Um . . .
Do They report it as an in kind contribution to Romney or Rudy?
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Something tells me that this Log Cabin Republican ad isn't actually supposed to be an endorsement of Romney, but it certainly hints at what Hillary will do to him in the General Election.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Blackfacing Jim Marshall (D-GA08). It's not the right doing it. — Comments (3) »
Um . . . 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
..."USE" it, her machine would simply have to run a version of this to capitalize on its effectiveness.
Politics is perception!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Or perhaps MediaMatters? LOL.
If Hillary Clinton or any of her cohorts really want to open up this can of worms, then the Romney campaign should welcome it. It gives them more leverage to bring up HillaryCare circa 1994 and all of Hillary's scandals and makes those attacks more effective.
... saying:
I find it very hard to conceive a way for Hillary of all people to be able to make any use of this in the general election.
was a bit hard to understand, surly you see how this ad could be effective in the general? At least to those not blinded by their commitment to a particular candidate.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
An attack by the Clinton campaign or liberal special interest groups would be effective in the general ONLY IF the Democrats were running a candidate credible on the issues they claim to be attacking. That will not be the case.
If liberal groups were to attack a presidential candidate for previously espousing positions that they presently hold, they would also be directly attacking those policy positions. I don't see how they could help themselves AT ALL doing that.
I think that liberal groups attacking Romney on this would be similar to Harry Reid attacking Rush Limbaugh as not being supportive of the troops. There is a huge credibility gap by those doing the attacking. And I think that they'd be JUST as ineffective as Harry Reid was in his attack on Rush.
...under the false assumption that liberals have to answer for their positions or their stance.
The only direct questioning they (she) would have to answer would be in a debate. By then... damage done!!!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
couldn't make that sentence out but having resources doesn't negate my point!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Great tip,
Thanks
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Log Cabin is a liberal Republican group who is backing Rudy Giuliani.
As a homosexual myself, I went to a local Log Cabin Republican meeting where the city comptroller, Annise Parker, was speaking. If Howard Dean were a butch lesbian, he would be Annise Parker. I came to find out that not only did the local Log Cabins Republicans invite her to speak to them, but they actually endorsed her for all of her citywide campaigns.
At the end of the meeting, I asked the Log Cabin chapter president, "Is Log Cabin Republicans a group of Republicans who happen to be gay, or is it a group of gays seeking to change the Republican Party?"
She responded, "That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if I know how to answer it."
I replied, "I think you just did."
Stop and ask yourself, if Log Cabin Republicans really thought that Mitt Romney was going to be as bad for conservative policy positions (and my inference, as good for liberal policy positions) as they try to scare conservatives into believing in this ad, why would a liberal group like LCR be running this ad?
When you consider that Romney is being opposed by a group of liberal Republicans, this really should be viewed as a huge conservative endorsement of Mitt Romney.
In the end, Log Cabin Republicans are simply steamed at Mitt Romney for his crusade to put the Massachusetts supreme court's breathtaking act of judicial activism in mandating gay marriage by judicial fiat to a vote by the people.
Log Cabin Republicans are a very confused organization who believe that democracy is somehow "anti-gay." That's why they oppose Mitt Romney and that's why we should support him.
When I first saw the advertisement and who was running it. Sorry Romney folks, but Erick is right.
Why do you think the wind surfing advertisement ran so well against Kerry?
It would be a very easy thing to do.
Romney should point out the policy positions that LCR espouses - including gay marriage via judicial activism - and point out that he is being attacked by a bunch of liberals who want to see Rudy Giuliani elected.
Think about it - a group that endorses gay marriage via judicial activism is endorsing Rudy Giuliani and opposing Mitt Romney.
That's all Republican voters should really need to know about Log Cabin Republicans and Rudy Giuliani.
That may be all that R voters -need- to know, but they will know other things after seeing this ad. They'll know that Romney himself supported abortion, ran from the NRA, and loudly ran away from Reagan. We politics junkies already know the Romney record, but to most R voters he's still a blank slate. This ad is deadly to the Romney candidacy.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Rudy Giuliani supported slaughtering innocent unborn human beings in 1994, and today he still does.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Jesse Jackson once likened abortion to genocide. I once agreed with Jesse Jackson. Perhaps you find the term "genocide" less inflammatory?
...by your choice of words this is simply off topic and petty!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
The ad attacks Mitt, basically, for once supporting the slaughter of innocent unborn human beings. He has since found his conscience and now he doesn't support it. I simply pointed out that Rudy is still looking for his.
...another candidate not mentioned in this thread to make yourself feel better.
If you want to spout off about Rudy and baby killing write a diary about it!
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
And this election is a choice between candidates. If Romney is bad for once supporting slaughtering innocent unborn human beings, then it should be fair to point out that Giuliani is worse for supporting it then AND now.
He opposed the NRA then AND now.
Fred has never been as adamantly pro-choice as Romney was in 1994, but even he has admitted that he was once moderately pro-choice but became staunchly pro-life after seeing his children en utero.
I think that the electorate will likely let someone change their mind on issues over the coarse of 15 years. They just don't like it when they change their position second-by-second and in mid-sentence as John Kerry did.
Would I prefer a candidate who has been consistently conservative over the coarse of his entire life? Yes. Unfortunately, while Fred has been more consistently conservative than Mitt over the course of his career, not even he has been perfectly consistent - and he hails from a red state in the deep south.
So, we're left to make a choices. So commentary about any particular candidate is by inference also a commentary on the other candidates also.
...to see everything through the “Romney” filter but this post is what it is... period, and should have been conducted in your own diary!
The end
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
But a comment about one presidential candidate is a comment about all the rest, relative to that candidate, by direct inference.
that doesn't mean you have to take hold of it!
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers to eat trolls!
very, very inflamatory choice of words!
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term mixed breed.
That ad really nails Romney. Im not anti-Romney per se, Im just pro Fred. I don't think that Romney would stand a chance of winning a general, or for that matter the primary though.
This is the problem with Romney, his entire past record is about running away from conservatives, and now he is trying to run as THE Republican. That just wont fly. I like him, he is a good public speaker and a very bright man. He could have a bright future as a candidate in 2012(if we lose in 08) or beyond. But he needs to do something to produce an actual conservative record. Perhaps running for Senate/House seat in Mass. or Michigan to establish that record?
I'm not anti-Romney either and would gladly support him, but if this is a Republican group, can you imagine the Democrats in the general. Hillary will use Romney's own words to make herself look more conservative than him.
Remember the flip-flop charges against John Kerry? Now amplify it 100 times since the media will be on Hillary's side.
When she cites Romney as her top choice among top tier candidates (over Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain), John Kerry flip-flopped in mid-sentence. Mitt Romney has consistently evolved more conservatively over the course of 15 years.
That's about a 15-year difference between Kerry and Romney, and I think it is a big difference.
position. Has to be somewhere after 2002, right? Not even five years?
Now, it's OK to switch and I'm glad he did. I wish Rudy would. But he did it when he did it, and the timing is not helpful.
I think Mitt is qualified to be president. I just don't see him making it in the general, despite his attractive resume, The Hair and his exemplary family life.
If you listen to Mitt's rhetoric in 1994 it is far more pro-choice than Mitt's rhetoric in 2002. In fact, in 2002 he basically says that he will just hold the line on abortion and not change it one way or the other - which meant stopping the state's expansion when it came to embryonic stem cell research as well as defending the state's status quo abortion regime.
I think that is a very significant to understanding the culmination of the evolution later on during his governorship.
Mitt's change on the abortion issue does not appear to be the about-face that it is being promoted as - by, ironically, supporters of an avowed pro-(publicly funded) abortion candidate.
In 1994 he was stridently pro-choice, in 2002 he had significantly softened his position - really doing some rhetorical gymnastics to try and avoid the issue as much as possible in the adamantly pro-choice state, and then in 2006 he became pro-life.
It was more of a continuum than the RomneyBashers' about-face flip flop meme would have people believe.
... isn't it also fair to say that the LGR is a pretty nominally Republican group? I would actually think they're right up there with the RMSP and REP for Pete's sake.
I do agree though that Romney had best be ready to answer some of these things now during the prelims - or (should he make it that far) he ain't-a-gonna do particularly well when it comes time for the main event.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Darn laptop screens...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
How in the world did you do that?????????????????????
Please.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I actually got it using the Character Palette utility on the Mac. Search for Heart and you get two heart characters in the Unicode set to choose from.
If you're not on a mac you get to copy and paste, or in comments you can use these html entities:
♥ is ♥
♡ is ♡
These work along the same lines as as ™ producing ™
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
☭ ☭
☠ ☠
☢ ☢
☣ ☣
☄ ☄
☺ ☹
☹ ☺
But dangit Firefox chokes on some of these. I should file a report. I want my hammer and sickle!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Comrade Neil,
I see the glorious ☭ hammer & sickle in your note fine with Firefox.
But dangit Firefox chokes on some of these. ... I want my hammer and sickle!
It must be something with your Firefox settings. I don't have an idea what, because I couldn't find any way to make the hammer & sickle NOT display. I fiddled with Firefox's font options, even with an ascii font and Western (ISO-8859-1) character encoding, but every time I refreshed the symbol still showed correctly. It might be worth a try selecting UTF-8 character encoding and a Unicode font (if you haven't already), or try checking/unchecking "Allow pages to choose their own font..."
using the Character Palette utility on the Mac. Search for Heart and you get two heart characters in the Unicode set to choose from.
For Windoze users (that includes me), the utility is the "Character Map", obscurely hidden away on your Start Menu under
All Programs ➜ Accessories ➜ System Tools
In the Character Map window, select a Unicode font. If you have M$ Office installed, its included "Arial Unicode MS" is a good choice.
Then scroll to find the character you want, double-click it to put it in the "Characters to copy" field. (You can repeat to add more characters if you want.) Then Ctrl-C (or click the Copy button) to put it in the clipboard, and paste it into your subject line or comment.
Yours in proletarian solidarity,
General Secretary gensec
The cult that makes the Ronulans look almost quaint.....
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Is this about the time that Ogre is supposed to say "NEEEERRRRRDSS!"
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
one. It is entirely accurate.
Toss in a clip of him telling Chris Wallace that Ronald Reagan, when governor of CA, was "adamantly pro-choice," and Mitt Romney is sunk.
It is no longer an accurate portrayal of his policy positions, and Mitt Romney has a good history of keeping his campaign promises.
He has promised to not raise taxes. Giuliani has not.
that he's since changed his mind. It was not working for him even before LCR and Rudy began calling him on his record, and it certainly won't work after Hillary aims her guns.
I know what Romney ought to do now, but he will not. As a Republican, I have to hope for the best.
have done something extremely visible early on to signal the change.
For example, he could have given a farewell address as governor of MA saying: "And as I leave, I must be candid. The Commonwealth is a loony bin of addled liberalism and Kennedy idolatry. I have tried to govern as best as I could and even modified my ideas out of respect for the constituency. But I am done. I shake the dust of this hopeless realm from my feet!"
Next shot: Romney boards executive jet, waives to crowd and tells pilot: "Onwards, Onwards! On to Zion! National Park, that is!"
A lost media moment, alas.
Now that the attack videos are surfacing, I bet Rudy will be hurt the most. He has the most skeletons by far.
.....is that if Mitt makes it out of the GOP primary as the nominee - he is a damn good candidate (and that goes for Rudy or Fred if they make it). The GOP primary is shaping up to be a barnburner. I for one, think Romney is well positioned to do so. Whomever makes it out of this crucible alive and kicking will have proven to everyone that they are a good candidate and palatable to the majority of conservatives and Republicans, and will thus be well positioned to take on Mrs. Clinton.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I don't think this add will be that bad for Romney in the primary, because it's been my experience that people (both liberal and conservative) usually like it when you come around to their point of view. However, I think that this add will kill Romeny in the general election, because it makes him look like a phony and a panderer. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Romney's conversions on multiple issues aren't sincere--I'm just saying that it LOOKS bad. I mean, Kerry got crucified for flip-floping on a war appropriations bill ("I voted for it before I voted against it")--Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, guns and Reagan/Bush. I'm sorry, but not too many middle-aged men change their minds on, I don't know--everything--in a four year period of time (he may have started changing his mind before he ran for govenor, but it wasn't obvious that he had changed his mind until he ran for president). In a way, I think that this is a shame, because Romney seems like a very smart, competant manager and he's a good debater. Not to mention, he's a good-looking guy with a nice, attractive family--and that never hurts. Besides, since most people that I know are somewhere in the middle on social issues, I don't think that most voters (in the middle anyway) will care a great deal what Romney's stances are on social issues one way or the other. However, I do think that most voters will care if they think that Romney is insincere, artificial, and they have no idea who he really is and where he really stands--which is exactly how he appears in this add.
Sorry ad is spelled AD--I'm in a rush and should have proofread better. :)
Romney has the exact same position on the 2nd ammendment that he had before. He still supports an assault weapons ban and opposes about everything else. His consistent position got him a B grade from the NRA. It also is the same position that President Bush holds.
Romney has always been against gay marriage and for other gay rights like not being discriminated against. He has not changed his position on gay rights at all, the definition of "gay rights" is what has changed.
The Reagan quote while bad needs to be taken in context. He was being asked whether he would support further deficit spending like Reagan and Bush had done. Even though that doesn't justify the entire statement, that does ad some perspective to why he was distancing himself. I think most of us agree that deficit spending is usually a bad idea.
Also it's not clear where he stands on "an assault weapon ban" since he won't define what that means, and the words themselves are completely meaningless. We've seen what Boxer did with them. Is that what he has in mind? Who knows?
And that Reagan/Bush stuff was about a lot more than about deficit spending.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
First off, Kerry's situation was entirely different from Mitt's. Kerry changed his mind twice on one issue. Also Kerry ran an awful campaign and didn't fight back against the ads effectively.
If his campaign had any clue they would have defended his change of position as the right move when given more information and they would have attacked inconsistencies in GWB's record. If they had done that and/or countered the Swiftboat Veterans more effectively President Kerry would currently be destroying the world.
Also, every major candidate in both parties has at least as many changes of position as Romney does. No candidate will be able to run those kinds of ads without getting hit right back with ads attacking their inconsistent record.
He also flipped on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He now says that it should be enforced. In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994. He said it should be overturned and Gays should be able to openly serve in the military.
Here's a copy of the letter:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf
...who hasn't changed positions on something. Fred supported McCain-Feingold, which I consider to be far worse than the Log Cabin issue. Rudy was far to the left on immigration and guns too. Any one of these Republicans look like a saint when juxtaposed with Hillary and her entire career of panders, flip-flops and various machinations and "nuanced" positions.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
He explained that in 1994 when the policy was still new he thought that it wouldn't work. Since then he has seen over a decade of success with the policy and he has spoken to military leaders who have convinced him that the best move is to keep it in place.
Is that all you have? Most voters prefer candidates who are willing to admit when they were wrong after being confronted with more information.
I love how the narrator praises Romney as a supporter of "Massachusetts values" at the end of the commercial. Talk about damning with faint praise!
Don't be fooled by this folks. The Log Cabin Republicans are a small but very influential and savvy group of Gay Republicans who know just what buttons to push. They know this commercial can't possibly help Romney win the primaries, and their fake embrace of the Massachusetts governor is an obvious ploy to help scuttle his candidacy. My guess is that they are angry with him for moving so far to the right over the last year or two, especially on issues that concern them. Still, it makes for an entertaining video.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
DSkinner,
No, I got a lot more where that came from. It's a question of fundemental principles to me.
puh-leeze.
Sure, Republicans can use this in the primary and decide for themselves if Romney's conversion - over the course of almost 15 years - is genuine or not, but I find it very hard to conceive a way for Hillary of all people to be able to make any use of this in the general election.
Besides, I don't think that she'll want to make an issue of political vacillating given HER record of rhetorical gymnastics.