Video: Mitt on Leno
posted at 10:33 am on January 19, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The former Massachusetts governor crossed the picket line to appear on The Tonight Show last night. The interview is broken up into two chunks. The first begins with Romney describing how he relaxes. Unfortunately Red Lasso’s recording clips off the first minute or so of the interview, but here’s a transcript of how it starts.
JAY LENO: Thanks for coming. I appreciate your making the trip.
MITT ROMNEY: Thank you. Good to be here.
JAY LENO: And congratulations on Michigan. That was exciting.
MITT ROMNEY: Very exciting for me.
JAY LENO: You got the gold. You almost took the silver. Got the gold.
MITT ROMNEY: I got Wyoming, too; so two golds, two silvers. That’s not bad.
JAY LENO: Good. Good. Good. Now, this seems like it’s ‑‑ for me it’s getting good, but for you guys it’s getting nasty. How are you holding up?
MITT ROMNEY: I do fine. You know, I start off the day with a ‑‑ actually with a bowl of granola. My wife makes granola. Before I go on a trip, she gets out the oats and honey and sesame seeds and chops up the almonds. So I take a bowl and have granola in the morning, and then I jog every other day three miles, and then at the end of the day, just to really relax, I take off a dark suit like this and put on a light one.
A conservative who eats granola. Rod Dreher would approve.
Here’s segment 1.
Here’s part 2.
Leno asks Romney about Hillary and Obama. He ends up saying nice things about…Ted Kennedy. It’s a lead balloon moment.
JAY LENO: How about your democratic rivals? Who’s the toughest one to run against?
MITT ROMNEY: I think either one presents a real opportunity for me.
JAY LENO: There’s not three?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, I think it’s sort of narrowing down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. After coming in third ‑‑ as you pointed out in your monologue ‑‑ every single time at some point, you say, “You know, maybe it’s time to move on.” So I think it would come down to those two. By the way, I think I like both of them more than they like each other, but I do believe that they’re going to present a real contrast because they want to take America on a path, in my view, which is down the path of Europe of old, Big Brother, big taxes, big government. I don’t think that will fly.
JAY LENO: When you were governor, did you have any interaction with either Barack or Hillary?
Did you know them? Did you work with them?
MITT ROMNEY: I did not. I met the President, President Clinton, a couple of times. He’s a very engaging person. I met Barack Obama. We both appeared at the Gridiron Club, where we told jokes and we had fun doing that together. He’s got a lovely wife. My wife thinks she’s just terrific.
JAY LENO: So you never really had any ‑‑
MITT ROMNEY: No business with those guys. More business with Ted Kennedy. You know, I ran against Ted Kennedy.
JAY LENO: Right.
MITT ROMNEY: You know, he’s a hard‑working guy. He does his best. I disagree with him on virtually every issue, but we came together a couple of times, and frankly, I like Ted Kennedy.
JAY LENO: Who do you think has a bigger head, you or Ted Kennedy?
(Laughter.)
MITT ROMNEY: Oh, boy, it’s a competition. All three of us could join. Do you know that?
Toward the end, Leno asks about the economy and Iraq.
JAY LENO: You know, I would like to see you and Al Gore in the “Odd Couple.” That would be an acting job.
(Laughter.)
Let me ask you a serious question. Has Iraq sort of taken a back seat? I mean, when this started last January, Iraq seemed be to the main issue. Now it seems to be switching to the economy.
Do you find that’s true?
MITT ROMNEY: You know, it can’t take a back seat. Iraq is too critical, and it’s such a focal point of this global effort which is being waged by violent Jihadists to bring down all civilized nations. Pakistan under attack right now. You have to break it down. We have to be serious in our battle against global Jihad around the world, but our economy is also becoming a bigger issue, and I think people want somebody who knows how to deal with tough situations.
JAY LENO: Couldn’t our economy ‑‑ it seems to me if I was the people working against Al Qaeda, our troops are pretty strong, but our dollar is pretty weak, and it seems like we’re fighting against our dollar. Our dollar seems to be going down and down around the world. Now Europeans don’t want the dollar anymore. They want the Euro. How do we bring that back up? What do we do there?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, you can’t have the world’s most powerful military and be the superpower of the planet and have a second‑tier economy. In order to have a strong national defense, you have to have a strong national economy. Our economy has over the years been getting a little weaker compared to the economies of the world, particularly Asia, China, India, and they don’t always fight fair. We’re going to have to do a better job to make sure we have a level playing field and make it easier for our employers to hire people, train people, invest in technology and innovation, keep our tax burden down. We can do it. America can compete anywhere in the world. We can win. We have won. We will always be the leader as long as we make sure that the government finally gets off its duff and finally fixes what’s wrong in Washington.
The entire transcript is up at the LA Times.
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: 1 2 Next »
Great stuff but for the economic jazz at the very end.
larkydozer on January 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
“We will always be the leader as long as we make sure that the government finally gets off its duff and finally fixes what’s wrong in Washington.”
In terms of the economy, does anyone know what he’s getting at with that comment?
larkydozer on January 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM
and Mitt would have won had the election not been held on the night of the living dead…
Zorro on January 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Mitt seems like a really nice guy, but there is something off about him.
amkun on January 19, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Good on you Mitt. It’s good to see an engaging candidate that can have a normal conversation while mixing in his ideas and principles. He didn’t beat Leno over the head with tired cliches and platitudes. I’ve been waiting for the clip since Michelle referenced earlier. Thank you for posting in it’s entirety, and not for the “gotcha” that Michelle was blatantly going for.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM
With the economy, for starters, leveling the playing field would mean cutting the corporate tax rate at least 10%. Only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate, Europe’s is sitting around 25% while we’re at 35-38%.
Leveling the playing field could also mean raising tariffs on things that the french and others are notorious for protecting…so who knows for sure.
ernesto on January 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Mary Jo Kopechne would have voted for Romney except for one small problem-
Kennedy murdered her
ReaganConservative3 on January 19, 2008 at 10:55 AM
ReaganConservative3 on January 19, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Let’s make it all about this because you can’t speak to his issues and principles. Mitt obviously provides an out for you, so by all means take it.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Mitt Romney is a very nice man who seems to have no enemies He certainly has advisaries, Like Ted Kennedy, but sees no need to hate the person.
That must be a very peaceful way to live.
Right now I am doing some serious Huckabee and McCain hating.
EJDolbow on January 19, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Well what’s wrong in Washington is that everyone in Washingtom promises everyone in the country that they can have it all.
And ‘you can have it all’ is the great lie of our age.
Is Mitt the guy to stand up and say that we can’t keep borrowing our way to prosperity, bot as individuals and as a nation?
Is Mitt the guy to tell young Americans that if they don’t learn anything but how to play videogames there’s a whole class of youth in other countries that are going to grow up to economically kick their butts, and that just being American gives them no special advantage?
Is Mitt the guy to say that if our auto industry is going to be saved, it’s going to have to go through a painful catharsis to make itself competetive with its worldwide competition?
Is Mitt the guy to say that if you want to whine about a refinery being built in your backyard then you can’t also whine about the price of gas?
Is Mitt the guy to say that there are too many emerging economies competing for oil again to ever expect the price of energy to come back down?
Is Mitt the guy to say that the simple fact is that there aren’t easy answers to a lot of our problems? That a “Manhattan-style” project won’t make us energy independent because if there was a ready solution the market would have found it by now?
If he is, hell, I might listen. But as of yet, I have my doubts.
Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
All of us against choosing Mitt as the candidate, better start at least begin thinking of how to graciously defend him against the Dem rival.
He may not be a first choice for many, but most any (Huck and Paul the exception) Republican is better than any Dem candidate.
Other words, once your first option, plan “A”, is off the table, you implement plan “B”. My plan “A” is creeping towards the edge of the table…
right2bright on January 19, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Mitt is the republican version of Obama
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I don’t see anything wrong with the Kennedy comment. Go Mitt!
ctmom on January 19, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Now talk about a campaign strategy……. the night before two very crucial primaries, he pops up on Leno?
That’s far better than any of the other candidates to date.
You can say whatever you want about Mitt, but you can’t knock his strategy at such a critical moment.
Aww yeah, but no matter what one does, someone will always hate your guts, like this jackass:
It just amazes me how many people have said those kind of things. Has the thought ever occurred to you jackasses that it’s your vision that’s the problem?
To:
Where was she referencing to this?
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I don’t think Mitt succeeded in his business by telling everyone what they wanted to hear. As he applies what he honed in the business world, he will succeed in implementing his policies. I like the fit.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Anybody who even mentions fighting “the global Jihad” on as insubstantial a venue as Leno gets a thumbs up.
(Barack and Hillary would be talking about poverty programs to combat the roots of terrorism, which everyone knows has nothing to do with ISLAM’S CORE IDEOLOGY, but is simply our fault for fighting back when attacked by these righteously-justified poor brown people who objected to our having “occupying” troops in Saudi Arabia, helping the Israelis, Britney Spears, etc., etc, etc.)
profitsbeard on January 19, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Malkin is hung up on the Kennedy thing. She references the single line, and uses that to bat Mitt upside the head.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:07 AM
He mentioned it ? If you check Leno brought up Iraq and Mitt changed the subject to the economy. Mitt said the words but didnt have the conviction. He is a poll gazer like Clinton was
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 11:08 AM
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Comparing Mitt to Clinton? That is an outstanding conclusion. What led you to that epiphany? Also, you have a knack for determining conviction. Please type on….
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Cold Steel not sure what you are talking about or what you mean?
I am a huge Fred guy, but cannot stand Teddy Hiccup Kennedy and he should be in prison.
As for Mitt, ideally he could serve as Fred’s VP for 8 years and learn more about the Reagan principles, but if Fred drops out then I will definitely support Mitt over McShamGrahmnesty or Huckster
ReaganConservative3 on January 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Hey Cold Steel, he’s comparing Mitt to Clinton AND Obama.
Go figure…
CliffHanger on January 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Most people recognize that Mitt sounds and acts like he’s got a string hanging out his butt and that every time he speaks someone probably just pulled it, but we’ve all got a problem?
Screw you.
amkun on January 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM
ReaganConservative3 on January 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I appreciate your stand and that fact you’re upfront with it. What I’m tired of is using vitriol against Ted as a wedge issue. If we’re looking for Hater in Chief instead of Commander in Chief, there is always Michael Savage.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM
amkun on January 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Sounds like someone pulled your string. And for the record, who is Mitt’s puppet master? Nice insinuation.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:18 AM
[picking tongue of the floor]
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Want to know why ? Because Mitt has shown zero leadership in foreign policy.
When asked what he would do about Iranian nukes he said he would ask his lawyers. When asked why his sons arent serving in the military he told reporters “They serve the US helping me get elected President”
He mouths the words Islamofacist but I have never HEARD a single policy word out of him other than he supports the surge. Will he keep troops in Iraq and Afganistan ? AS far as I know he has not made any comment on that.
He is only speaking about the economy because it worked for him in Michigan. So its politically expedient for him to do so.
So yes he is like Clinton in that he jumps on whatever issue is hot at the time and yes he is like Obama because he cites “change” as a mantra and bounces from subject to subject changing his mind about each of them.
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Well that’s sure the way to win friends and influence people. Call ‘em names. Works every time.
It may indeed be that jackasses such as myself have a vision problem. But the fact is that Mitt has very high negatives for no real good reason–the conservative blogosphere tends to love him and as yet the MSM has not really trashed him–so it’s obviously something of a common ailment.
What I’d suggest is that people who are for Mitt take a good long look at what it is about their guy that’s so off putting to so many people.
Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Makes me sick to see and hear him say that. If this was Huckabee I would say he definitely “Hucked Up”. This is like saying you disagree with the Devil but you like him.
Ravenlike on January 19, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I agree. Thompson/Romney ‘08 – Putting the conservative back into conservative.
Mitt’s still my number two, probably soon to be my number one (hope’s fading for Fred, guys), but I gotta say I’d rather see Huck nominated than McCain. Huck = devastating loss and potential rightward correction, whereas McCain actually stands a chance. Besides that, the last thing I want is to for that prick to be rewarded for his actions over the past decade with the nomination.
amkun on January 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 11:19 AM
He’s focusing on what is in his wheel house….what separates him from the other candidates. Politicians politic, it shouldn’t be a surprise. The key difference is Mitt has always been about this…others just weren’t aware of it.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I AM MCGUYVER.
I HAVE MORE STRINGS HANGING OUT OF MY BUTT THAN ANYBODY.
THAT’S HOW I CONTROL THE WORLD BY THE TAIL.
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I like the front page caption. Crunchy Con.
I prefer to call him a NERD and its one of my favorite things about him. Why not give a NERD a shot at President? I can just see Oval Office and State of the Union speeches come with a PowerPoint presentation. I’m tired of folksy presidents who make me feel like I could be president someday. Give me the NERD!
Greenhorn on January 19, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Luckily I don’t have the burden of winning friends in here.
Works for me.
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Crunch Con and Nerdy Con have a much better ring to it than Neo-con. He did start campaigning in Staples. Next he’s headed to Best Buy to lock up the rest of the Nerd vote. Watch out Apple Store, Mitt is a comin’.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I repeat…,
Fred / Mitt
Rugged Individual on January 19, 2008 at 11:31 AM
And Mitt would be gracious enough to hire MM for the Whitehouse blogger. That’s just how Mitt is.
He understands that one has to be magnanimous to everybody (don’t look to me for an example) in order to be a successful politician.
It wasn’t Mitt’s job to indict Ted Kennedy on Jay Leno. He’s going to have to work with him in Congress. Most of you including MM would make horrible politicians because you don’t have the genius mind to do it.
Mitt Romney is a genius.
I’ll see you at the
assimilationinaugural party.Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Chuckling…
Well it’s always good when a man knows his limitations.
Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Whats with all these people saying Fred/Mitt? Why would someone who is used to being the man in charge play 2nd fiddle to a guy who has never run anything. Fred can’t even run a campaign. If Mitt doesn’t become President, then he should head up The Heritage Foundation or something similar. He won’t take VP to anyone.
Greenhorn on January 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
William Amos, here are some specifics Romney has mentioned to combat the war on terror:
1) increase the size of the military by 100,000 and dedicate 4% of the gross product to defense spending.
2) Rebuild the intelligence organs that Clinton gutted.
3) Create a special task force that has the power to either use the carrot or the stick in dealing with the Islamic world. This force will be led by military types who know the ground they need to work in.
4) Support moderate Muslim institutions, or create them, to counteract the Jihadi speechs.
5) Increase coalitions of the willing, if need be, and don’t waste time with those institutions that are hopeless.
6) Deal with Iran. Gov. Romney’s website has a picture of Iranian nuclear sites on it. Isolate Iran diplomatically and also keep the military option on the table. Oh, and indicte Mahmoud for genocide.
7) A manhatten style investment strategy to wean us off of Oil.
There’s lots more. Why not check out his website and see for yourself what Gov. Romney has proposed?
Vanceone on January 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Good points, exactly what I thought of while reading Michelle’s post. The bloggers and talk radio are better instruments for attacking Ted and friends. President Romney will preside over the entire country: a country that includes many non-convicted felons: see OJ, Ted, et. al. That doesn’t mean that he condones or looks over those issues. He will be about the business of moving the country forward, not re-sleuthing cold cases.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I’m hearing Mitt hasn’t articulated his plan for combating Global Jihad so here it is… http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/confronting-radical-jihad
CliffHanger on January 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Mitt is just too businesslike for me–he seems to lack ideological passion and vision. That said, he’s an engaging, accomplished leader and I’ll take him over all except Thompson Agonistes.
horatio on January 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Good interview, he did very well.
bnelson44 on January 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM
A business man who is too business like… hey wait a minute…
Mitt is better at tempering his passions and looking for solutions. He’s not knocked off message, resorting to winking and stammering like some we know.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Here is Mitt’s Foreign Affair’s article on the topic:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
bnelson44 on January 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Mitt’s performance last night with Leno was so engaging, I fell asleep. So thanks for providing the following segment after the break.
The private business blockage via restrictions and expansion of the government’s role to build energy independence is the socialists’ agenda.
Look hard at liberal implications from Mitt:
“We’re going to have to do a better job to make sure we have a level playing field and make it easier for our employers to hire people [lowest wage earners], train people [is that the employers' responsibility, to hire the untrained?], invest in technology and innovation [WHOSE investing: commerce or government?], keep our tax burden down [say what everyone wants to hear, but out of sequential reasoning based on his premise get-what-you-need-from-Washington]… “We will always be the leader as long as we make sure that the government [in Washington] finally gets off its duff and finally fixes what’s wrong”–FDR socialism.
Take note how Mitt’s followers treat as mindless vigilantees any dissent from complete admiration for their leader.
Mitt’s liberal alignment is most disconcerting.
maverick muse on January 19, 2008 at 11:50 AM
investinginvestmentmaverick muse on January 19, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Mitt Romney doesn’t hate his political enemies.
I see many normally reasonable people on Hot Air have a problem with that.
Boo hoo, a-holes.
Maybe he should be like Fred Thompson and spend his every waking hour attacking his opponents.
Or Mike Huckabee who goes on religious crusades and makes backhanded comments about his threat du jour.
Or McCain, who can’t seem to hold an interview without verbal diarhea about somebody.
If you people really aren’t going to vote for Romney or you’re going to attack him because he doesn’t say he hates your personal list of most hated entities (Uncle Ted and the Clintons), then I hope you don’t vote at all.
Maybe Huck can give us a speech on who is the “real Christian,” right after he finishes telling us that he “loves his enemies” by making snide remarks about their religion.
BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Take note how Mitt’s opponents will spin spin spin like a top without conceding any single policy proposal because its easier to knock others down then reference your candidates achievements.
You really should just stick to your “Go Fred! Punch the hippies! Kill the terrorists! Wake up long enough to do so!” line of posting.
BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Thanks for that you proved my point. Mitt is a democrat
From your site
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Opps some more Mitt quotes
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Say what you will, point is you read and now understand Mitt’s position on fighting Islamofacsism.
You’re welcome…
CliffHanger on January 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Do you have a better plan than building trust and support with Moderate Muslims, while at the same time eliminating radical Islam?
And if you’re criticizing his plan, what ideas do you have?
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 12:10 PM
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. Cut & Paste/Boldface on don’t constitute a reasoned argument for your projection.
Cold Steel on January 19, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Man’s gotta stay regular…
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
And what’s wrong with that, William?
Do you disagree that the UN has given Multilateralism a bad name? You are an isolationist, as I recall… so I guess you think we should never try to work with other countries.
And what’s wrong with engaging Jihadism on policy grounds? If we believe Capitalism is the right answer, why not try to build it? It’s not like Mitt’s saying “Boo hoo, let’s ignore the military”–he’s not. I notice you ignored the “strengthen the military by 100,000 troops and spend lots more on it” that was the 1ST point of his plan.
Microcredit works. Winning hearts and minds is important. Unless you think we should just go to genocide? If so, say it! Might as well kill all the Islamists now and get it over with.
Vanceone on January 19, 2008 at 12:12 PM
William Amos will not deviate from the “Mitt Romney is a democrat in Republican clothing, every single one of his policy proposals is liberal-speak! You can’t trust him! GO FRED! The clear conservative choice!”
Well, the last line was probably maverick muse, but the idea is the same.
BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Just a reminder….
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I like his prescription better than Huckabee’s.
RushBaby on January 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM
You know, I read through every one of William Amos’ posts in this thread, and none of them mentioned Fred Thompson that I could see. Since you seem to have obviously gotten the idea from him, and not from your own mania, could you quote where he said something about Fred Thompson?
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM
But, being dead, she voted for the democrat.
Lily on January 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Good job Mitt!
davenp35 on January 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Who cares if Romney likes Kennedy? Reagan liked Tip O’Neill, too, and vice versa. Reagan and Gorbachev liked each other. It is no great disadvantage to like your political opponent; it shows a generosity of character, as well as personal maturity and security, that come in handy if you’re a public figure and leader.
Does Michelle Malkin actually like anybody? I don’t know if I’ve ever heard her say or write a nice word about anyone. Allahpundit, what about you? Who do you like?
BigD on January 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
As of yesterday, that’s where he stood, MC.
CliffHanger on January 19, 2008 at 12:38 PM
It was probably maverick muse on the last two lines, he is one of the standard issue “Only Man Who Can Save America” posters. Trying to gut Romney, no matter how disingenuous it makes them look, is standard among Fredheads.
A Thompson/Romney ticket so Mitt can “learn the ropes of Reagan conservatism” is a ridiculous idea. Thompson doesn’t have the energy to run a competent presidential campaign. Unless Romney wants a crash course in sleeping on the job, I wouldn’t make him Fred’s VP.
In a Romney/Thompson ticket Fred could learn the ropes of actually implementing policy instead of dreaming fondly of policies never implemented when Fred had the chance. Since the VP spends more time in the country, Fred could actually work with the Senate on getting his ideas passed while Mitt works with the Euros or whoever.
Fred Thompson doesn’t have the leadership to be Presdient. He’s a policy idea board.
BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I would say different
I assume it is his background. Other Mormons I have had contact with also have a different timing, body language than the general public.
I have always felt it was due to the enveloping nature of their religion. They have obligations of church involvment, missionary service, and other activities that bring them into heavy contact with their own circle.
Harry Reid is one exception. To me Reid doesn’t sound or act like a typical Mormon, and does not appear to have his mind on the rules of good behaviour that are so imprinted into this faith along with requirements for diligence and self discipline.
For instance, Mormons are required to store away a years worth of supplies, food etc for survival. They don’t talk about it. They do it. I think sometimes of an ant colony, working hard and pre-occupied with good works.
Amish have a greater requirement to their circle than Mormons and show greater off phase from the norm.
If Romney was more like Reid, I would distrust his bios. As he presents now, it is what I would expect.
entagor on January 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM
You would think the past few years would have proven there is no way to work with the left side of the aisle, especially Senaor Kennedy. I want a candidate that will not compromise his core values for political expediency. Mitt doesn’t seem to fit the bill. So far, Mitt seems to be saying the same thing as the RHINO’s in office today. I think that is what I find”off putting”.
conservativegrandma on January 19, 2008 at 12:46 PM
interesting, despite all the hyperbole by Mitt bashers that he’s too liberal, he is judged a conservative at this site, just a hair to the left of Thompson:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm
windansea on January 19, 2008 at 12:59 PM
scroll to bottom of above links to get overall rating.
windansea on January 19, 2008 at 1:00 PM
He did mention (unless you missed it) that he disagrees with Ted on most issues.
That is why Bill Clinton was considered such a genius, he reached across to “connect” but not to compromise core values.
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Ah. So you’re putting words in other people’s mouths and generalizing an entire group. Just checking to make sure you were on business as usual.
And if pointing out Romney’s liberal tendencies bothers you so much, why are you backing him? You seem like you take it personally by then attacking the people pointing out what is true about him, slathering them in hyperbole and condescension(you know, like an elitist?).
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I still cannot stand Teddy Hiccup Kennedy and will continue to say it cause I can.
ReaganConservative3 on January 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I think it was interesting how quiet the audience was. They really seem to be checking him out and listening to what he has to say.
peacenprosperity on January 19, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Mcguyver:
No,I didn’t miss that he disagreed with Kennedy on most issues. It was the liking Ted that got to me.Maybe it’s my age, but I can’t forget Mary Jo.
I haven’t seen or read anything on Mitt that would prove to me he would stand on core Conservative values. My perception is that he is politically motivated by a finger in the wind.
That said, if Mitt wins the nomination, I will vote for him. He definitely is more qualified then anyone on the dems side.
conservativegrandma on January 19, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I’m like Fred Thompson supposedly is: I call a spade a spade.
And Fredheads don’t “point out Romney’s liberal record,” they take whatever he says and twists it to sound liberal, then claim all his supporters are liberal.
Mitt Romney could say “I support the Human Life Amendment because I believe human life is precious” and Fredheads would turn it around and say “Romney is a liberal! He doesn’t support federalism and he wants to change the meaning of the constitution! RINO alert RINO alert!”
BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Very well then.
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Well this is nice so the defense of Mit’s policy is to attack me for being a backer of Fred ? That is like me telling the Mitt Backers they cant defend Mitt because they like him too much !
Whats wrong wiht Mitt’s Foreign Policy on Jihad ? Well lets see..
One why should we give money to Islamic Countries to help Moderates ? Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world and most of the 9/11 Hijackers came from there. Most Middle Eastern Countries where jihadist come from are very wealthy.
What we know about the Jihadists is most of their leaders come from Well to do backgrounds. Yes they exploit poverty but we know it isnt about poverty but Ideology.
Mitt wanting to send taxpayer dollars in a Marshall plan to the Saudis is laughible. We should push the saudis to drop their more extremist ideology not send them money to build more Madrasses.
And Mitt wants to include other nations in this Marshall Plan. Fine except most other nations have long ago took the path of least resistance. They are trying to pressure us to give up the WOT and that is why the UN human rights org is now headed by mostly Islamic nations it was an appeasement by other western nations. There is no political will that Mitt can draw on to get this to fly.
Again where is Iraq and Afganistan in all this ? Mitt doesnt say. Its almost a non issue with him and this is critical right now.
So yes I have a lot of problems with Mitts Foreign Policy. And as an American and a republican I have a right to call attention to his foreign policy.
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM
You really don’t get the overall strategy that Mitt has here. He’s not implanting specific policies at this time!
His is a generic plan that says we are going to resist extremism and support moderates who don’t embrace radicalism.
Take note of your thought process, because it is obvious why they haven’t hired you for a policy wonk.
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 2:09 PM
So I should accept his positon because its generic ? Thats an odd way to defend it.
And yes I wouldnt be a policy wonk like the person who wrote Mitt’s plan. I guess Mitt hired him from the Clintons
William Amos on January 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Bill Clinton was a genius politician!
That’s why Mitt gets confused with Bill Clinton.
They’re both genius strategists, without compromising their core values.
Of course as you mentioned, you’re not a policy wonk, so that explains a lot of things.
Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM
BigD is quite right.
Michelle loses a lot of credibility when she reacts to silly stuff like this. Her very excellent logical mind always seems to go off the far far far right cliff and she becomes the exact rightwing nut job sterotype of the leftwing nut jobs. It’s sad.
In the world of adults, Mitt can certainly like his political opponents and still be true to his conservative principals because his deeds and his record prove it. It’s just a fact.
sheryl on January 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Kerist – He’s talking about global competition. Fair trade and all that with countries like China.
Anything else, Moonbat?
Buy Danish on January 19, 2008 at 3:57 PM
With your constant hyperbole, you’re about as far away from what Fred Thompson is as a person can get.
Being insulting is not to be confused with being honest.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 19, 2008 at 3:57 PM
True, Romney is a nice guy.
Huge problem though.
He ain’t Fred.
Wind Rider on January 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Wow! That’s a big serving of irony. Talk about how Fred attacks all his opponents, while you then proceed to attack every one of Mitt’s opponents. Anyone who’s been reading these comments knows who spends all his time attacking other people.
For further irony, this thread about Mitt barely mentioned Fred apart from a few Fred/Mitt calls. Until you brought him up here.
Do you realize you’re basically hijacking a Mitt thread to talk about Fred? It’s almost like you consider Fred such a big threat that you can’t praise Mitt without attacking Fred.
Naw. Surely not.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I’m not running for federal office, and I’m simply making observations which are easily verifiable by any clip of any of the candidates.
But that’s too much straight talk for ya.
Now back to our regularly scheduled overt hatred for all liberals everywhere.
BKennedy on January 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Actually if you do a search of the word “Fred” on this page, 4 different commenters mentioned Fred before BKennedy came in.
Not to mention the fact that the comment you cited also mentioned Huck, and McCain.
Just the facts, ma’am(?)
Buy Danish on January 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM
revisionist, buy danish; just the facts, ma’am.
bkennedy speaks for himself, and would err at my expense. pay your own bill. you do not speak for me.
maverick muse on January 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM
If you listen to the video, Mitt is clearly talking about global competition when he says we need to “level the playing field”. That would apply to idiotic ideas like the Kyoto Treaty which would give China a huge advantage over us, and fair trade issues like this:
“However, as we pursue new trade agreements, I’m far less interested in just getting an agreement signed than I am in getting an agreement signed that is good for America. I promise you that any nation that unfairly manipulates its currency, steals our patents and designs, dumps unsafe products in our markets, or stifles the American goods in their market place, will face a very aggressive President across the negotiating table.
“Now let me be clear, I strongly support free trade, but free trade has to be fair in both directions. And when the playing field is level, America can compete with any country in the world. And we will win.
As for BKennedy, I did not agree or disagree with what he had to say; I was merely correcting a false statement made by another commenter, who was not you (unless you have dual identities and also go by “theregoestheneighborhood”).
Buy Danish on January 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
This is an excellent video clip of Mitt discussing Fair Trade in an October debate, where he talks about what needs to be done as we negotiate trade agreements with countries like China.
Only a Moonbat could claim that he is a Socialist when he talks about leveling the playing field in this context.
Buy Danish on January 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Listen up Fredheads…..
Here is the difference between Fred and Mitt.
While Fred engages people like a grumpy constipated old man who can’t keep the kids off the lawn.
Mitt hires the kids to mow the lawn.
csdeven on January 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Most people? Do you mean most people who support him or most people in the country?
csdeven on January 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Here’s another most excellent video clip where Mitt talks about Good Unions and Bad Unions. Funny and spot on.
As for the Kennedy Kerfuffle, this is by far the most astute comment at Michelle’s site:
Buy Danish on January 19, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I thought he got illegals to do that.
Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Mitt epitomizes everything that’s good and bad about us conservatives: we’re correct about everything, and we’re boring as all hell. Liberals are wrong about everything, but they always deliver the incorrect message in an entertaining way. I remember that Michael Medved once spoke about the dichotomy that his home city of Seattle is ultra-liberal, and a really great city, and he wondered why all the big liberal cities are such fun, interesting places.
dave_lantos on January 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM
30 yr. old kids that are illegal…Que????
right2bright on January 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM
LMAO!!!!!!!
OMG, that is freakin’ GOLD.
I’m gonna steal that iffin’ you don’t mind…….LOL
The Ugly American on January 19, 2008 at 9:39 PM
THERE WILL BE NO FRED. HE IS TOO OLD. Enough already.
After two seasons of Big Love, that movie, and the anti-Mormon pundit rant (not to mention YouTube) – that he has survived is a miracle and a testament.
Romney will be the nominee. The rage focussed on McCain after Thompson drops out, then Rudy, will destroy him. McCain is gonna snap from the pressure. (Anyone notice he looks a lot like Dean?)
Frankly Romney reminds me of Reagan – there I said it.
Agrippa2k on January 20, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »