Video: Mitt’s gracious yet awkward concession speech
posted at 4:31 pm on January 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
In which your humble hackish correspondent espies a metaphor for Romney’s entire campaign in one brief excerpt — nice, competent, but almost totally lacking political instinct. The “but they haven’t” chant never quite gets off the ground, and Mitt still hasn’t learned to knock it off with the silver medal stuff. It’s a bad yet memorable meme and it’s starting to stick to him. A simple “tonight wasn’t our night” would suffice.
That said, his campaign sent out a memo suggesting he’s in it for the long haul. Geraghty’s skeptical:
Where’s he going to win? I realize that after last night, we need to be cautious in putting our faith in polls, but for Romney, South Carolina’s not looking that great. Mid-December polls put him in pretty tough shape in Florida, and the second-place finisher in that state walks away with nada*. He’s nowhere in Pennsylvania. He’s not set to win New Jersey. You figure Rudy walks away with winner-take-all New York and Connecticut. (Although maybe Lieberman could help McCain there.)…
At some point, Mitt Romney’s got to go out and win a hotly-contested state.
Fred and Duncan Hunter may also be in it for the long haul. The “haul” in this case being as long as their fundraising gas tanks can sustain them.
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
I liked it =)
CABE on January 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Did anyone get video of Ron Paul’s rambling (to put it mildly) concession speech? I didn’t see the whole thing, only because the station pulled away to watch Edwards.
I do remember him railing against the “warmongers,” though. Good stuff.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Ditto
AlexB on January 9, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I’m with Mitt!
Watching him in the debates over the past few nights has only solidified my vote for him.
The others,
RudyMcCainHuckabeeDo Fred and Ron even count?
madmonkphotog on January 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I’m not sure if this has already been pointed out, but did anyone else notice that John Edwards gave the exact same speech after New Hampshire that he gave after Iowa? Word for word.
Gregor on January 9, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I’m with Mitt too!
OKCubsFan on January 9, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I’m tired of the medal references myself. Yeah, I know you turned around the Olympics. Now it’s time to do that to the campaign. I don’t to see a Huck/____ ballot, thank you very much.
Spirit of 1776 on January 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Go Mitt!
davenp35 on January 9, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I noticed at Fred08 that Fred has quietly removed the goal of 80,000 new people signed up before the 11th.
It looks like he might make the $540K he needs by the 11th (barely)
bnelson44 on January 9, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Really?
Zetterson on January 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Johnny Mac’s reading from a piece of paper sure came off as natural. /sarc off
Mitt has class, leadership experience, humility, and the ability to get the job done. Every political cycle I wonder why candidates like Mitt put themselves through it…in Mitt’s case, I am a true believer. He’s doing it for love of country, to do his part to see that this country doesn’t turn into the liberal’s nirvana which will inevitably leave generations broken, destitute, and hopeless (just look what the liberals have done to underprivileged Americans…they want to do that to all of us…to make us all dependent on them.)
But Mitt doesn’t need the money, the power, or the fame…he’s willing to serve for the right reason, and the country that rejects him gets what it deserves.
JustTruth101 on January 9, 2008 at 4:49 PM
The speech is fine. Mitt needs to take the “mitts” off and call McCain on his anti-free speech bill and on his anti-republican gang of 14 bit. His best moment so far was the last debate where he embarrassed Huck on his lies about lowering taxes without mentioning the more-than-offsetting tax hikes…to the tune of half a billion.
Huck and McCain are teamed up now, obviously. They are the same pretend-a-republican types. If Mitt cant beat them, so be it. The country wont be ready for another Reagan until we suffer through another Jimmy Carter. Obama or Hillary will fit the Carter bill nicely. Then, we will be ready for a Mitt.
Roger Waters on January 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Ha! No I didn’t catch that. Must have been priceless.
Zetterson on January 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Hey and here I thought Roger Waters was a socialist. Welcome to the Machine Mr Waters.
Zetterson on January 9, 2008 at 4:52 PM
They promised to give everyone a free puppy BUT THEY HAVEN’T!
They promised to stop it from raining on parades BUT THEY HAVEN’T!
They promised that they’d give us cars that got 1000mpg BUT THEY HAVEN’T!
They promised to keep squirrels out of the bird feeder BUT THEY HAVEN’T.
MITT ROMNEY WILL DO ALL THESE THINGS AND MORE.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 4:52 PM
HP, who are you supporting?
JustTruth101 on January 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Hollowpoint, I know you can do so much better then that.
Zetterson on January 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I was listening, but it was kinda hard to pay attention when every other word the Avatar of America spoke slayed me in the spirit provoking such spiritual ecstasy that it’s a miracle I’m not typing in tongues.
Keljeck on January 9, 2008 at 4:56 PM
If Fred continues to blow it, nobody.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Only 48 more times.
Editor on January 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Romney is turning out to be what John Glenn was in 1984. “Right stuff, wrong staff.” He let himself be over-managed and now he can’t define himself to anyone.
A sharp CEO like Mitt should have finished first by now, or fired everyone who worked for him. If he cannot run a successful campaign you have to question how he would do as President, which is basically running a campaign for 4 years.
rockmom on January 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Huh?
Zetterson on January 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I just find it completely ironic that someone with really bad political instincts is criticizing somebody else for having bad political instincts.
TheBigOldDog on January 9, 2008 at 4:59 PM
It’s a good thing I’m not the boss of any campaign because I would have fired everyone twice.
Actually, it’s a good thing I’m not the boss of anyone, because I would have fired them all 3-times by now.
Editor on January 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Meh; I’m multitasking so I wasn’t 100% into it.
Point is- Romney is promising a lot of things that the federal government has no mandate to do; at least from the conservative standpoint.
Reagan knew that one of the scariest things a person could hear is “I’m from the government and here to help”. With Mitt, there doesn’t seem to be much of anything the federal government shouldn’t have their fingers in.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 5:01 PM
At 0800 – $359,158
0943 – $365,008
1055 – $367,763
1300 – $373,241
1400 – $380,376
1437 – $384,098
In little over 6 hours Fred! has pulled in nearly 25K. I gave Monday and he was just at 225K.
Go Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 9, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Um, I’m with Fred!, but did you happen to notice the story about Obama raising $8mil in 8 days? Did you?
Editor on January 9, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Obviously. you didn’t listen to the “havent’s”
Illegal Immigration
Foreign Oil dependence
Balanced budget
Education
Trade/jobs
Taxes
You’re not an anarchist are you?
TheBigOldDog on January 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Big deal, so a bunch of seniors who would normally have buried that money at an Indian casino went and spent it on Obama.
If Huck wasn’t in the mix Fred would be getting more. Heck, with Huck running even sleazy Televangelists have seen their donations that usually come flying in start slowing down.
RobertInAustin on January 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM
$1mil per day. ONE. MILLION. PER. DAY.
I’m sure that will quickly subside, but….
Editor on January 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM
I agree with you BigOldDog. No where in Mitt’s platform do I hear that he is expanding or creating new government entitlements. He’s just promising to fix the broken processes Washington has already in place.
krabbas on January 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Where was the awkward part?
Drunk Report on January 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I know the Hildabeast was bringing in buckets full also, but I remembered that Hsu was locked up. Maybe that is why she isn’t bringing in as much.
Just a thought on NH. Think McCain bussed any in?
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I think we can all agree that Mitt Romney is phony.
froghat on January 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM
You thought wrong. We do not all agree that Mitt Romney is a phony.
krabbas on January 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM
No, a conservative. You know, the dying breed that believes regulating kindergarden, providing health insurance or guaranteeing a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage isn’t the federal government’s job.
Strangely enough, there was another group who agreed and are celebrated for it. We refer to them as the “Founding Fathers”, and they wrote some guidelines to that effect in a document called “The Constitution”.
And no, I’m not a filthy Paul supporter.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM
I love Fred. Go back in the archives and you’ll see I was urging him to get in the race because he is the sort of guy I could really get behind. But there’s a basic idea the diehard Fredheads need to get their heads around. The country is not going to elect somebody who looks and sounds as ill as he does at times. It’s never going to happen no matter how good his ideas are. There’s a reason he was compared by to ET in ditch by those two Red State guys and that impression isn’t going away unless he starts looking and sounding like the guy on TV.
TheBigOldDog on January 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM
You are working this one line theme of yours hard.
Spirit of 1776 on January 9, 2008 at 5:27 PM
In the language of the federal government, “fix” means “throw lots and lots of money at”. He’s running the same kind of “compassionate conservative” campaign that GW ran, and the result? More government and greatly expanded spending. With Mitt it’s pretty clear that we’d get more of the same in that regard.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM
It’s funny how much you sound like one though. That fact you recognize that is very telling.
So, be specific, which of the “haven’ts” do you take issue with and why or would your prefer to just sling the “founding fathers…constitution” hyperbole around instead?
TheBigOldDog on January 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Lyle Lovett banged Julia Roberts. Anything can happen.
Go Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Romney promised the voters of Massachusetts that he was pro-abortion. Then, according to his statement at the recent Republican CNN/YouTube debate, Romney claims he came down on the side of life every single time.
Romney betrayed the voters of Massachusetts. If we elect him he’ll betray us, too.
Romney the Betrayer.
jaime on January 9, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Romney is BEHIND Fred! in the RealClear Politics poll
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Go Fred!
ihasurnominashun on January 9, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Anybody notice one of Silky’s insurance sob stories was about the guy in the toothless-Kentuckian article linked to from HotAir a few weeks back?
The Race Card on January 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I believe that particular Fredhead is in vacillating between stage 1 and stage 2 of the kubler-ross model. He focuses his stage two anger at Mitt. As if Mitt is the reason Fred is done. The rest of the time is spent in stage one denial.
:-)
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Actually Romney promised voters he would neither expand not limit abortion during his term. He vetoed embryonic stem cell research and all other anti-life measures.
But why conduse you with the facts?
jaime the liar.
BKennedy on January 9, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I think Mitt is smarter to know that won’t fix those problems. And based on his record of success in the private sector, it would stand to reason he is. It would seem that you’re jumping to a conclusion that he’s going to be a big spending nanny.
krabbas on January 9, 2008 at 5:43 PM
And they’re both behind Ron Paul.
BKennedy on January 9, 2008 at 5:44 PM
What leads you to believe Mitt would betray us and go back to being pro-choice? I don’t get the logic.
krabbas on January 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Romney 2002: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose.
Romney 2007: I came down on the side of life [in] every single instance as governor of Massachusetts.
BKennedy the Oaf.
jaime on January 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM
I don’t care who you are, thats gotta hurt.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 9, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I guess for Mitt to maintain he was pro-life was that from 2002 till 2007 no women in Mass chose to have an abortion. So, he did support a women’s right, but no woman exercised her right.
Fred!
RobertInAustin on January 9, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I make no claim to understand the dynamics of a campaign like this, but here’s my lament: in the GOP, we beating on Mitt — the current delegate leader — because he has been edged out in two dinky little states, by candidates who each did nothing in the other state. And we’re actually wondering if Mitt’s going to drop out because we don’t see his support in other states down the road.
On the Dem side, the talk is of Obama being this and that, and he was down 25% in the national polls just days ago, with no visible support anywhere. I wonder why the disconnect?
Jaibones on January 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM
It seems that Romney has a large capacity for adaptive change, but it’s not necessarily limited to the area of abortion. He may very well remain pro-life, but betray us on, say, illegal immigration if he finds it to be convenient.
jaime on January 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM
To quote an old Harley Davidson ad: If I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.
Small federal government and state’s rights are (or at least were until recently) very prominent platforms of conservativism and the Republican party in general. The Founding Fathers laid out those same principles in the Constitution. Principles Romney does not share.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Neither of those statements are incongruent, especially since upon review of the 2002 tape, Mitt did exactly what he said he would do: not chancge any of the laws either way.
But again, why confuse you with the facts. Nevermind Romney’s opponent was a complete piece of work. I can’t believe anyone would have made that woman governor. Blech.
Thanks for the Oaf comment, did you think that up yourself or get help?
BKennedy on January 9, 2008 at 6:07 PM
You’re like to Obama of HA. All sizzle, no steak.
TheBigOldDog on January 9, 2008 at 6:14 PM
I liked it. My husband, who is voting for Rudy, liked it…a lot. I don’t mind the gold/silver stuff at all considering the well-deserved reference. In fact, I like that better much than his baseball analogies.
Just out of curiosity, who is your candidate and how’s he doing right now?
McCain has been running for waaaay longer than 4 years. Fred has only been running for a few months but he’s getting nowhere fast. Rudy has been running for awhile. That leaves the Huckster as the only candidate who sort of came out of nowhere.
Buy Danish on January 9, 2008 at 6:26 PM
You know that part between 0:00 and 1:15? Yeah, that’d be the awkward part.
Nineball on January 9, 2008 at 6:38 PM
No, but I think we can agree that froghat is a troll.
Who do you represent, Huckabee or Kos? (Or, is there a difference?)
Tzetzes on January 9, 2008 at 7:01 PM
wo wo wo Jamie’s crying.
So what are we supposed to do? Vote for McCain who promised to act like a republican? Vote for Huck who is more liberal than his predecessor, Bill Clinton? Excluding abortion, Huck is more Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton was. What is it with these backwood redneck inbred arkansas people?
Roger Waters on January 9, 2008 at 7:06 PM
slew
Tzetzes on January 9, 2008 at 7:06 PM
I think we can all agree that Mitt rules.
Dumb statement, just mirroring Fagrot.
Roger Waters on January 9, 2008 at 7:07 PM
You liked his speech, Allahpundit, admit it.
Dr B on January 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Right now, Mitt’s my pick but I also like Fred and Rudy.
Listening to him at times can make me wince, but it’s a whole lot better than reading something (and doing so poorly) like McCain did last night.
PS It kinda makes sense to reference the silver/gold thing since he was involved with the Olympics.
Domino on January 9, 2008 at 7:23 PM
And that is how spin is done.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM
While Willard Romney is known for being a brilliant private equity fund manager…..blowing $100 million on a obviously failed presidential bid does not sound like a very good investment!
Here’s some advice for you Willard….drop out and donate your campaign cash to our eventual nominee Mike Huckabee…maybe he’ll give you a cabinet position.
HaraldHardrada on January 10, 2008 at 1:31 AM
It’s interesting to me that a political “almost totally lacking in political instinct” is regarded as a phony, while a candidate who is packaged in the prototype, slickest political wrapping available is regarded as “being comfortable in his own skin”.
We create our own reality, and it seems to be the opposite of … reality. Obama is the phony, here. Not Mitt.
Jaibones on January 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM
You know, Mitt has this entirely inaccurate reputation of being slick and plastic. But Mormons who have listened to him talk about his religion have been struck about how hesitant and awkward he can be. He obviously believes, but is desperately trying not to offend anyone and it shows. It might have been better for his campaign if he had said essentially “screw you” to the critics and just been himself. I’m sure he would have come off as being the more comfortable and authentic Romney we got to know during the 2002 Olympics.
Because of the Olympics and “Angels In America” and all, there has been a nice kind of edgy hipness about being Mormon for the past few years. If Huckabee and his crowd get in, I guess we can go back to being despised and rejected. But we won’t have any illusions about where we stand, and no one should have any illusions about what the Huckster and his ilk think about people who don’t conform to their standards of righteousness.
WasatchMan on January 10, 2008 at 1:20 PM