May 14, 2007
Mitt on 60 minutes
(I am crossposting Justin’s post from www.mymanmitt.com. Is that OK Justin?)
My Key Takeaways
- Mitt’s criticism of the war is eye-opening
- The “pre-marital sex” question is awkward but not outrageous in its context
- Mike seems rather taken with the Romney family
- Mitt calls his wife “a babe”
- Mitt aptly explains himself on the charge of flip-flop
- The Romney’s lake house has an awesome island designed for extra grandkid participation (see below)
All in all… the interview was a terrific introduction to the nation of Mitt Romney. Wallace got in all of the usual MSM questions about Mitt but he did it with surprising alacrity and class (even the “pre-marital sex” question wasn’t as unnerving as previously noted).
Gov. Romney as always was unflappable.
Here’s the opening clip.
Mitt talks about Mormonism:
About the Iraq war:
Family Values:
On the typical charge of the flip-flop:
On taxes and winning the election:
Here’s the cool kitchen island:
http://race42008.com/2007/05/14/mitt-on-60-minutes/trackback/
May 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
May 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Thou shalt not covet thou neighbor’s totally rad kitchen island.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I need a kitchen island like that to toss my kids in.
Thanks for posting this video.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I gotta give Romney credit for that. He has a sweet kitchen island.
May 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
See also:
Romney’s chicks
“Mitt’s kind of women”
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/romneys-chicks-phoenix-excerpt-mitts.html
May 14th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
In the taxes video:
Wallace: Why did you change your mind?
Romney: I didn’t change my mind, I was running for governor of Massachusetts. Now I’m running for a different office.
That short interchange tells everyone all they need to know about Mitt Romney.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
What would that be, Geoff? That signing a tax pledge for a state and signing a tax pledge for the federal government are two differently worded pledges, for two different offices, in two completely different circumstances?
I know you’re smart enough to recognize the difference…but I wish you weren’t so anti-Romney that you’d admit it.
May 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Am I anti-Romney? Sure. I openly admit it. But what frustrates me most, is that Wallace seemed to give Romney a “free pass” on his past flip flops. Now, if this tax pledge were the only thing, who cares. But it has been on abortion, gay rights, stem cells, guns, and campaign finance reform. I know you RomneyBots go into hyper drive whenever someone mentions that Governor Romney is in fact imperfect, and that he is philosophically and intellectually inconsistent, as well as dishonest. But these flips and flop will come back to haunt Romney. Either late in November or in the general.
Romney’s biggest problem, is, if he makes it to the general, not only will Hillary Clinton make Romney look like John Kerry’s flip-flopping younger brother, but she’ll morph him into George W. Bush. He already walks, talks, and campaigns like George W. Bush in the eyes of swing voters. And anybody even resembling GWB is dead on arrival come
May 14th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Well, Geoff, what sets me into hyper drive is not when people point out that Romney is imperfect. It’s when folks like you intentionally distort his record.
The flip-flop memes on taxes, gay rights, stem cells, guns, and CFR have been debunked on this site plenty of times. Nobody except the most rabid anti-Romney-bots try to trot these out anymore. You’re consistently wrong on these issues, and the lack of intellectual honesty on your part w/r/t Romney makes it difficult to take other points you have (substantial as they may be) seriously. And that’s a real shame.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I wished they had shown more footage of the family at the get-together. It would be interesting to see more of what they’re like.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Geoff, I’m not sure if these ‘flip-flops’ would be as usable by a Democratic opponent, because they would also portray Romney as more moderate (to a general election voter). … To put it another way, it’s more useful for a primaries opponent, because Romney has been moving to the right, and to question that move is to question his social conservative bona fides, not just to question his steadfastness.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Its interesting to me that Geoff, who had supported Mitt and flip flopped on that, then supported Huckubee, then flip flopped on that, and is now supported Rudy who he disagrees with on social issues. I find if refreshing that Romney realizes that he was wrong on issues like abortion and isnt afraid to admit it. If you never admitted you were wrong in business, you wouldnt last long. But we are too expect that politicians to stand by positions they later come to know are wrong.
Yet, you changed your mind on Romney and Huck to Rudy because you believed you were wrong. Flip flopper.
By the way, did you send that Mormon literature to South Carolina Geoff? Be honest, it was you, huh.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Sunsfan,
“Yet, you changed your mind on Romney and Huck to Rudy because you believed you were wrong. Flip flopper.
By the way, did you send that Mormon literature to South Carolina Geoff? Be honest, it was you,
huh.”
Wow, I’ve heard of people off their rocker before, but you take the cake my friend. I supported Mitt? I supported Huckabee? I liked Huckabee, he’s my 2nd choice, but he’s never been my guy. Man, you’re so dead on in your investigating, you must have been in charge of WMDs in Iraq! Keep it up Inspector Gadget!
May 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
“The flip-flop memes on taxes, gay rights, stem cells, guns, and CFR have been debunked on this site plenty of times.”
Furthermore, if the aforementioned point is valid, then why in the world, after his name is mentioned, do political commentators go on to talk about his flip-flopping on numerous issues. Obviously, either 1.the unjustified flip flop allegations have been handled horribly by the Romney camp or 2. these charges are valid and discussing them publicly will only air dirty laundry that the typical primary voter won’t have the time to go back and check? I personally believe that its the latter.
This whole idea that RomneyBots have “seriously debunked” Romney’s flip-flop charges numerous times on this site, or that only the most rabid of Romney haters believe he is a flip-flopper is asinine. These charges have not been debunked, because his past statements (in both print and video) will never allow them to be.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
You have stated that Huck was your man on a previous post. thats a fact.
I hope you will return to support Mitt when he wins the primary. Dont be bitter and stay home on the general
May 14th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Another question,
In 1994 and as recently as 2002, Mitt Romney ran as a Pro-Choice candidate in Massachusetts where he said he respected Roe v. Wade and would “Preserve and Protect a Woman’s RIGHT TO CHOSE”. RomneyBots quickly counter that “Well…well…Romney is personally Pro-Life (?????) but he was running in a liberal state so he had to be Pro-Choice!”
To begin, with the obvious absence of political or personal conviction aside, if its okay for Romney to be personally pro-life but publicly pro-choice, why can’t Rudy be the same? Why the double standard?
But Geoff! Geoff! Rudy is for Federal Funding for abortion!!!! Well, true, but in the historic federalist manner, he wants it left up to the states. The same can be said for Romney, when he filled out his Planned Parenthood Questionnaire and said that he ALSO supported funding for abortions.
Again, why the double standard? Or has this one already be thoroughly “debunked” on this site too?
May 14th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
You have stated that Huck was your man on a previous post. thats a fact.
This just goes to prove my point that you MUST have been in charge of Iraqi WMD intel.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
To begin, with the obvious absence of political or personal conviction aside, if it’s okay for Romney to be personally pro-life but publicly pro-choice, why can’t Rudy be the same? Why the double standard?
No double standard at all, Geoff. They used to be pretty much the same on their stance for abortion, except I think the case can be made that Rudy was more pro-choice than Romney (although I don’t think that it really matters that much at this point, obviously.)
No, the difference is that Romney is now pro-life, while Rudy stays completely pro-choice. He has gone all over the board these last couple of weeks, but has now unequivocally stated he is pro-choice. Romney has states unequivocally that he is pro-life.
That is the difference. No double standard is applied, promise.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 14th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Geoff,
You can hear several times in several videos of Romney’s previous campaigns where he says something to the effect of “personal views shouldn’t enter in to this decision”, showing that he is indeed personally pro-life. That’s what he was getting attacked for at the time. Despite being personally pro-life, he was politically pro-choice.
That position is intellectually untenable, as I’ve written here many times before. If you believe abortion is murder, how can one assent to allowing people to do it? It’s what we ripped John Kerry for in 2004 and what we oughta jump on any politician for.
Romney recognized the friction this position caused and determined to be politically pro-life as well as personally pro-life. A move like that puts one in the intellectually honest camp and is one that makes sense.
Rudy, on the other hand, has a difficult time with abortion on two fronts. If, as his current stance is, he is personally pro-life but politically pro-choice, then it is an untenable position and he is a huge flip-flopper (he wasn’t personally pro-life when he was NARAL’s Champion of Choice, or when he donated to Planned Parenthood) - and it destroys his credibility as a straight shooting, tough leader. On the other hand, if he is personally pro-choice and politically pro-choice, there’s no shot of him winning the GOP nod. So he’s gotta choose the lesser of two evils and hope folks don’t really care about abortion that much after all.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
He was very serious — maybe? Could be calculating! — when he said
“I can’t imagine *anything* more awful than polygamy.”
ANYTHING? I can think of quite a few things worse than polygamy, Mr. Romney.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
As a Romneybot as Geoff describes, I like Romney and am impressed with his CEO leadership, and his positions of today are where I and many in my party stand.
I like Rudy and what he did on 9/11 and would support him if he won. I have disagreed with Mccain on some issues of the years but I respect that he is a war hero and a good man. He is right with me on many of the issues too.
Yet people like GEOFF and DAVID B and many others despise and hate Mitt Romney. They think he is a fake and an opportunist. Why cant we at least respect our oppenent even if we support a different candidate. Geoff, can you say anything positive about Romney?
May 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
SunsFan,
“Yet people like GEOFF and DAVID B and many others despise and hate Mitt Romney”
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I dont hate Mitt Romney at all. I just see the man as a political opportunist and a serial panderer. However, he did some wonderful things in balancing the budget in Massachusetts and he completely turned around the Olympic games in Salt Lake City. Now, do I treat the man like he is a god amongst mere mortals, like some RomneyBots on this site? Hardly. Not only does the man have faults, but he lacks core convictions. I’d rather stand with a man I disagree with 20%, who has core convictions, than with a man who will tell me what I want to hear.