Redstate

You know, I can see that. His distancing himself from the GOP might just help him with independents. But will it help him get through the primaries?

Of course, if the Dems are running something like this, it could mean they are scared. At least, that'll probably be the spin.

Between "reaching out to Democrats" and what we saw in that commercial. At least insofar as "reaching out to Democrats" isn't exclusively defined as "disowning Republicans."

------------
Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems... True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.

-Russell Kirk

The Republican Party, on its own, without the threat of removal, just proved to us that it STINKS. We earned our removal from the majority. I don't think Romney has anything to explain here, much less to apologize for.

I don't see anything wrong with saying you are a leader first and party loyalist second, or third, or dead last. I like his issues not his party affiliation.

This video earns a resounding "whatever".

and the video isn't spliced. Thanks Brownbacker.

Bill was (and still is) the best politician to ever stand in front of a television camera. Mitt couldn't do his laundry.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

we could have skipped that whole "impeachment" thing.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'm still on free consulting vacation, and Romney isn't in bad enough shape to realize he needs us yet.

though I wouldn't have used the term "best politician" to describe Clinton. I'd call him the smoothest liar, and though the two often seem synonymous, as politicians (in the positive sense) go, Willy was no Ronald Reagan.

And you're absolutely right, SW was no RR.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Utah Republicans aren't really that great. Bennett? Cannon? Orrin Hatch is pretty good, but even he can get kind of mushy sometimes.

Sen. Hatch's work on copyright has disappointed me greatly.

Run like Reagan!

Sen. Hatch's work on copyright has disappointed me greatly.

Same here, except replace 'disappointed me greatly' with 'gotten me fighting mad'. He wanted to give copyright owners the right to poke around my computer and delete anything they thought was theirs. To express my true opinion on that idea would involve using words and concepts that would get me banned from RedState.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Bill Clinton won two terms in office by first beating a president whose approval numbers were extremely high and then by beating the senator majority leader that he had been polling behind at one point.

Mitt is like Bill in a very good way - he's a smooth operator. It's hard to compare him to Bill Clinton on any substantive level, however.

Mr. 43% couldn't even crack 50% in his re-election campaign...

Run like Reagan!

Mitt may be able to change his positions on issues like a chameleon, but he could never get away with the "I feel your pain.." schtick or any of the other crap that kept Clinton in office. Clinton was utterly ruthless and without conscious, no matter how you feel about Mitt, he's far from there.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

like Teresa Heinz in '04, Mitt Romney can afford to buy the rear view mirror and either reposition it or just smash it to bits.

We The People, probably aren't likely to be bought by MR.

There are some limits to who we will sell out to.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Battlefield Earth is in my top ten all time, along with Atlas Shrugged.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

saying he did not have sex with that woman, and his wife denouncing the accusation as being a scheme of the VRWC, than having it revealed that the sex was oral sex exposed via the stained dress, then going on to question the meaning of "is", then going on to have a prayerful and public reconciliation with said wife, then procuring a Senate seat for said wife, who asserted that her Mission In Life was to assist the economic recovery of upstate New York, but then found out it was to be President?

Compared to this, the Romneys look like "Leave it to Beaver".

was having some kind of mystical rendezvous with Eleanor Roosevelt a decade ago?

Evidently the psychic waters are now tranquil and she has emerged whole and healthy from her identity crisis - as Franklin.

He appears to have Iowa locked down and an institutional advantage in New Hampshire.

Face is...come Florida and South Carolina, he's going to be the only candidate with electoral votes racked up. Far from rear-view mirror, he's going to be more front and center than ever.

His superior organizational skills, managerial skills, intelligence, and communication skills will make him a very formidable candidate indeed.

I don't think that Mitt said anything that he didn't have to say in order to get elected in Massachusetts. And I don't think that he really even strayed from the core Republican message, he just very skillfully found a way to couch it in terms that the liberals in Massachusetts found palatable.

And in the end, if Mitt Romney would do anything to get elected he would have run as a Democrat in Massachusetts and become an Episcopalian like Howard Dean did.

Mitt Romney is an extremely substantive candidate who knows how to walk the rhetorical balance beam to draw the most voters to him. While I'm a more vociferous, myself - like Ann Coulter - I can appreciate that the electorate enjoys less brazen rhetoric.

The fears about Mitt Romney are largely unfounded. Erick promoting this just furthers his long-held bias against Mitt. While I find Thompson is the most unifying figure in the GOP, I would kind of like to see Mitt elected just so that Erick has to eat a bunch of crow and admit that he's as shallow and intellectually muted as I've always believed that he is.

I see you got the email from RomneyBot Headquarters to coordinate our distaste for Erick's posting of this video as well?

Seriously though . . . that's pretty freaky that we both had the same vibe at the same time (though you beat me to posting it!)

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

Then again, Erick seems to be a bigger opponent of Romney than most anybody on the left... I don't know what he must have done to him, but I'd rather this sort of emotion and vitriol be spent on, you know, the actual enemies.

I'm not much of a fan of Romney (he was in my top two or three candidates at one time, but has slid due to a distinct air of being a stereotypical politician... anymore I rank Hunter, Giuliani, Brownback, and both Thompsons all ahead of him), but even I'm thinking this is just too much. Personally I think that, if he is a truly unacceptable candidate, enough of the public will see this regardless of how much money he has.

That aside, I still think Romney is better than even the least objectionable Democrat (although I'm not sure who that would be... right now I'm putting my money on Richardson in that regard).

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones

...then how long will you slum it up here?

Run like Reagan!

RedState is the leading community for conservative political conversation...in spite of the Directors, who - quite unfortunately - often give us very little reason to hold any amount of respect or esteem for their powers of reason, logic, and strategy.

It's the other people who come here that are interesting to engage with - far more so than the Directors. It's when the directors pull disgusting stunts like this where they act like a propaganda distribution service that are slightly stomach-turning.

I think that if al Qaeda had some video where they took one word snippets from three different speeches where Mitt said, "I am a conservative Republican," "I like babies," and "We must destroy the terrorists" and boiled it down to Mitt saying "I" "like" "terrorists" and then posted it on YouTube, it would probably be on the front page of RedState.

If you're going to call Erick and company pro-terrorist, don't you think it's time you went to another site? Seriously.

Run like Reagan!

Read what I said, think about the point being made, and then post. It was not that complex, but I'll give you a hint: I wasn't accusing Erick of being "pro-terrorist."

You suggested Red State would broadcast Al Qaeda propaganda.

Run like Reagan!

.

If you can't tell the difference between Democratic propaganda and the propaganda of brutal murderers... well then you have problems.

Run like Reagan!

.

...the I guess I probably do draw a slightly smaller distinction between what you aptly describe as "brutal murderers" and those who aid and abet them than you might draw.

Let's do a critical thinking exercise, Neil.

Erick posted a YouTube composition that was put together and paid for by the Massachusetts Democrat Party. It is a piece of Democrat propaganda. Am I accusing Erick of being a Democrat?

..."Fred?" wanting to get the pro-life stuff out of the 1996 GOP platform?

Look, we all have our own dog in this fight. If you're going to criticize a candidate, the least you can do it keep it accurate. This isn't DailyKOS. If someone said something inaccurate about Romeny, then by all means take them to task. But making up lies about another candidate just to spite his supporters only discredits you.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I don't think this is mostly that damaging, although I could have done without the harshing on Utah, but I guess he was making a point about keeping the two-party system alive in Mass. But it's hard to say it's that terrible to put the man's own campaign statements out there (and BTW, just by looking at Romney and listening to his words it's clear these are all from 2002. In 1994 he hadn't just returned from Utah).

Mitt's a good businessman, beginning, middle and end of story. YMMV as to whether that makes him a good presidential candidate.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

And this makes Front Page here at RedState and no mention (that I could find) of the Rudy FireFighter video or of "Fred?" wanting to get the pro-life stuff out of the 1996 GOP platform?

First of all, as far as the IFFA video, Gordon Taylor posted a blog about it, you can follow the link. There are 24 comments to date, I note that the Mittsters couldn't be bothered to comment.

Second, with respect to Fred and the Republican Platform in 1996, he didn't want to pull the abortion plank, he wanted to do away with the whole platform. There was discussion about that in a blog yesterday, I just don't have time right now to find it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"Mittsters" probably didn't comment on the IFFA video because there was nothing to comment on. They're obviously baseless attacks made by Democrat partisans - JUST LIKE THIS ONE IS. You did notice that it was paid for by the Massachusetts Democrat Party, right?

It is the "anti-Mittsters" who seem to have no depth that they will not sink to in order to try to slime a really great, very successful man who is a patriot that thinks he has a lot of valuable skills to bring to his country. Mitt is so successful, he didn't need to run for president to add a feather to his cap.

Disagree with Mitt on substance? Fine. Have at it. But cheap shots like these are really repulsive.

Frankly, I view it like you pointing at me and telling someone, "Hey look! It's an old, bald guy."

I am what I am. For goodness sakes, this was clips of Mitt. Really, without any comment. Whoopee. I would say it's different from the Fred firefighter video, because that one is overtly scripted against Fred. I didn't care about that one either. Kinda like my ex-wife pointing at me and telling her friends, "Look there goes and a$$hole."

Next.

You guys are way too sensitive. God help you if Mitt actually gets the nomination (which I don't think there is any chance of happening, but I'd vote for him) and the Clintons go after him. Batten down the hatches.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Yes, they are clips of Mitt, but without context. I mean, if you simply looked at those clips as representative of the point he was making, you would have to wonder why Mitt was running as a Republican at all. But he is. It's quite weak-minded of you to just take this product of Democrat propaganda at face-value without asking questions.

I don't take anything at face value (except Paris Hilton). And, frankly there is context, the trailer says it's produced by MA Dems. That's more than enough to apply a really heavy discount to the vid.

Your complaint is that there's no context. OK, add the context and move on. Treat this as an issue Mitt's going to have to face over and over. Really, and again, if this bothers you, you're in real trouble if Mitt gets the nomination and the Clintons cut loose on him.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

What bothers me is the non-substantive friendly fire. Politics is a contact sport and attacks (which is what this is, ironically by Democrats trying to convince Republicans that a Republican isn't Republican enough) must be rebutted, and the stronger the rebuttal the better.

That said, I'd rather not have to body-check someone who is supposed to be on the same side - especially when I haven't even settled on Mitt. I'm still very open to Fred as a unifying figure to take on Hillary (although, I think he'd be smart to bring boy wonder Mitt Romney on board as veep.) But that this is being promoted by Republicans without context is a little bit unseemly.

I know that I don't really like Mitt's healthcare plan. I much prefer Rudy's approach. I'm waiting to see what Fred says.

The GOP needs to be the one running on eliminating proverty, not John Edwards. Our ideas are the only ones that have ever proven to eliminate poverty in America, and what we need is a good healthy dose of MORE of those free market, individualist policies coupled with good old fashioned charity.

mistaking anything. Most of Mitt posters - not aimed at you - seem to take any non-savior comments about Mitt personally. Frankly, I kinda like taking shots at Mitt on slow days just for feedback from the bots. His supporters are not doing him any good service with their outrage.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

unless you're being paid by the campaign/candidate.

Before Fred was even on the radar screen.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Funny how so many of the people who whine about the FDT slant on the front page haven't been here long enough to remember when Erick was pro-Romney.

Run like Reagan!

Cry me a river Bricklavin. I've been posting these on all the candidates and we even put up the Fred one on his debate in 1994 on the abortion question.

Let's recap: Romney in his own words.

We're all quite familiar with your propaganda distribution service, Erick.

Romney in his SPLICED words . . .

Great find Erick.

put it context for us.

Your whining is really irritating. Especially about YET ANOTHER no big deal video attack. If Mitt gets the nomination, you guys better get your meds adjusted WAY up. The Clinton Machine doesn't toss softballs like this.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"The Clinton Machine doesn't toss softballs like this."

. . . because they know that serious-minded people will see it for what it is.

why? If you're "serious minded" then why the screeching outrage. The bots have absolutely no sense of humor. None. No sense of perspective. Zip.

Look at the outrage over the dog on the roof of the car thing. Even Franz thought it was funny. Somebody more creative than I put up a blog - Dogs against Romney. It's a hoot. I would have thought the bots would have picked that up and exploited it for both the humor and as an effective counter to the silly shots that get published. But no, just more outrage.

Frankly, Romney's supporters are pushing me away from him. He's not my first choice by a long shot (I don't know who is right now), but given the people he's attracting here, I'm really not impressed. There are precious few who bother to make a cogent argument based on issues. Most just get their panties in a wad over any perceived affront to their savior.

Hint: get a life, it's just politics. And politics gets ugly. The Clinton's will eat you guys alive. I don't know if they'll hurt Mitt, but his supporters will form a suicide pact at the first real shot across the bow if their performance here over minor and funny stuff is any indication.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

There are a few gooey-eyed Romney supporters out there. There are also some intelligent senisble ones. And there are people like you and me who are generally friendly to a Romney candidacy, but not committed. There are also intelligent and reasonable critics.

But there are also dedicated anti-Romneyacs, who will pick on anything and misrepresent it. I didn't see the 'dogs against Romney' site, but the blog here on the subject was apparently offered in all seriousness - and defended from ridicule - by someone who thought that something Romney did (he never clarified what) was utterly terrible. It was also, apparently, one reason not to vote for him. One reason among many, of course. That sort always collects reasons obsessively.

There are other people who misrepresent a change of mind as a 'lie', and we have seen that one rehearsed here many times. Don't get me wrong. I have noticed that Romney's change of mind on the abortion question came at a politically convenient time. An intelligent critic says of this 'I doubt his sincerity'. The obsessive mainiac says "there it is. I caught him. He's a liar. I proved it. No-one will vote for him no. He will get zero votes".

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Please compare the length and content of my posts on this thread with the length and content of your posts. If one of us needs to gain some perspective or to "get a life," it's not me.

...they just win a lot of our support by default because the Democrats make it their agenda to oppose absolutely everything we are in favor of. Honestly, despite being a few months away from a degree in Political Science, I am probably the most politically apathetic that I have ever been. Right now, as it stands, the Democrats are the party of Marxism and the Republicans are more and more the party of Paternalism. Those of us who are classical liberals, who are transfixed by the philosophies of Bastiat, Hayek, or Rand... we have been cast out from both parties, to a place from which they hope we never re-emerge.

I speak out against the Democrats, and focus on them, for two reasons: first, whereas the Republican party grudgingly accepts my ilk, the Democrats not only dismiss our concerns, but attempt to demean and marginalize us as "stupid", "mean", or "short-sighted" (project much?). Secondly, I started my political life as a Democrat, and have learned to reject their world view as well as their paucity of intellectual fortitude. While it is fine and good to keep the feet of those closest to us to the fire, we also need to focus in on who seeks to do us the most harm.

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones

he'll keep people listening in the South, where many of us suffered under one party rule for almost twice the lifetime of the Soviet Union. Mike Huckabee touches on this sometimes, too, since he was a rare Republican governor in Arkansas history.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

It’s obvious you’re motivated by your own self-interests than that of the good of the Republican Party or conservatism for that matter.

I'm sure he gets $20 for every Republican he turns against our party's savior, Mitt.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Talk about pots and kettles

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56637

I think Mr. Farah adequately describes Romney's own "suspect conservative past" in that article.

but the more I see of his supporters, the farther down he goes. This campaign is so thin skinned, you are ridiculous. Good grief, if Mitt actually gets the nomination and Clintons turn the big guns loose on him, you guys are going to look like lemmings going off the cliff. Or Teddy Kennedy in a 1968 Oldsmobile...

If you've got a problem with stuff like this, address the ISSUES, and give the "you're killing conservatism" a rest. What ever Mitt's done in his life (and there's lots of impressive stuff), being a spokesman for conservatism isn't one of them.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Run like Reagan!

And I would add that it's not just the comments-section Mitt boosters; more than that, it's his campaign staff. Mitt's team's approach to negative campaigning has too strong a whiff of Chris Lehane, Tad Devine and the rest of the Gore/Kerry/Wes Clark campaign staff approach - constant negativity without humor or a sense of proportion, and the desperate desire to answer every attack by claiming that the other guy has exactly the same problem (and frankly, the fact that a lot of it isn't directly tied to the campaign doesn't change that). I'm all for the rough stuff if it's done right, but Romney just seems to be the source of a whole lot of lame attacks that are mainly intended to paint his own flaws onto other people.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Well, it's a good defense when true insofar as it is at least bit unfair to call out ONE candidate for something and give another a pass for something that may be at least very similar. Especially when there appears to be a campaign to demonize Mitt Romney, which is probably driven by the fact that there is really so very little of anything remotely substantive to really criticize him over. His health-care policy is one area, but his opponents don't seem to be content with that.

I noticed that you didn't take too well to it merely being posted that Fred Thompson met with the Firefighters Union. You seem to have quite the case of selective outrage, Dan. I look forward to greater consistency in the future.

Dan posted one comment on that thread, it contained a quote relating to the breakfast and Dan said, Whether this [quote]implies Fred's hand in the video attack on Giuliani. I don't know that it does, but you might want to consider that this could be seen cutting both ways.

If that's outrage of any kind, we need to revise the definition.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I may yet switch to Fred, but I've been open about the fact that I'm supporting Rudy. In either event, I wasn't outraged at all about that particular story.

What makes Mitt so vulnerable in this regard is that you have such a high volume of problematic reversals and ugly quotes in the space of such a short career. A man who has run two campaigns and served four years in public office shouldn't have the kind of explaining to do that normally accompanies a three-decade career in the Senate.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

because Fred is second on my list but the more fawning he gets on this website, the more I'm turned off. Hopefully if Mitt does get the nomination, then you will get your pronouns right (ie "we" instead of "you guys"). There are plenty here that are focused on the "ISSUE", so maybe you should focus on them instead of reacting to the kneejerkers.

"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain

Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if Romney were the first or second choice of a majority of Red Staters. Don't you remember before FDT started making noises about letting himself get drafted, when Erick was saying Romney was his first choice?

Even for me, Romney is someone that right now, I could vote for in the general election. And that's saying something, since I can't say that about McCain or Giuliani. But even I feel repulsed from the candidate in the way his people act as victims on here all the time.

Also, I think history shows a one party USA can work out alright. I wouldn't mind a new Era of Good Feelings after this period of deep, even separation of worldviews.

Run like Reagan!

Same here - he's my 2nd choice, despite my qualms about his sincerity on social conservative issues. At this point, if he were the nominee, I'd vote for him.