Video: “It’s the first inning in a 50-inning ballgame”; Update: Photo of the day added!
posted at 9:47 pm on January 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
A rival campaign helpfully sends this old story along to put the spin you’re getting from Mitt here into context. Heh.
So, how does it feel to lose to the GOP’s own Lonesome Rhodes? “I expect that by the time this is finished, I’ll be the one that gets the nomination.”
Update: Stupid: “We’re playing chess. Everybody else is playing checkers.”
Update: Look at that smile.
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 about Rudy?????
bloggless on January 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Lonesome Rhodes! Except that Huckabee’s alternate personality is Ed Rollins :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4t766u63UA&feature=related
BJ* on January 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
It’s clear that negative campaign ads don’t work. Romney was slapped in the face by the voters, but hey, they didn’t mess up his hair.
Dhornertx on January 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM
“We’re playing chess. Everybody else is playing checkers.”
In politics, it’s either you win or you lose, it’s not what you play.
Entelechy on January 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Mitt seems like a nice guy.
krabbas on January 3, 2008 at 9:53 PM
im guessing the romneys wont be summering in iowa anytime soon.
zane on January 3, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Yes, the traditional Huck spin: “Examining my record is evil, bad, and makes you a negative campaigner! Plus, if you don’t vote for me, you are voting against God!”
I must say, I had hoped for a better result. All we need (and I’m sure we will get) is some soundbite from Huck about how God is blessing him and fighting off the forces of the devil etc etc etc.
Vanceone on January 3, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Poor Mitt. And Thompson’s going to end up in fourth… so McCain’s your nominee.
Vizzini on January 3, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Mitt was gracious in defeat there.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Good to know… so you lead with a sacrificial variant, spending untold amounts of money in a state to come in second?
Just a warning, if some of your oppenents notice, and perhaps switch to go, you are screwed.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM
You go president elect Romney!
paulsur on January 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM
The counter-spin: Romney for the first time polled #1 nationally. His strategy was based creating name-recognition, etc.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Romney is still viable. Let’s not get all crazy here. What kind of nutjobs would we be to let 100K Iowegians decide our candidate? As we move into the more traditional campaign states we will get a better evaluation of all the candidates stack up, especially Rudy and McCain that really did not lay it on the line in Iowa.
The Opinionator on January 3, 2008 at 10:01 PM
If Fred does finish 4th and then drops out like the reports say, why would that make McCain the nominee. Even if Fred endorses his buddy McCain (which who knows if he’ll even endorse anyone), we shouldn’t assume that all Fred voters are going to flock to the Maverick.
No one in this race is as conservative as Fred Thompson. But Romney is the closest, IMO. If Fred drops out, I think Mitt benefits regardless of Fred’s endorsement. Am I right?
krabbas on January 3, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Surprisingly Hugh Hewitt won’t write “A Baptist in the Whitehouse?”
Complete7 on January 3, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Canadian,
Finishing second in Iowa is not a bad thing. Especially given the high evangelical turnout. If Romney had dropped to a distant third or fourth, that would be cause for concern.
It is a long road with many turns still to come for all the candidates.
The Opinionator on January 3, 2008 at 10:03 PM
It becomes an electability game, particularly since the opponent may be Obama. We shall see…
Vizzini on January 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM
For Christ’s sake (uh… sorry Mr. Huckabee)
Mitt was an afterthought less than a year ago. He’s far and away the most accomplished person in the field. He doesn’t fail at many things he puts his mind to. He has the assets to fight as long as is necessary. Huckabee is a fluke that got the support of enough (and mind you, not many in actual numbers) bible thumpers to get to this perverted Knights of Columbus meeting that they call a caucus.
Mitt is still the guy. Rudy is still #2.
Sugar Land on January 3, 2008 at 10:08 PM
This “negative ad” crap was started by the clintons and the demofascists. Point out what someone does and says and instead of repudiating it or standing up for it they called it negative. Now, once again, republicans are trying to play the democrats game and they are coming off sounding stupid and whiny. If an ad is false, prove it. If its true, explain it. Don’t go crying that someone is being negative. These politicians think they should be able to manipulate us and lie to us without and kind of consequence or accounting. Are we supposed to chose the biggest exagerator or whomever hires the best PR guy? Or are we choosing a leader, someone with conviction and confidence?
peacenprosperity on January 3, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Huckabee, formerly a blimp, is now a blip… I hope he enjoys it, because it ain’t going to last.
D2Boston on January 3, 2008 at 10:14 PM
“We’re playing chess. Everybody else is playing checkers.”
What the hell is that suppose to mean?
bnelson44 on January 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Second place in chess means you lose, dipstick.
MadisonConservative on January 3, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Guys…..Hucks sharp rise in the polls began with his Jesus candidate remarks. Mitt’s ads didn’t help, but they didn’t hurt either. Many were voting for the Jesus candidate. It’s not good news for Mitt because he will not win the Whitehouse without the evangelicals. I think he can even survive a second place finish in NH. In any case, SC will be the make or break state for him and his evangelical support.
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Please enlighten me why that is stupid? Is it stupid that he said it? Is it stupid that he believes it? Do you know what he meant by it?
TheBigOldDog on January 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM
His point is that chess requires a much longer strategy than checkers. It’s a 50 state race and Mitt has greater support than Huck does.
And perhaps a veiled dig at Iowans for being toothless hicks that sit around playing checkers down at the corner store?
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Chess is a game of strategy where you’re thinking 2, 3 or more moves ahead in order to win the game. Checkers is more a game of chance – one move at a time – no real thought to the end game. In Chess you sacrifice less important pieces in order to execute your strategy, etc., etc.
TheBigOldDog on January 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Short version, he’s playing the long game strategy over the zerg strategy, in the hopes that the long game strategy wins. He’s assuming that everyone else is playing the zerg strategy in the hope of taking out their opponents early, resulting in a cruise to win.
He’s also assuming that this is just a 2 person race, which may result in them finding out later that everyone else is playing starcraft (or other multiplayer game) while he’s still playing chess.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 3, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Dodd drops out.
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I hate Protoss. They even used the same voice actor from Orcs in Warcraft.
Zerg rush!
Reaps on January 3, 2008 at 10:47 PM
One can only hope, but this double digit loss in Iowa could lead to a decisive loss in NH, then he could easily lose the next couple and he would be D-O-N-E. If he can’t get the nom at the very least I’d like to see him negative ad the hell out of Huckabee and Mccain and take them down with him. But that of course would be assuming issues and substance actually matter in this campaign, so…
Patriot33 on January 3, 2008 at 11:01 PM
NH’s not going for Huck. Heaven help this country if the GOP puts Huck up against whatever dem gets nominated…Huck loses to Obama or Clinton, probably even Edwards. This is EXACTLY what the MSM wants…WTF is wrong with the republican party? I guess they (the GOP) just doesn’t like us true conservatives.
JustTruth101 on January 3, 2008 at 11:06 PM
From that link:
What did we tell you? They’re up to something.
baldilocks on January 3, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Spin, little Rombot, spin.
Bill C on January 3, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Romney won’t be done until he loses NH and then, for the good of the conservative movement, he should quit and let another conservative have a shot at keeping the Huckster and McVain out of the WH. Romney’s money has not bought him enough credibility. From now on Romney has the potential of staying in and diluting the fiscal/national security conservative vote.
Bill C on January 3, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Metaphors go right over their head, like figurative speech. I can’t tell me how much I relate to your frustration.
Buy Danish on January 3, 2008 at 11:36 PM
The msm dislike him for a reason. Romney drops out say hello to the Socialist State of the Americas. The clintons will bring out all the dirt on huckster and a third party candidate will get more votes then he will. McCain will say something stupid or lose his temper. Guiliani is no different then hilary and the idiot/undecideds will think it will be nice to have a woman president. Paul is a nutjob. Fred would rather be a retired movie star and his pathetic Reagan imperonation will come off smarmy and arrogant.
peacenprosperity on January 3, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Great comparison..I managed to checkmate my 4 year old nephew with a pawn last week (first and only time that will happen).
After many attempts suggesting moves and sacrificing my pieces to help him win, they board just worked itself into the right configuration so I took it, and then called a mulligan.
The next night my nephew (with my help later on in the game) beat dad (who also gave up his pieces early on in a effort to teach a 4 year old the game).
My nephew only thinks one move at a time and does not understand that some players are more important then others.
To him each piece on the board is a piece of candy, the more he captures = he will have more and therefore win, aka checkers.
He does know how to move the “horse” correctly (along with most of the other pieces) so progress is being made.
F15Mech on January 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Checkers = winning Iowa
Chess = maybe not win Iowa put position yourself so you can win the election.
F15Mech on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 AM
I don’t expect any of the GOP candidates to drop out before Feb 5, with perhaps the exception of Hunter. They all have enough money, except perhaps Thompson, to last the next few weeks.
If winning is going to be with 34%, even respectable 2nd and 3rd place finishes will give enough delegates to losing candidates to influence the convention. If 66% of the delegates belong to the losers than the nomination is going to be decided by the jury.
These early states could split 5 ways and there won’t be momentum for anyone going into Feb 5. You’ll have whack-a-mole on the leader with the anti-whoever is at the top vote.
I think I also expect Rush to really pile it on Hucakbee, McCain, and Rudy between now and then. If Rush is anywhere as influential as he thinks he is then the nomination will go to Romney or Thompson. And right now Romney has the advantage in the polls and money.
Sebastian on January 4, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Yes exactly! And the conversation was something like “Our plan is coming along nicely.”
Then he stuck his pinky in his mouth.
This was so obvious the other day.
PowWow on January 4, 2008 at 2:29 AM
F15Mech on January 4, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Of course F15Mech, but they’d all have loved to win Iowa…I don’t blame him for saying it.
Entelechy on January 4, 2008 at 2:33 AM
off topic:
Teaching a boy chess at an early age is very fulfilling. Aside from instilling patience in a perpetual motion machine, it teaches respect for reality…potentially harsh realities. Like, “you’re gonna lose that rook in two moves.”
Watching my son accept and understand his back-rank-mate loss made me very proud of him.
on topic:
Mitt you’re down in piece count, but your strong opening has given you good piece development and board position.
***
Somebody give Fred Thompson a Red Bull or something…please. I don’t think you have to be a great campaigner to become a great President. But you can’t put people to sleep.
The Race Card on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 AM
Bill C,
I am not a “Rombot”. In fact, I am a native Arkansan whose family still lives there so I get the dope on Hickabee regularly. I have not made up my mind. And since I am in NC, this thing will likely be nearly decided before it gets to me. My point is that it is a long campaign and we are allowing the media and pundits to convince us this is a deatkblow to Romney when it is not. Letting a few thousand Iowans determine what choices we have is ridiculous.
I initially became aware of Romney when he ran against Ted Kennedy in 94. I was living in Boston and came away impressed. I also worked in NYC and saw what a difference he made there and that was before his outstanding leadership on 9/11. Thompson is someone I could vote for as well. And Mc Cain and I disagree on a lot of things but I have no problem having a foreign policy hawk in the White House.
In summary, you do not know what you are talking about!
The Opinionator on January 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Update, when discussing NYC above, I was referring to Rudy. My fingers got ahead of my brain.
The Opinionator on January 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM
BTW, Bill C,
Romney is doing just fine in NH. So it is way too early to say that he should drop out and stop diluting votes.
The Opinionator on January 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Agree with everything you say except that I’m a bit worried about how hawkish McCain is. He’s too influenced by the Kumbaya crowd (wanting to close Gitmo, coming out against water boarding) to make me completely confident of those creds.
By the way, I lived in NYC and suffered through everyone from Lindsey to Dinkins and I can attest to what a miraculous Mayor Rudy was.
Buy Danish on January 4, 2008 at 9:13 AM
That’s a pretty good point. Sure, Romney bet the farm on Iowa (well, ok, maybe just a summer house, but still a big chunk of money by anybody’s standards.) Still, second place is nothing to sneeze at, and one state is only one state…
But Romney’s supposed to be big in the notheast. If he doesn’t win NH, it’d be downright crazy to keep throwing more good money after bad.
logis on January 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM