Video: Luntz focus group raves over Romney, rips Fred to shreds
posted at 10:08 pm on January 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Lest this post be enlisted by Hugh Hewitt as evidence of Mittmania the way one of MM’s was earlier today, let me answer the question posed by Luntz at the end by stressing that Obama would kill Romney head to head. As phony and constipated as Mitt often seems, Obama is equally confident and authentic. The contrast between them would be fatally stark. Sad to say, it’s probably Huck who would best blunt Barry O’s advantages; if it’s Hillary, Mitt would have a shot.
I’m surprised to see all the animus for Fred, although I guess after snubbing the state it was to be expected. Note well the pointed criticisms of Huckabee’s religious demagoguery. Interesting, and ominous for Huck, to see how far that’s penetrated among the electorate.
Update: MKH agrees with the group about Mitt and disagrees about Fred.
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: « Previous 1 2
While Mitt (or Rudy) may lose those who love the baby Jesus, I suspect that given the choice, many will lose their single issue myopia and vote for a conservative over a liberal.
My insistence on voting for a conservative over a liberal is why I would sooner cut off my penis with a bandsaw than vote for Mitt Romney.
Centerfire on January 7, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Because Romney is actually running, has powerful organization skills and a solid message, and is not running around internet message boards decrying people for being RINOs.
BKennedy on January 7, 2008 at 12:30 AM
a solid message
“Vote for me, I can mouth conservative talking points with the best of them! Pay no attention to the fact that I completely suck on guns, healthcare, and taxes, and have had one finger in the wind for my entire political career!”
Centerfire on January 7, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Maybe the GOP nominee can just hire Curt at Flopping Aces to take down Barack Obama. His last post on him was pretty good: The Disturbing Barack Hussein Obama
Michael in MI on January 7, 2008 at 12:34 AM
You should watch the debates. Ron Paul constantly blames America for our current WOT.
“When you lay down with dogs …”
DannoJyd on January 7, 2008 at 12:44 AM
BKennedy on January 7, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Well my goodness, the RINO definitely appeals to comedians and Kennedys. How could we go wrong with a nominee like that?
One month of campaigning against the media’s savior and O’BamBam would have Romney cut his own penis off with a bandsaw just to get out of the race.
Dead on Centerfire.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 12:47 AM
On second thought RINO Romney is exactly what this country needs.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 12:29 AM
So are McCain, The Huckster, and Giuliani more RINO’s than Romney?
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 12:48 AM
One month of campaigning against the media’s savior and O’BamBam would have Romney cut his own penis off with a bandsaw just to get out of the race.
Centerfire on January 7, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Dead on Centerfire.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Romney has the Wolfpack Media against him now…what would change? He’s holding up pretty well, considering..
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 12:50 AM
And now the Media is trying to trash Fred. Wassup with that?
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 12:50 AM
If that were the case, why then would Romney and/or Rudy have run as Republicans in their previous respective offices? Makes no sense considering the political waters in which they swam.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM
So who’s your boy in the race?
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Categorically, in varying degrees.
McCain = worstest
Geezus H. Huckachrist = worster
Rudy = brautworst
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 12:55 AM
I don’t know man. They’re all getting on my nerves.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Still Fred.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 1:04 AM
The focus group said Mitt Romney was the strongest on pro-life issues. That’s only because Fred never got a chance to speak on that subject. Romney wouldn’t have either, if he had always been pro-life. It was only his position change that afforded him the opportunity.
Watch this video, where Fred addresses the National Right To Life organization following their endorsement of him. The close-up is irritating, accentuating Fred’s constant head movement, but listen to his eloquent description of his record on an issue he is obviously passionate about.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 1:11 AM
@ DannoJyd on January 7, 2008 at 12:44 AM
And he does that because a lot of what we find ourselves in, IS our fault. Our foreign policy doesnt occur in a vaccuum, like some think it does. Our prior decisions had direct effects on what we are dealing with now. Remember that we supported basically everyone that we find ourselves fighting now. We trained the Afghanis to fight the Soviets, and then left their country in a vaccuum once the Soviets left. We installed the Shah in Iran. We supported Saddam when he fought the Iranians. Not going to go in depth with all of these, but you cannot deny that our actions have effects in the region.
Now, of course people like doriangrey will say I am blaming America for terrorism, because he doesnt like anything less than beating his chest and screaming God Bless America at the top of his lungs, but I realize that America has its flaws, and has made its share of mistakes, and certain people seize upon these mistakes to exploit them.
muyoso on January 7, 2008 at 1:27 AM
@ Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Because what is in a name? He had an R next to his name, but he supported more liberal ideas than his opponents probably did. He ran on universal healthcare, anti abortion, and affirmative action. Of course, when he saw the opportunity to run for the Presidency, he has a REVELATION, and suddenly fixed the things that would disqualify him from getting the nomination.
muyoso on January 7, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Just checked the Intrade political futures market.
The floor has dropped out of Hillary futures. Going into IA, she was trading around 70 (i.e. pay $7 today, and get $10 back if she’s nominated). Even after the loss in IA, she was around 55. Now she is down to 35 and Obama is trading in the mid-60’s.
On the GOP side:
McCain: 35
Giuliani: 32
Huckabee: 13.3
Romney: 12.6
Paul: 4.1
Thompson: 2.4
At the moment, McCain looks a bit over-priced, and Romney a bit under-valued, IMO. All you FredHeads could cover your maximum allowed campaign contributions ($2300) by investing $56 today. Only $1K, invested today, could put your kid through college…
LagunaDave on January 7, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Still Fred.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Fred’s a good choice. No problemo.
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 1:35 AM
However, would be very dissappointing if Fred endorsed McAmnesty. Very dissappointing.
DfDeportation on January 7, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Darn I just watched the crowd’s reactions “Fred didnt make us enough promises on health care or anything else”
They EXPECT things from the government
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 1:39 AM
You know, muyoso, you make a lot of valid points, and oftentimes I am tempted by Dr. Paul’s isolationist strategy.
I hate that we give hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas, Egypt, and the U.N., and that money is then used to hurt us in every way possible. I hate that every time American Marines land on a foreign shore and bleed and die to save one primitive tribe from massacre by another, then give food and medicine to the people and work their butts off to do the most good they can, they are called terrible names and our flag is burned. I hope the next President is willing to cut off foreign aid to nations that do not support us.
However, we have to realize that warfare these days is not about nations. It only takes one suitcase nuke, or one vial of some hideous biological weapon, to slip across our wide-open border in a rusty van or on the back of a young man indoctrinated by some hateful old snake of an imam, and hundreds of thousands of Americans perish. When Ron Paul asks if we have the right to go into other nations and impose our will, I give a resounding yes. Iran is enriching Uranium as we speak. Chemical and biological weapons have been used by Saddam Hussein. Someone had the knowledge to make them, and in all likelihood they are still out there with the knowledge and the will to kill Americans.
We have to fight the war on every front but the homefront. It only takes one strike, one victory for our enemies, whereas we have to win every single battle and suppress these terrible weapons at the source. It is not acceptable for us to concede even one inch to our enemies, nor to pull our military within our borders. That only ensures that the battle will be fought here, in our streets and among our homes.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 1:44 AM
As to the policies, we can discuss them another night. As to the name, I think you are too critical there. It would have been easier to run as a Democrat. Both Rudy and Mitt.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Yes they do William. Because they do not know any better. We need a conservative education program. Someone who’ll tell the dim-wits how it really is. Fred’s the only one honest enough and conservative enough to do that.
I’m beginning to think the vast majority of Repub voters only vote repub because the they know they don’t like democrat liars and corruption. They know nothing of being conservative.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Also, I encourage you to see the movie Charlie Wilson’s War. Whether the producers intended it to be so or not, it is a superb defense of staying the course in Iraq. After supplying the weapons needed for the mujahideen to drive the Soviet invader from their land, we abandonded Afghanistan. The men who had pushed for our involvement there were ignored when they pushed for us to stay and build schools, help establish a new government so that chaos would not follow victory. This is what then gave rise to the Taliban: our abandonment, not our aid.
Our President has learned well the lessons of history.
Oh, and whether or not you see it that way, it is still and excellent movie and I think you’ll enjoy it.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM
Makes no sense considering the political waters in which they swam.
I agree, it makes no sense. I’ve given up trying to explain why unprincipled wankers who have more in common, politically, with Democrats nonetheless run for office as Republicans. Maybe they’re embarrassed at the “D” label.
Centerfire on January 7, 2008 at 3:33 AM
I watched it late on TiVo so I’m a little late to the game on this, but some of my thoughts:
Romney was in a class of his own tonight. Some of you are calling him a RINO? No one on that stage tonight came close to competently and powerfully articulating consertatism as he did. And I find it interesting that when it is completely issues oriented he so obviously outclasses everyone else there–it’s no wonder last night the others resorted to personal attacks.
But I sit here almost aghast at some of these Fredheads in denial about so much (though credit to those who admit Romney was great tonight). While Thompson fumbled and bumbled his way with every other response, Romney was in total command, RIGHT on all the issues, and made a clear contrast between him and the real RINOs sitting left and right of him.
And yet, the one guy in position to stop Huckabee and McCain–the one guy who not only is a conservative (and articulates it better than anyone) but has the most formidable campaign–you continue to overlook and pledge your support for a candidate who has virtually no chance of winning. I just don’t get it.
Anyway, rating the performances tonight:
1-Romney; head and shoulders above the rest, helped himself tremendously
2-McCain; obviously he was told to tone it down, and he did so, and didn’t hurt himself
3-Rudy; almost irrelevant at times but was okay
4-Thompson; was a non factor mostly, and half the time he did get was long-winded and almost incoherent
5-Huckabee; was totally PWNED by Romney early on and it never got better…he’s a pretender
Patriot33 on January 7, 2008 at 3:42 AM
I’m just glad Mitt seems to universally be considered either the winner or in 2nd place by everyone, with their candidate first. That says to me Mitt won.
Now, whether that’s enough to hold off McCain, who knows? But Mitt’s in the lead with delegates now (thanks to Wyoming). So that’s a good thing. Let’s hope he keeps it.
Vanceone on January 7, 2008 at 5:05 AM
It is obvious that the average New Hampshire voter is a moron.
TheSitRep on January 7, 2008 at 6:44 AM
Live regionalism or die. Anti-South bias lives on! What a bunch of bigoted clods.
saved on January 7, 2008 at 6:52 AM
I don’t think Fred got much of a chance to speak (Rudy either). Wallace was allowing most of the questions and the speaking time to Romney, the Huckster and McShamnesty. Perhaps he would have made more of an impression if he had a chance to speak.
I do also think they are against Fred because of the snubs. They aren’t going to give him the time of day. Besides, it’s New Hampshire! They like McCain!
Darksean on January 7, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Not really, but I know what you mean. Barry O’s a black man and will get lots of support in a place w/out blacks. Mitt’s a Morman and will get lots of support in a place w/out Mormans.
I think that a Giuliani in the South or a Huckabee/Thompson in the North is problematic not primarily because the people refuse to accept somebody from another region, but because people have little ability and rather great difficulty seeing the true person behind the regional mannerisms. Also, of course, there are stereotypes afoot that must be confronted and then eliminated.
Moral of the story? If you want to win outside your region, and there’s something particular that identifies the candidate with one region, you better visit often so that voters have adequate opportunities to get past the superficial. Neither Huck nor Thompson did that for NH.
Giuliani/Romney ought to be spending every spare moment in the South.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Although the votes gore and kerry got would seem to support thier view, once again the pundits seem to be underestimating the American people. obama goes out and gives a speach to a crowd of whiners just like the guy who got up at the townhall years ago and asked clinton if he was going to be our father, they go nuts, obama says absolutely nothing, and the pundits get all excited about crowd noise. The guy, so far, is only preaching to a choir. In one on one debates obama will give the same exact answer, change, to every question he is asked and it will soon become apparrent that he is a one trick pony. obama has accomplished literally nothing for his constituents or the American people and that will be galringly obvious. the only way he wins is if the romney been so damaged by the people who are supposedly on his side of the isle that he has to spend the entire general election refuting statements by huckster and mccain.
peacenprosperity on January 7, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Watching the debate on the overnight broadcast with these comments in mind brought a different perspective. I too saw that Fred seemed to have been shut out. It seemed that Chris Wallace would cut Fred off before a he could get his point across, and seemed not interested in what Fred had to say. At the same time, he made an effort to include Guilliani in conversations that didn’t particularly warrant his opinion.
Mitt came across ‘presidential’ at first but the second time around sounded more rehearsed. Why did he end with “Thank you” after his first answer? Sounded too automatic. However, he did sound confident.
I think this Change slogan is getting old. Anytime there is a new election without an incumbent, there will be change. It’s redundant. They are all politicians. When we elect an ‘average joe’ who is not ‘connected’ then there will be change. Till then it will always be the same dance, just different dance trend.
geckomon on January 7, 2008 at 7:37 AM
I saw Fred in a whole new light and am on the cusp of becoming a Fredhead….I think he did well…I thought the Social Security plan could not have been anymore clear, but Chris had his notes and wasn’t straying from them…that was my only major complaint against Chris for the night..Other than that, I like Mitt, Fred and Rudy..I thought all did well
Pam on January 7, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Allah seems to forget that Obama actually has a record; he wasn’t born in DesMoines last Monday. And his record is quite literally blank. He has never done anything; he is a total nothing.
He got elected to the Senate when the GOP committed suicide before the election, and has done exactly nothing as Senator. He skips votes, he votes “present”. Loser.
Jaibones on January 7, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Let me know when the sire is up…
doriangrey on January 7, 2008 at 8:41 AM
It is obviously apparent that Frank Luntz is trying to manipulate the system. He is just a meddling reporter/activist. If you don’t believe me, then check this out
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/07/scandal-du-jour-luntz-focus-group-guy-shows-up-twice/
By the way is the phrase “obviously apparent” superfluously redundant?
TheSitRep on January 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Obama is confident. But I suspect he only mimes authenticity. He does have the good sense to not talk too much. And to speak in organized paragraphs when he does speak. So resreshing in a Democrat. And completely avoids negative and discordant emotions: he’s medium cool. The camera loves him. And he it’s difficult to dislike him. Now, if he only had one acceptable position on the issues. And there’s another plus: you feel you know what his positions are.
snaggletoothie on January 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Since when is lying about his previous stance as pro-choice an eloquent explanation? He has not always been with them. He felt that ALL abortions should be legal in the first trimester. He said so, and sign a position questionnaire to that effect in 1994.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 9:49 AM
New Rasmussen poll….
Fred, the only conservative on the ticket….3%.
McCain 32%
Romney 31%
It’s obvious that conservatives in Iowa, Wyoming, NH, and Michigan don’t want a candidate that acts like a cranky constipated old coot who rails at the kids he can’t keep off the lawn. They apparently are not enamored with a guy who only gets animated when he gets to be confrontational. They clearly aren’t impressed with a guy who uses buzz words like “mandate” and “Kennedy” in lieu of real discussion of the issues.
Fred has been on a downward spiral since he announced in spite of the fawning MSM support he got all summer. The guy wasn’t even a candidate and ALL the MSM outlets, and cable news, included him in their polling questions. He got all kinds of free press and was considered to be the guy to beat.
Then he actually had to be a candidate. Well, that’s Fred’s fault, not the MSM or the electorate.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I don’t know what Obama is confident about, his “likability” factor giving him the win? Scary thought. I don’t agree with Mitt sounding phoney. I go along with the focus group and others that Mitt sounded excellent. I think he stands a very good chance against Obama. Hucks diggs on Romney as he spoke were childlike, if anyone sounded phoney and uninformed I think it’s Huck and not Mitt. I didn’t agree with the group on Fred though. He brought up some good points. I’m still indecided btw, but that’s how I saw it.
Conservatives R Us on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I agree, and I have come to the conclusion that a candidate isn’t a whole candidate unless he has a likable personality. I really think that is why Fred has been losing ground since his announcement. And I think that is fair. People want to feel good about their president. People should feel good about their candidate. He should be personable along with being clear on his positions. No candidate is more perfect than the other candidates that he can get by on position alone.
Fred’s in your face attitude is great in moderation against the right foes, but when it becomes the only excitement he shows, it looks like he is just cranky.
I don’t know how valid that is because Fred is not in my top 4 for reasons other than those. So that assessment is my opinion only and I have no real data to back it up.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 10:48 AM
@joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Then there will never be an end to the wars we fight. As long as we are in other peoples countries, telling them what to do, we will ALWAYS have enemies that want to to us harm.
muyoso on January 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM
@ joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM
I saw the film and I agree with its message. If we do something we should do it right. I just dont think we should have done Iraq, and frankly, i see our presence there causing more harm than good.
muyoso on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Fred takes after the Fredheads in that they think mouthing the word “Kennedy” is a screaming indictment of someone’s character.
BKennedy on January 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM
The Kennedy comment was a bad moment for Fred. I didn’t like it, and I hope it doesn’t happen again.
But you really don’t think he wants to discuss issues? He has detailed plans on every issue, and was on many issues he was the first candidate to release those plans. He was the first candidate to talk about the corporate tax, now Rusy and Huckabee have both decided that it is a good issue to push.
You can’t deny that Fred leads the way on a lot of issues; you hear the phrase “I agree with Fred” multiple times at every debate. I understand if you don’t think he would be a good president, but he is a good conservative thinker and his campaign has focused on issues, not character attacks. His negative ads have all been about his opponent’s records, just like Mitt’s.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
*Rudy
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM
You may well be right. We’ll never be able to peer into that alternate future and see what Hussein would be up to today were he still in power. I, for one, feel that America is safer with him gone. Whether it was worth the cost will be seen in years to come when we know the final toll.
For what it’s worth, whether Ron Paul wins or not, I don’t think we will be engaging in any invasions for a long time. The political will is used up.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Joe, let me give you some background on why I feel that way.
It started with the Michael Moore video. He used snarky comments instead of debate.
Next he complained about the debate format and Huck challenged him to a one on one and Fred declined saying Huck wasn’t a top tier candidate.
And lately he uses a lot of these one liners when he could have made his case. The ‘mandate” comment was weak because the mandate wasn’t in the context Fred tried to force it to be. And, let you said, the Kennedy remark was not good. Getting a liberal dem to go along with a conservative plan is not a bad thing.
Plus, a lot of his supporters do the same thing as if it is a valid replacement for a reasoned debate.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I admit I hadn’t heard that Huck challenged him to a one-on-one and he refused. That is very disappointing. I will hit up his website and see if I can find some reasoning for it.
Fred’s still my guy until he drops out. That may seem like blind loyalty, but I was a fan of his during his Senate days. His voting record truly does reflect conservative principles, and he speaks on some points that I wish other candidates would, such as the blame for illegal immigration resting on the shoulders Mexico’s corrupt politcal class. If some other candidate was making these points I may not be such a Fredhead, but he’s the only guy doing it.
However, Mitt has really impressed me in the last two debates and will have my full support if Fred is gone by the time Arizona’s primary rolls around.
joewm315 on January 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I did not and do not think that the rave reviews of Mitt Romney and negative reviews for Fred Thompson were warranted. Quite differently, all five candidates presented themselves reasonably well and in a way that a sampling of more New Hampshire focus groups would reflect that more balanced assessment. How one assessed the statements of the candidates depended on viewpoints brought to the debate. I, for one, do not think that Romney’s statement about his ability to fix Washington D.C. is remotely realistic, but that supposedly was a popular line with the focus group.
Phil Byler on January 7, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Joe,
Loyalty is a good thing.
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2