doesn’t personally benefit from the abortions performed by MassCare, but Huckabee was able to deposit some of that sweet, sweet morning-after mammon in his bank account.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM
That was a great ad.
I’ll mention it to any Ron Paul supporters I find while fishing in Barrens chat.
Canadian Infidel on January 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Thanks for the info Danish.
So they do have to provide a benefit, that’s fair. But they don’t define what the benefit has to be. Seems to me that a pro-life Governor would fight to change the law and in lieu of that, make it as difficult as possible to use state funds to pay for abortions.
As for knocking the ad for bringing up the death penalty(or lack thereof) in Mass., that’s a fair point. But once again, it shows a weakness in Romney if he never fought to change that law.
It also reminds me of the distortion Romney made regarding the Meth ad. Sure, Huck lowered the sentencing, but it still was twice as stern as that in Massachusetts. Romney may be telling the truth, but he clearly is twisting it to suit his agenda.
All I’m asking is folks hit both sides equally on here.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM
You’re not doing a very good job at that.
awake on January 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Slublog, I have no problem with Huckabee taking money away from those folks. Now investing in them the way Romney has, that’s another story.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Many of us don’t want Huckabee to be the nominee. I was interested in him for a very short time. His performance in the debates was impressive enough for me to take a look at him and his record. I wasn’t impressed with what I discovered about his time in Arkansas, and have been even less impressed with how he’s choosing to campaign.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM
How is it different? Both benefit financially.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM
While I’d likely disagree with your assessments of his record, Slublog, I respect them and that’s fine.
But how can you not knock Romney even moreso with the way he has ran his campaign? While he has every right to buy his way to the nomination, I respect that he has the right to do so…it just rubs me the wrong way. But to run the way he has just makes me completely disrespect him.
He’s the Republican John Kerry, and if he becomes the nominee you all will clearly see what a mistake was made by focusing so intensely and solely on Huckabee.
But yes, I’d still vote for him over any slimy Democrat.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM
One helps make the company grow, the other takes money away from the company. Seems pretty clear to me.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Did you guys catch Mitt on F&F this morning talking about the Ad that wasen’t? He said “that’s kind of like saying, I won’t call my opponent any dirty names, but if I did, these are the names I would call him” ha, comedy gold.
conservnut on January 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Rush chimed in on the Huskster ad thing today too. Called it “perfectly Clintonion”
conservnut on January 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Rush chimed in on the Huskster ad thing today too. Called it “perfectly
ClintonionClintonian”conservnut on January 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM
conservnut on January 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
But in both cases, there is a financial benefit.
Different companies. Romney invested in Novo Novorisk, which does the research (although not currently, if I remember correctly).
Huckabee took money from them, but also from the Public Health Institute, which works to expand access to the morning after pill. It does not actually make the pill, so I was in error there.
As a special bonus, he also took speaking fees money from a gun control group.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Also, Romney has divested of his Novo Nordisk stock.
Has Huckabee returned the $35,000 in speaking fees?
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Guys, I gotta tell ya, this looks like an ad that Fred had a hand in.
Too, too funny.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM
What matters is what benefits the company, not Romney or Huckabee. Investing in them encourages growth of the company. Taking their money does not.
Also, Huckabee isn’t exactly loaded. I’m not saying he NEEDED the money by any means, but when you’ve been making squat for 10 years it’s nice to start making some good cash.
Finally, the reason he spoke was in support of diabetes awareness, a disease of which he suffered.
But at the end of the day, he didn’t invest in them and make them better.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Kind of thin. Romney could just as easily make the argument that his investment helped cure people, but Huckabee’s actions only benefited Huckabee.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I damn well hope he divested. I’d question his intelligence if he didn’t.
I don’t get the rationale for returning money to the company. That’s 35k that they could invest in researching a better morning after pill.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Nope. Romney’s investment was to the company at large. A percentage of it helped all the companies projects.
Huckabee spoke explicitly on one issue. And then took money AWAY from them.
That’s a GOOD thing.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Standing on principle. Huckabee has denounced the morning after pill. Taking money from a group that wants more people to avail themselves of it seems…well, it’s not quite “Ron Paul takes money from Nazis” bad, but it’s not good.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:35 PM
For Huckabee, perhaps. But for the idea that one should abide by principle and not take money from those with whom you disagree, even if taking that money can be justified as harming it?
Not so good, really.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The key word “TAKING” money. If you take money from them, they can’t use it on the morning after pill.
We’re going in circles here.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Nonsense. He still financially benefited from something he disagrees with. Your attempts to turn it into a noble act because he somehow removed that money from its intended purpose are a stretch, to say the least.
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM
He doesn’t disagree with diabetes eduation, which is what he was paid for addressing.
Dismissing Romney’s guilt simply because he divested after he was caught seems to be quite a bit larger a stretch.
EduardoOTI on January 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Let’s make an analogy: Huck sez, I disagree with Nazism! But I’ll take 35 grand from Stormfront…. because that is less money they have!
What’s the difference between that and Ron Paul?
As for Romney–what, he bought stock in the company, then sold it? If the stock was not a new issue, none of his money went to the company at all. And for a man with 250 million, with a solid strategy of divesting your portfolio–wouldn’t it be hard to never inadvertently invest in something you disagree with?
Vanceone on January 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM
To Novo, but not to the company that makes the morning after pill.
Also, if he cares so much about these issues, why not speak for free?
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I wasn’t “dismissing his guilt,” just pointing out that he’s made restitution of a sort for his actions.
Huckabee hasn’t made any such move, which shows he doesn’t see any sort of conflict between his stated principles and his actions. Why doesn’t he give the money to charity or something?
Slublog on January 2, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Coulda Woulda Shoulda with a Democrat controlled legislature. As it was Mitt had to accept Dem demands for various provisions in the insurance legislation that he didn’t want. The chances of him being able to bring the death penalty back were…zero. He vetoed hundreds and hundreds of Democrat bills. He did what he could under preexisting conditions (no pun intended).
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I’m PRO-life, ANTI-abortion. Period.
However, do I want to pay for all those unwanted children via health care, education, etc,. or, take them into my own home as foster care. Ahh, not really.
So, for all of you militant Pro-lifers, I applaud your conviction, I really, really do (I AGREE with you !) but how many of you are foster parents, “Big Sisters and Big Brothers” or help society in any other way to see that unwanted children are raised in a healthy way ?
Just wondered.
stenwin77 on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 PM
That’s “Dude” worthy.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 2, 2008 at 5:56 PM
NOTE: the “morning after pill” is not an abortion pill. It is a contraceptive pill, just like the one that women take daily to prevent pregnancy (same stuff, just in a higher dose). If you’re already pregnant when you take it, it will not end your pregnancy.
This is a common misconception. (ha!)
Mark Jaquith on January 2, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Wondering if the transition from “Money Trumps All” to “Christ Trumps All” will be a smooth one. I’m betting we’ll somehow have both no matter if Romney or Huckabee happened to get elected.
Maybe that’s why I’m voting for Fred, his Church attendance is much more like mine than either of them.
Buzzy on January 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Comment pages: