New Romney ad: Unlike some people, I’ve been happily married to the same woman for years

posted at 1:22 pm on December 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

The “unlike some people” is merely implied, but this one’s so heavy-handed that he might as well have tacked on a few shots of Newt with his ex-wives framed by a torn “heart” graphic. I’m tempted to say this will do Romney as much harm as good simply because it stinks of desperation driven by Gingrich’s surge, but in truth it probably will help him a bit. For every Iowa political junkie who long ago priced Newt’s personal issues into his stock, there are probably two or three socially conservative caucusgoers who haven’t paid much attention yet and are just now taking a close look at Gingrich. And yes, character does matter:

Romney kills two birds with one stone with ads like this, drawing the contrast with Gingrich and reassuring voters who might have issues with his religion that his values are right in line with theirs (and very much not polygamous). Here’s the thing, though: For all his claims of “constancy,” the same NYT poll linked above shows he’s the only candidate in the field whom most Iowa Republicans don’t quite trust. When asked whether Gingrich says what he believes most of the time or says what he thinks people want to hear, respondents split 63/30; when asked that about Romney, they split … 40/53. He’s the one and only candidate in the field whose numbers are underwater; even Huntsman is +10 on a 33/23 split. Not so good for the candidate of “constancy.”

Exit question: How serious a liability is this for Gingrich? He’s going to respond by saying that he regrets some personal mistakes he’s made but has found peace and redemption through God. And then he’s going to serve up a thick, juicy slab of red meat about how the atheists are paving the way for Islamists to take over America or something. Damage status: Controlled.

Update: Here’s Team Huntsman’s ode to “constancy.”

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4

If are playing the whose been married the longest to their wife contest to determine the nomination, it’s going to be: Ron Paul

I personally don’t find this to be an important issue for the presidency, but I can’t imagine how Newt or Cain could defend marriage values against the A+ relationship the Obamas have together.

hmmm I wonder why the media dismissed Newt so early on. Probably because everyone saw he is less viable than Mr. Paul before they started drinking the anyone-but-Romney/Paul/Santorum Kool-Aid

jayhawkboilermaker on December 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Newt hasn’t earned credibility? How can you even argue that?

cpaulus on December 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Because he isn’t able to compete financially. He NEEDS this debate because he is broke. He hasn’t been able to get any donations to speak of. Why should any candidate view him as an equal?

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM

How many of you thought that Mitt’s ad actually said, “Unlike some people, I’ve been happily married to the same woman for years”? I ask because many think Allah is the author of the Quotes of the Day.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 6:16 PM

When Gingrich can maintain poll numbers over 25% for 6 months then we can discuss which candidate has the more solid support.

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Maybe you should look at a calendar. If Gingrich does that for 2 months, Romney’s in deep doo doo.

Soooooh, who do you support? Perry? Huntsman? How about Bachmann? Santorum? Has your fave candidate ever mentioned their marriage?

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 5:04 PM

As a campaign tactic? I think Romney’s the first in this batch. The guy’s dripping flop-sweat, admit it.

ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Why should any candidate view him as an equal?

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM

When Romney has all that dough and backing, and still can only get ~20% support, why should anyone consider him a serious contender?

ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Here you go. Axelrod previews his team’s attacks on Romney, and they all involve class warfare rhetoric. He’ll save the MassCare attacks for later.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285217/axelrod-romney-speech-deeply-offensive-many-middle-class-americans-patrick-brennan

onlineanalyst on December 7, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Take it up with Romney and his ad team they are the ones that brought up marriage. If they don’t want people to discuss “Multiple” marriages they should never have brought it up.

Dr Evil on December 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM

That would be relevant if Romney was a polygamist. His ancestors were. Why don’t we find out what naughty stuff Gingrich’s ancestors did and blame him for that?

Because it is childish and irrelevant to blame a person for the actions of their forefathers.

And if people insist on going there, it could only be viewed as bigotry.

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Esoteric…
Welcome to csdeven, nswider, BuyDanish, Basilbeast, etc, and my world in defending Romney on Ridiculous “facts” that many believe. I say look at the good upstanding people that are backing Romney and the man’s career itself and it should be widely acceptable for him to be POTUS.

g2825m on December 7, 2011 at 3:13 PM

You’re doing a great job with the facts! Keep it up. It drives the bitter former worshipers of failed candidates nutty with jealousy!

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:25 PM

If Gingrich does that for 2 months, Romney’s in deep doo doo.

ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 6:16 PM

IF. IF. IF.

You do understand that, that was my point to begin with right? IF Gingrich can maintain the numbers, then he can be viewed as viable. But after 2 weeks he is simply the “Not Romney” flavor of the month candidate.

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:29 PM

When Romney has all that dough and backing, and still can only get ~20% support, why should anyone consider him a serious contender?

ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Because, unlike you, the rest of the country listens to in depth discussion of the facts and learns. You simply have an axe to grind and you’re going to do it here just to try and get a rise out of people.

In other words, you’ve become a troll. It’s too bad too because when you were slobbering all over St Palin the Victimized, you were at least being honest.

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Sorry Mitt, I like you a lot but not as POTUS and attacking Gingrich when Gingrich has never really attacked you is unbecoming which is why Newt IMO will be cleaning your New England clock.

Tangerinesong on December 7, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Balthazar Huntsman really has a hard on for Romney doesn’t he. lol The guy doesn’t have a chance and he knows it….so what is his purpose? I suppose he is just bored and has the money to spend. I wonder if a family member owns the ad company he is using? Heck, since he’ll never get the nomination, he might as well get his campaign cash into a friend or family members hands. Heck, they might even kick him back a few bucks after all the attenti0on on him is over. hahaha

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:36 PM

So because Mitt’s wife has been bored forever – we have to be, too?

If this is Romney’s trump card, then he better start searching for something a helluvalot better.

I’m looking for a good president. Not a guy to date and marry.

pbundy on December 7, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Has your fave candidate ever mentioned their marriage?

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Nope, Palin never used her marriage as justification for her candidacy.

But you hate her, so.

alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2011 at 6:53 PM

This ad is an insult to our intelligence to presume we don’t know and need to be reminded.Skandia Recluse on December 7, 2011 at 1:29 PM

It’s hard to insult the intelligence of people who, even now, don’t understand the importance of Gingrich’s support for Freddie Mac and the role of Freddie Mac in the near destruction of the bank and housing industries.

Gingrich realizes the importance – which is why he lied about his role – and Obama realizes the importance of Freddie Mac which is why he will – as his administration said today – deflect attention away from Freddie Mac by claiming that the Republicans want to reinstate the policies that got us into this mess.

We know what policies got us into this mess but Gingrich won’t be unable to say that Fannie and Freddie is what got into this mess.

Basilsbest on December 7, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Did you have to go there Willard? Really??? Ugh……..please Lord I don’t want to have to vote for him in the general. I will if I have to but dayum can we please not have to hold our noses this time??

AmayasNana on December 7, 2011 at 7:01 PM

It’s hard to insult the intelligence of people who, even now, don’t understand the importance of Gingrich’s support for Freddie Mac and the role of Freddie Mac in the near destruction of the bank and housing industries.

Basilsbest on December 7, 2011 at 6:56 PM

I disagree, it’s not so hard to insult the ‘intelligence’ of people who have 0 of said ingredient…hypocrites of the worst calieber is a better qualifier, they will ignore Gingrich’s appalling record on pretty much everything, including his support for Freddie Mac, while they will preach you small govt a.o. conservative values….do you want some fries with that small govt lol :-)…

jimver on December 7, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Did you have to go there Willard? Really??? Ugh……..please Lord I don’t want to have to vote for him in the general. I will if I have to but dayum can we please not have to hold our noses this time??AmayasNana on December 7, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Invoking The Lord because you prefer to vote for someone who lied to you about his role in supporting the GSE that played a large role in the near destruction of the banking and housing industries and, ironically, put Obama over the top in 2008. Weird.

Basilsbest on December 7, 2011 at 7:09 PM

As a campaign tactic? I think Romney’s the first in this batch.
ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 6:16 PM

You would be wrong. As Dr. Evil pointed out, Perry and Huntsman did it in recent debate. And you’ll note that I can’t think of a single person who faulted Palin for citing/showcasing her family while running. But, omg, when Mitt does it, there’s OUTRAGE!

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Nope, Palin never used her marriage as justification for her candidacy.
But you hate her, so.
alwaysfiredup on December 7, 2011 at 6:53 PM

She talked about her marriage, right? The First Dude? And her children? Wasn’t/isn’t “family” values a centerpiece of hers? The fact is, every one of them glowingly talks about their wife/husband/family but when Romney does it, OUTRAGE!

And is it too much to ask you to drop your juvenile tactics and talking points? I do not “hate” her! And since she is not a candidate, you’re going to have to find someone else. Or sit home in your sandbox. I don’t know if Ron Paul talks about his wife and family. Maybe you could vote for him.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 7:31 PM

“Unlike some people I’ve been happily married to the same several women for years.”

/*heavy sarc* :)

Seriously, this is a stupid comment for Mitt to make. Not all marriages work out for the best. If you’re blessed and you both get it absolutely right the first time, that’s more by the grace of God than anything.

CorporatePiggy on December 7, 2011 at 7:40 PM

And is it too much to ask you to drop your juvenile tactics and talking points?

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 7:31 PM

For her yes, it appears so.

She is going to vote for Gingrich just to spite her fellow HA members. Very childish indeed.

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Let me get this straight, Mittens… personal life and values are on the table… except your religion… got it.
mankai on December 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Oh darnit, I forgot to single you out for praise! Who are you supporting again? I’d like to use this opportunity to give them a tip of the hat. No doubt they’ll be delighted to know you support them, because nothing says electable like demeaning a candidate’s religion./

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM

1. I don’t give a damn about Mittens’ religion. That’s the point. He wants to go after Newt’s private life from 16 years ago, but if you even mention his religion, you get accused of being a bigot… thanks for proving my point.

2. I’m supporting Newt. If there is one religion I find as abhorrent as Mormonism, it’s RCism… but obviously I am able to separate my politics from my personal beliefs… again, I made this clear in my comments in this thread.

3. If I ran, I’d be happy to discuss my religious beliefs. I wouldn’t push it because it isn’t necessarily relevant to most issues, but I certainly wouldn’t play the victim if anybody noted what I actually profess to believe.

mankai on December 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

He and Callista have been together for a decade. That’s not nothing. Sometimes people grow up.

alwaysfiredup

He was married to his first wife for 19 years, and his second wife for 18 years, so what’s your point, lol?

xblade on December 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Who cares. This election cycle is like American idol.
its a Charlie Foxtrot.

ColdWarrior57 on December 7, 2011 at 8:15 PM

The only difference between Romney and John Kerry is that Mitt inherited his money and John married his. Everyone knows that John is a decorated war hero (by his own admission) and Mitt knows all about olympics. Both have been running for the presidency since they were born and both never make a move or statement that will jeapordize their chances. Mitt is the Harold Stassen of the modern age.

Old Country Boy on December 7, 2011 at 8:24 PM

You would be wrong. As Dr. Evil pointed out, Perry and Huntsman did it in recent debate. And you’ll note that I can’t think of a single person who faulted Palin for citing/showcasing her family while running. But, omg, when Mitt does it, there’s OUTRAGE!

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Uh, in the first place, we’re talking about a campaign ad, not mentioning family during a debate. In the second place, considering the amount of mud Palin’s family was dragged through (quite often by disaffected Mittbots who were pissed off that their idol was passed over for the VP slot) she practically had to parade them around just to show the world they weren’t total freaks.

ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 8:33 PM

I am hoping this backfires on Romney. How stupid.

Amjean on December 7, 2011 at 8:35 PM

And is it too much to ask you to drop your juvenile tactics and talking points? I do not “hate” her!

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Oh, come off it. You’ve been picking the woman to death ever since I’ve been reading this site.

IF. IF. IF.

You do understand that, that was my point to begin with right?

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:29 PM

No, your point was that if Gingrich can maintain momentum for 6 months then that will be something. My point is that due to the primaries being moved up in order to squeeze late entries out, Mitt doesn’t have that long to play with. I think it’s delicious.

ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I personally don’t find this to be an important issue for the presidency, but I can’t imagine how Newt or Cain could defend marriage values against the A+ relationship the Obamas have together.

Say what? How do you know that the obamas have an A+ relationship? Do you live with them?

Is that just about the same kind of A+ relationship that Bill and Hilary Clinton have together?

I get your point – the media will paint them as a loving steady family vs. Newt’s third marriage etc… but I don’t know what I am going to annoint them my family A+ …. nitpicking details perhaps =)

glidingone on December 7, 2011 at 9:15 PM

I was prepared to agree with Allahpundit on the potential negatives of this ad until I watched it. It’s not only about his wife/family, it also reminds voters of his private sector experience and the Olympics.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 3:13 PM

^this – watch the video folks – it’s not really an attack so much as a targeted family values ad in Iowa…

glidingone on December 7, 2011 at 9:22 PM

In other words, you’ve become a troll. It’s too bad too because when you were slobbering all over St Palin the Victimized, you were at least being honest.

csdeven on December 7, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife.

But wait, there’s more! This one calls Palin supporters “cultists!”

didymus on December 7, 2011 at 9:46 PM

1. I don’t give a damn about Mittens’ religion. That’s the point. He wants to go after Newt’s private life from 16 years ago, but if you even mention his religion, you get accused of being a bigot… thanks for proving my point.

If you don’t give a damn why did you bring it up? How are details of Mitt’s religion relevant? His religion tells him to be faithful and so forth, and he is faithful to his wife and his religion, and he’s clearly unfailingly patriotic, but what else do you need to know exactly? Some arcane knowledge? Why? So you can mock it? Is there anything in his personal life, or governing style, or private sector experience which leads you to doubt his abilities to govern or follow the Constitution? Tell us what you want to know! I can’t help you because I’m not a Mormon, but maybe there are others who can satisfy this demand to have it all “on the table”.

Meanwhile, how has he “gone after Newt”? Did question Newt’s religious views? Is there some new rule where candidates can’t highlight positive things about themselves, and indirectly make a contrast? Flag waving, family, faith (in general terms) this is all standard fare in campaigns.

2. I’m supporting Newt. If there is one religion I find as abhorrent as Mormonism, it’s RCism… but obviously I am able to separate my politics from my personal beliefs… again, I made this clear in my comments in this thread.

Fine! Support Newt! And I note the irony that Romney separates his politics from his religious beliefs but you’re complaining that he does that.

3. If I ran, I’d be happy to discuss my religious beliefs. I wouldn’t push it because it isn’t necessarily relevant to most issues, but I certainly wouldn’t play the victim if anybody noted what I actually profess to believe.

I doubt that someone who refers to two major religions as “abhorrent” would have much of a chance of winning, but hey, go for it. People want to broadly be reassured that a candidate’s religion reflects our country’s values, traditions, heritage. Or are they a militant Atheist who will ban the word Christmas and remove religious symbols from the public square? Or do they have contempt for mainstream Christianity? That sort of thing. But hey, you’re right. It isn’t relevant to most issues. Thanks for making MY point.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Uh, in the first place, we’re talking about a campaign ad, not mentioning family during a debate.
ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 8:33 PM

A distinction without a difference. Why can’t he mention his family? This is absurd. I’m not going to even bother to the rest of that paragraph as it borders on the hallucinatory. Who knew for example that Andrew Sullivan was a “disaffected Mittbot”!

Oh, come off it. You’ve been picking the woman to death ever since I’ve been reading this site.

I have said things which are critical of her. Sorry that you are such an immature child that you equate criticism with “hate”.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Say what? How do you know that the obamas have an A+ relationship? Do you live with them?
Is that just about the same kind of A+ relationship that Bill and Hilary Clinton have together?
I get your point – the media will paint them as a loving steady family vs. Newt’s third marriage etc… but I don’t know what I am going to annoint them my family A+ …. nitpicking details perhaps =)
glidingone on December 7, 2011 at 9:15 PM

I probably shouldn’t pronounce it A+, but yes, in a world where 50% of marriages end in divorce they look very well together, and are most likely very happy with each other. The affairs that newt has engaged in are not helping us defeat Obama in 2012, it may not be right but it is true.

jayhawkboilermaker on December 7, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Jayhawk – agreed in full – just not sure that it’s all rosy there in obamaville. But frankly – that’s none of my business or anyone else’s. Just like Newt’s personal decisions with his marriages are none of ours either.

That matters nothing to the media for certain – since they thrive on picking apart people’s lives for ratings and are the worst sort of gossip/slanderous individuals on this planet with an audience.

So yep – it’s an issue but I’ll take that issue over the socialist/statist currently residing on the white house – his speech today was pure socialism – people are seriously blind – Europe is dying of socialism right now and has been for quite some time – that is us and the media cares not to put two and two together.

glidingone on December 7, 2011 at 10:59 PM

I’m sorry, does anyone else notice Mitt Romney says “President of the United States” funny? Like “Pres-i-dent of the Uni-ted Staates”.

Can’t they fix that in his circuit board?

M_J_S on December 8, 2011 at 12:12 AM

I probably shouldn’t pronounce it A+, but yes, in a world where 50% of marriages end in divorce they look very well together, and are most likely very happy with each other. The affairs that newt has engaged in are not helping us defeat Obama in 2012, it may not be right but it is true.

jayhawkboilermaker on December 7, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Somewhere in excess of 80% of original marriages are still together. That 50% meme is a misuse of statistics. Multiple divorces by the same people inflate the stat. You have been throwing out opinion as facts. You need to do better.

chemman on December 8, 2011 at 12:41 AM

This is a bio piece, not an attack ad. The political cognoscenti will say it’s a swipe at Newt, but the vast majority of folks who will see this see this as a bio piece, especially as it doesn’t feature or mention any other candidate by name.

bhj on December 8, 2011 at 12:57 AM

He’s a good husband, so is Obama from all appearances. I fail to see how this helps him in any way when it is the issues and flip flops, which he does not want to talk about, that are holding him back.

Will this hurt Newt with the inference it makes? Maybe, but it very well could help someone else like Rick Perry.

Daemonocracy on December 8, 2011 at 1:25 AM

rrpjr on December 7, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Fantastic post.

Kataklysmic on December 8, 2011 at 2:18 AM

Since we’ve gone there, O can’t touch Romney on religion unless he wants to talk about Rev. Wright. My vote out here in CA won’t help pick the candidate so I’m with ajacksonian; we need another huge Tea Party wave in the House and Senate so that whoever is president the conservative momentum continues. Hatch=toast. Big spending/debt fights coming up. Our reps better know what consequences await if they waiver.

burnedmyboots on December 8, 2011 at 2:32 AM

If Reagan’s status as divorced and remarried didn’t bother me, Mitt’s not going to win me over with this. It’s silly. Of course his wife knows which side her bread is buttered on. I’ve been married for 38 years. Doesn’t make me better at anything except ducking.

Extrafishy on December 8, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Uh, in the first place, we’re talking about a campaign ad, not mentioning family during a debate.
ddrintn on December 7, 2011 at 8:33 PM

A distinction without a difference. Why can’t he mention his family? This is absurd. I’m not going to even bother to the rest of that paragraph as it borders on the hallucinatory. Who knew for example that Andrew Sullivan was a “disaffected Mittbot”!

Hallucinatory my ass. Who knew for an example that I ever called Sullivan a Mittbot, although maybe he is. DO you know the meaning of the phrase “many of whom”?

As for the rest, it’s more of the idiotic sophistry that is your hallmark. A campaign ad is the same as uttering a few words in a debate! Who knew!

Oh, come off it. You’ve been picking the woman to death ever since I’ve been reading this site.

I have said things which are critical of her. Sorry that you are such an immature child that you equate criticism with “hate”.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 10:09 PM

All you’ve ever done is criticize, scouring for this split infinitive or a hair out of place, etc etc.

ddrintn on December 8, 2011 at 7:58 AM

Buy Danish on December 7, 2011 at 10:01 PM

If you don’t give a damn why did you bring it up?

You’re not following the argument… then prove that by the rest of your comment on the issue. The point is that we’re NOT ALLOWED to even mention it. The only statement in regard to Mitt’s religion in regard to his candidacy is that I DON’T CARE. Can I be more clear? The point (for the 3rd time) is that since Mittens and his worshipers are so sensitive about his private beliefs, I find it ironic that they somehow Newt’s private life from 16 years ago fair game.

Fine! Support Newt! And I note the irony that Romney separates his politics from his religious beliefs but you’re complaining that he does that.

I’m not arguing Mittens’ religious views at all or that he has made them an issue… apart from the unwritten rule that we’re never to mention it lest we be accused of being bigots.

I doubt that someone who refers to two major religions as “abhorrent” would have much of a chance of winning, but hey, go for it.

I’m not running, nor do I care what people think of my religious beliefs… so long as they accurately represent them in their hate. My only point is that I wouldn’t be so sensitive. Why can’t I find other belief systems abhorrent? If the two major tenets of my belief system are based on things being square and red, obviously it would abhorrent to those beliefs if a group taught that the truth is based on things being round or blue. Look up “abhorrent” before you make sweeping statements.

People want to broadly be reassured that a candidate’s religion reflects our country’s values, traditions, heritage. Or are they a militant Atheist who will ban the word Christmas and remove religious symbols from the public square? Or do they have contempt for mainstream Christianity? That sort of thing. But hey, you’re right. It isn’t relevant to most issues. Thanks for making MY point.

So are we allowed to talk about Mittens’ religious beliefs or not?

And, as noted for the 4th time, I don’t care about Mittens’ faith… but if you believe Mormonism is somehow consistent with our country’s “traditions and heritage” or that the LDS is “mainstream Christianity” your understanding of US history and Mormon history is lacking… but YOU raised that point, not me.

mankai on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Newt is the new John McCain. John McCain convinced us in 2008 so don’t you think we’re stupid enough to be convinced by Newt?

aloysiusmiller on December 8, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Gingrich can’t attract the indrpendents! So do what you will, we will have obama again.
Our country cannot stand another 4 years. But do what you will. I will vote for him if he makes it through, but G-d help us when obama is sworn in again. He has no one to answer to except soros and our country will look just like russia, china, venezuela- you name it!

Bambi on December 8, 2011 at 10:35 AM

mankai on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM

There are no people who are more patriotic in this country than the “Mormons.” There is no religion that loves this country more than the “Mormons.”

You can criticize all you want, but let’s be honest!

So when you look at it it all boils down to religion!

It’s OK to cheat on your wife, to be a petulent congressman, to flip on all issues, as newt has done, but “oh my gosh, we can’t have a man who has been loyal to his wife, his family, his faith and his country, because, you know – he’s one of those freaks!”

Bambi on December 8, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Sorry about my spelling, I’m upset about fast and furious and I have to leave and go to work!

Bambi on December 8, 2011 at 10:42 AM

ddrintn on December 8, 2011 at 7:58 AM

Hallucinatory my ass. Who knew for an example that I ever called Sullivan a Mittbot, although maybe he is. DO you know the meaning of the phrase “many of whom”?

Andrew Sullivan trashed Trig/Palin. Tabloids went after Bristol because of her relationship with her trashy boyfriend, Levi and so forth. There was a reaction to Bristol’s book. Neither of those situations were the fault of “Mittbots”. What else? Piper? Track? Buehler?

FTR, I never criticized her children, and said it was inappropriate when Meghan McCain took that route. So I’ll give you one “Mittbot” (Megs) who said things about Bristol (and said very nice things, but I digress), but that one example hardly proves this ridiculous assertion on your part:

considering the amount of mud Palin’s family was dragged through (quite often by disaffected Mittbots who were pissed off that their idol was passed over for the VP slot) she practically had to parade them around just to show the world they weren’t total freaks.

This is the truth: Bristol’s problems were much bigger than Megs. So yeah you are hallucinatory when you say there was a concerted effort to savage her children by “Mittbots”

As for the rest, it’s more of the idiotic sophistry that is your hallmark. A campaign ad is the same as uttering a few words in a debate! Who knew!

The ad is essentially a soundbite from a debate; the same debate where Perry and Huntsman emphasized the constancy of their marriages. In each case it was an appeal to social cons and an indirect way of drawing a contrast with Newt, but none of the candidates mentioned him by name. This is totally normal campaign tactic and hardly deserves the OUTRAGE I’m seeing here.

All you’ve ever done is criticize, scouring for this split infinitive or a hair out of place, etc etc.

That’s not true, I loved her at the outset but from her resignation speech on I got fed up with her. But even if it were, so what? That is not “hate” and it is childish for you to make that assertion. Any advice given here for ways she could improve her image was met with an hysterical reaction from Palinistas. So ironically, in your desperate efforts to shield her from reasonable criticism and suggestions as to how she could improve her image, you may have actually damaged her in the long run.

Buy Danish on December 8, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Hilarious! Mittens took his worst moment from the Nov. 9th debate (a completely stupid and nonsensical response), and turned it into a really bad campaign ad. Talk about tone deaf! MittRo is consistently inconsistent and obviously, he is getting more desperate by the day.

Pork-Chop on December 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM

mankai on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM

The point (for the 3rd time) is that since Mittens and his worshipers are so sensitive about his private beliefs, I find it ironic that they somehow Newt’s private life from 16 years ago fair game

One has nothing to do with the other. It is standard procedure to hold up a magnifying glass to a candidate’s character, family life, marriage and so on. It is not standard to trash a person’s religion. Unless, say, you’re of the ilk of a Pastor Jeffress who ‘abhors’ both Mormons and Catholics and publicly and inappropriately expresses his, dare I say, “bigotry”. Hmmmmm. Gosh, what a coincidence.

Look up “abhorrent” before you make sweeping statements.

Ha! I know exactly what it means (“Disgusting, loathsome, or repellent”). As in, “I find it abhorrent when commenters make snide comments and idiotic jokes about Mormons’ underwear”. But how tolerant of you push aside your determination that Catholicism is “abhorrent” aside for Newt.

And, as noted for the 4th time, I don’t care about Mittens’ faith… but if you believe Mormonism is somehow consistent with our country’s “traditions and heritage” or that the LDS is “mainstream Christianity” your understanding of US history and Mormon history is lacking… but YOU raised that point, not me.

Clearly there are aspects of LDS which are unique and stray from traditional Christianity, but Mormons are exceedingly patriotic, revering our Constitution and other founding documents. They are a Christ-centered religion. They do not join those who attempt to constrain mainstream Christianity by censoring it in the public square, at military posts, in schools, or at, say, private hospitals. They pose absolutely no threat to our country’s foundations (unlike left wing church groups or militant atheists or militant Islam). On the contrary, judging not just from the Romney family, but from my Mormon neighbors (in Georgia!) they lead exceptionally admirable lives, they work hard, they are extraordinarily disciplined, have a great sense of duty, are generous in service to others, are leaders in the community with wonderful, high-achieving children. Indeed, their accomplishments are enviable. The specifics of how they practice their religion is a private matter which is completely irrelevant to their ability to serve in government offices.

But hey, some Protestants like Jeffers aren’t even willing to accept the oldest Christian religion on the planet, – Catholicism, so I’m not sure what is required to pass your test of “mainstream” or “traditional”.

Buy Danish on December 8, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I hate that R logo. It makes it look like he’s red on one side, blue on the other and there’s nothing inside. That’s not the image Mitt Romney should be projecting.

David Blue on December 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I’m tempted to say this will do Romney as much harm as good simply because it stinks of desperation driven by Gingrich’s surge, but in truth it probably will help him a bit.

Yeah, I don’t know about that. On one hand, getting people talking about Newt’s past marriages is pretty much Romney’s only remaining line of attack on Newt. On the other hand, it also plays into the narrative that Mitt Romney is the guy who will say and do anything to be President (including wielding his wife as a political cudgel). I mean, I don’t blame Romney for doing it, but he is just doing it in such a nakedly transparent way that it will probably blow back on him. But, with only a few weeks until Iowa, there probably isn’t time for subtlety.

Lawdawg86 on December 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Romney’s long lived marriage is why he sucks as a Dem candidate, certainly not why he is good for the Reps.

Agree the comments re; Ron Paul has been married longer so let’s go with that.

Hey Rick Perry has been married a long time too.

Shall we move on to issues now?

landowner on December 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM

On the other hand, it also plays into the narrative that Mitt Romney is the guy who will say and do anything to be President (including wielding his wife as a political cudgel).
Lawdawg86 on December 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I’m outraged!!!/ Honestly, to object to talking about one’s wife and marriage is the height of silliness. Indeed, I can’t think of a single candidate who has not done this, and as a reminder, when Newt began his campaign, seemingly ever other word out of his mouth was “Callista and I”.

Buy Danish on December 8, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Mitt Romney is John Kerry without Viet Nam War service. His election to POTUS would be a travesty especially in the shadow of Obama’s regime.

tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Funny but some of the Romney supporters are awfully touchy about any criticism of him. Pretty soon they’ll be deemed as obsessive as Palin supporters. /s

katiejane on December 8, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Mitt Romney is John Kerry without Viet Nam War service. His election to POTUS would be a travesty especially in the shadow of Obama’s regime.
tom daschle concerned on December 8, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Most pathetic comment of the day. Do you actually know anything about John Kerry’s bio? How about Mitt’s? And sorry, but you can’t blithely put the Vietnam War stuff aside, because Kerry’s appalling (and self-serving) actions as an anti-War activist (including his collaboration with the N. Vietnamese in Paris) makes him an entirely different human being from the steadfast patriot, Romney.

But hey, let me guess – you’re a class envy populist kinda guy, the “conservative” version of the OWSers, who has forgotten that we are a Meritocracy, and resents Mitt because he worked for the eeeevil Bain Capital and made a lot of money. You make the ludicrous comparison to Kerry because both have money (regardless of the fact one earned it and one married it). Oh, and they both live in Massachusetts. So yeah, that makes them exactly alike./

Buy Danish on December 8, 2011 at 7:20 PM

yes, but how many spirit wives does he have to make god babies in heaven with?

mittens on December 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM

My wife of 10 years began cheating on me in year one. I finally divorced her.
Now I have some multi-millionaire, boy of privilege Mormon talking down his nose at me.
What other judgements will you be making, Mitt?
I don’t think so.

crash72 on December 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

You’re an idiot if you think that is equivalent to what Newt did to two of his wives.

haner on December 9, 2011 at 4:19 AM

Some of the posts on here are just insane, did you guys even watch the ad? Hes not “talking down his nose” at anyone. Hes taking on a charge that he is just political guy with no core, that hes inconsistent. Just because you are served a narrative on a platter doesn’t mean its a correct one.

nswider on December 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM

It just dawned onto me that the country has a 50% divorce rate. This is the end result of decades of liberal indoctrination. Even so called conservatives think that a presidential candidate talking about his own family values is somehow a bad thing.

No wonder the country is down the tubes. We all need to look in the mirror ourselves.

haner on December 9, 2011 at 4:23 AM

yes, but how many spirit wives does he have to make god babies in heaven with?
mittens on December 8, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Oh joy! Another open registration jackass.

Buy Danish on December 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Even Reagan remarried. Not a make or break affair (no pun intended)…

Pest on December 9, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Hmmm – waste of time to continue the Romney-Gingrich bashing.

williamg on December 9, 2011 at 1:30 PM

If most people knew what an exclusive and patriarchal society that is the Mormon “church”, they’d be laughing at Mittens.
He hasn’t a chance, in more ways than one.
BUT, he does have a wife who will do as he says.
As if that’s something for which one is to be proud.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 10, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4