Video: McCain goofs on Mitt about “change”; Video: Huck goofs on Mitt’s flip-flopping
posted at 9:06 pm on January 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
I seem to be the only one who thought it was funny.
Well, besides Fred.
Update: Another golden moment. I’m seeing a bunch of people around the ‘sphere say Romney won the debate — although not Marc Ambinder, who was bowled over by Fred — but what they’re missing is that the wonkish answers disappear into the ether in people’s minds, and not because of the media’s fondness for soundbites either. The policy distinctions between the candidates are relatively fine; it’s hard enough to keep track of them following this crap from day to day, let alone trying to do it as an average voter who pays attention sporadically throughout the campaign. This is the sort of thing they take away, and unfortunately Mitt’s not very good at it. Huck is, and has been throughout the debates. See the results in Iowa for more on that.
In the final analysis, it was indeed a Romney pile-on for the GOP tonight. The four guys with no money need him out of the race ASAP to level the playing ground. Tuesday will tell.
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: « Previous 1 2
That is a RUMOR not a fact. But funny that Fredheads who rail against Politico suddenly are so quick to believe their rumor. As far as “spending millions of dolalrs on negative campaigns,” I don’t consider very gentle contrast ads comparing RINOs records’ to his own conservative record can accurately be described that way.
And btw, I like(d) Fred Thompson and respect his conservative credentials. But I lost a lot of respect for him tonight, with laughing at McCain’s pathetic “joke” and getting in on the Romney bashing himself. Very unbecoming.
Patriot33 on January 6, 2008 at 1:35 AM
You culturally insensitive bastard. I demand you install a footbath in your home for me before I blow myself to Allah AND TAKE YOU WI-I mean, you’ll be hearing from CAIR.
Sometimes they need to be dealt with? Wow, doesn’t sound menacing at all. That’s what happens when you fear that a candidate is a threat to you. I’m not even saying it as a negative on Romney’s part. As you said, that’s politics. What I will say is that so far, whose camp HASN’T been charged with that? Hunter’s and Thompson’s.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 1:38 AM
You are confusing yourself for me again. Not only have I never said anything bad about Mitt, I’ve never said anything bad about any of the republican candidates, well except for Ron Paul who really is a libertarian pretending to be a republican. As I have in fact told you many times If Mitt gets the nomination I will be perfectly happy with it. There is a great deal about his family values I find very comforting. (You may remember that my parents are Mormons, even though I myself am not).
The major difference between you and I is I genuinely like all of the republican candidates, some just more than others. It’s not the candidates I have a problem with. I don’t have any problem say something nice about Mitt. I honestly wish him all the luck in the world.
I think is he dead on regard illegal immigration and health care. No I did not know he won Wyoming tonight, good for him.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 1:39 AM
And Ron Paul. The three lowest guys in the polls.
Meaning Mitt needs to be challenged on his varying positions. Same with Fred and the rest. I have no problem with it. My point is that many people who claim their candidate is feared because he is attacked, don’t think their candidate is afraid when he attacks another candidate. In that context, all of them are obviously afraid of Mitt.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 1:43 AM
You just don’t get it. I am for Fred, but that doesn’t mean I am against Mitt. Personally I though Mitt did great tonight, he held up well under a great deal of pressure.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 1:43 AM
My concern is that we might see things differently than the average voter, who may not know McCain and Huckabee’s record, and may not know their accusations and rhetoric are false.
While watching I tried to get in that mindset of just watching the performances objectively, and for me it seems Romney was constantly on the defensive, and forced into long-winded responses that never really hit back and won the challenge against him. Yeah, most are probably recognizing McCain’s hostility being over the top, but did Mitt really come off well in the exchange against Thompson? or Huckabee?
The fact that Mitt always took the high road may be redeeming and presidential to some, but an indictment on the charges for others. I don’t know.
Patriot33 on January 6, 2008 at 1:44 AM
I don’t care who you are, that’s a funny line. Doesn’t even need context.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Ummm…let’s talk Paulbots spamming polls, all the way up to his staffers. Did you miss that one?
Every candidate has things to be challenged on. You’ve pointed out ones that could be challenged about Fred, thought they will be difficult to segue to smoothly in discussing policy. Mitt, like McCain, Huck, and Rudy, is a flip-flopper, and they all are trying to hide it. Whoever stands to make a real threat to the others, they’ll focus on. If they spent all their time throughout that debate rotating on each other, they’d all come out in the same places they were going in, instead of each divvying up potential losses for Mitt after that virtual gang-rape that happened tonight.
And Fred’s utter horse-whipping of Rudy. But that was just icing. I’m still chuckling at that one.
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 1:48 AM
More disgusting Fred comments, from the thread about his 17 minute video:
Once again, it’s about how he is running his campaign, nothing about not liking Fred personally or even disagreeing with him on the issues.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 1:53 AM
What a surprise, so does Mitt’s lap-dog.
omnipotent on January 6, 2008 at 1:53 AM
I was just typing up a response to your post when I realized that Buchanan wrote the original story, not Novak as I had claimed in an earlier comment either here or in another thread at HotAir.
So while my credibility may not be so hot, it’s still better than Buchanan’s, which isn’t saying much. I can’t stand Buchanan.
FloatingRock on January 6, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Your mental state seems to be a bit fragile as evidenced by your paranoid attacks on me tonight. I didn’t want to make you anymore unhinged than you already are.
Plus, I thought a little humor might do you some good.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Uh huh. Morris has been pushing Huckabee with nearly as much enthusiasm as Hewitt has for Mitt, so Morris was objectively reporting his assessment of the issue.
See the difference?
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 2:07 AM
Oh and thanks for pointing out that Fred came in second in Wyoming.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Before I go to bed, Novak said this:
I don’t know anything about Buchanan…
I also don’t have a clue as to what Novak means by “in part”.
What happens if Fred does withdraw at some point and endorses McCain? Is it still a dirty trick at that point or just reasoned conjecture?
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 2:16 AM
I already did on an earlier thread. I don’t think it helps him much because Mitt got 8 and Fred got 2.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 2:19 AM
Fred came in second in Wyoming today. If Mitt’s campaign put it out it was a dirty trick, not reasoned conjecture. At some point all of the candidate except whoever gets the nomination are going to drop out and endorse someone else.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 2:21 AM
3, thank you very much. And until a nominee is chosen coming in second and third is a good reason to stay in the race.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 2:23 AM
You misunderstood me, I was only referring to Hewitt, not that Dick.
omnipotent on January 6, 2008 at 2:24 AM
If Mitt put it out it’s a nasty trick. But it could just be Novak’s spaghetti/wall.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Personally I doubt it was team Romney, seems more like a Clinton machine tactic to me. But regardless of whomever is responsible it was a dirty trick designed to hurt Fred in Iowa.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 2:32 AM
Yeah, you said that to me the other day. I think you might be right. Either way, I’m not going to hold Mitt accountable until I see something more than Novak’s column.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 2:39 AM
Here’s the original HA post.
I could only speculate.
FloatingRock on January 6, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Novak doesn’t seem to have much to go on here. What the heck does “in part” mean? Anyone, including anyone of us, could speculate that Fred was going to drop out and endorse McCain.
Did someone make anonymous phone calls, or was there conversation where speculation was misconstrued as some sort of inside knowledge? We don’t know what happened, and for all we know this could be a phony story dreamed up by another campaign to make Romney look like a dirty trickster.
I think it’s unlikely the Romney did this since there was not much of a motive. Fred was not first and foremost in the Romney campaign’s list of priorities, and if anything Fred could take votes away from McCain at this point so it would be to the Romney campaign’s advantage to have him stay in the race through NH.
I also don’t think this hurt Fred in Iowa because the fight was between Huckabee and Mitt and Fred was never in serious contention. For it to have made any difference, caucus voters who had planned to vote for Fred would have had to have heard this very vague rumor that was hardly a mainstream news story and then switched sides at the last minute. Hard to believe that happened.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 9:29 AM
That Buchanan story is nothing but a pundit’s prediction of what will happen based on how the horse race was shaking out!
I could have made the same prediction – Maybe WND should hire me! I’ve already predicted that it will be a McCain/Thompson ticket. I think I’ll brush up my resume’ and put it in the mail to Joseph Farah :-)
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Fox News seems to think Mitt Romney is in big trouble after the debate. I support Romney more than I did before this debate took place. I think the notion that there is something wrong with so-called negative adds is ludicrous. I want to know about each candidate’s views and the fact that McCain and Huckabee want to silence Romney makes me angry. This is, after all, the most important competition in the world.
The very fact that Lindsey Graham is throwing his support behind McCain is a turn-off. They both lost all my respect during the amnesty bill debacle. I found McCain to be old, angry and weird, too.
I just can’t trust Huckabee, in spite of of the fact that he’s a Christian. Giuliani is entirely too liberal and though I like Thompson, he doesn’t seem to be fighting hard to win. Thus far, the only one who is appealing to me is Mitt Romney.
sinsing on January 6, 2008 at 9:47 AM
If desire was all it took every candidate would stay in until the convention. But unfortunately for the candidates that don’t resonate with the electorate and can’t raise money, it isn’t a matter of desire, it’s a matter of their HAVING to drop out because they are out of money. This is where Fred is. He can garner all the weak seconds and thirds all he wants, but people wont send him enough money to continue.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 9:56 AM
McCain = anger management problem. It’s real.
It wouldn’t have taken much for him to have a public meltdown, and NH needs to see it.
Shay on January 6, 2008 at 10:00 AM
IMO, I find that highly unlikely in light of Fred’s slam on McCain concerning amnesty. He said McCain supported amnesty and I don’t see Fred sacrificing his stated policy positions just to be the VP. Remember, Fred never wanted this and if he can’t do some things that only a president can do, he wont change just to do some things a VP can do.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 10:03 AM
You’re probably right. I made my prediction awhile :-) McCain needs someone more youthful than Fred on his ticket anyway.
The point I’m trying to make is that a prediction that a candidate will drop out is not a dirty trick, and the idea that that one vague paragraph from Novak had some impact on Iowa voters a huge stretch.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Agreed.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I don’t think Fred would want to be VP. He’s not in the race to pad his resume.
I think the Republicans should use the VP slot to groom someone for a future election. We get a LOT of our presidents from the VP position. This would rule out a “dead-ender” like a Chaney. Romney, Giuliani, and the Huckster all fit the demographic just fine. Fred and McCain are too old and eventually the health care providers that let Paul slip away will find him and get him back.
So, Fred has a third place and a second place (Wyoming) now. He won’t do well in N.H. but then we head down South. Hmm.
Mojave Mark on January 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Fred doesn’t seem to be in the race to win either, but I digress.
Romney is not a likely VP contender. For McCain? Huck? No way. It’s more likely that Giuliani could get a VP spot if Huck were the nominee to fill out his hopelessly lacking resume’, but that would anger the evangelicals who think Rudy is a heathen.
I think Hunter and Steele are more likely VP choices.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 11:55 AM
How will he do in MI?
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Oh Lordy, please let it be someone without some gosh awful skeleton in the closet!
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I haven’t gotten up to speed in how the polling is going there in MI. To be a contender, though, Fred needs a number one showing somewhere. If he doesn’t get it at least in the Southern Primaries it’s hasta la vista for my boy.
I could see us going to convention without a nominee and that would be exciting. All this fighting is good for the Republicans. It will sharpen whoever is our nominee.
Mojave Mark on January 6, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I may be in the minority here but I do not see NH ask make or break for Romney as so many do. As long as he has the money and name recognition he will be able to continue on to Super Tuesday and potentially beyond. A strong second behind McCain in NH is more than enough to keep Romney in the process. Frankly it is good for the party for use to have several strong candidates for as long as possible so we get an idea of how candidates play nationally rather than in the small and in some cases, the eccentric states of Iowa and NH. We would be foolish as a party to let two states determine our candidate. Besides, I want my say!
The Opinionator on January 6, 2008 at 2:15 PM
As far as Hunter for VP, I can say that he was my congressman when I lived in California. While I like many of his positions I can sum up his liability in a few words: House Bank Checking Scandal. You may recall that from the early 90′s. Hunter was one of the very worst offenders.
The Opinionator on January 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I could not agree more.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM
RushBaby,
Can you summarize what the problem is here? I don’t have time to go through that entire thread to try to figure it out.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Woops. Wrong thread. Ignore that 6:23!
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2