Monday, July 16, 2007
|
|
The Significance Of Romney's "Ocean"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:11 AM
|
Politico's Jonathan Martin reports on Mitt Romney's newest campaign commercial, "Ocean." The new ad comes amid many reports of how much money Romney and all the other campaigns are spending. The breathlessness of the reporting doesn't allow the key questions to be asked: "What are the candidates getting for their dollars?" and "Is the campaign hitting its targets in contributions and expenditures?" In Romney's case we know he's patiently built a small lead in Iowa and New Hampshire, and from "Ocean" we get evidence that he's implementing a new step in a carefully conceived plan and doing so with the sort of innovative appeal that those who have observed his business life expected from the first day of the campaign.
"Ocean" is interesting on a number of levels. First, its substance --a concern for the degraded culture in which American children grow up-- is powerful, and not just for Republican primary voters, but for all parents and people who love kids. Second, its visual approach is unique for the cycle. Over the decades the presidential television spot has become more and more direct, and less and less interesting. "Ocean's" got a chance at being memorable in the way very very few ads turn out to be. Finally, the ad reminds people that among Romney's achievements is a wonderful family, and that he truly does believe the words he speaks.
The ad appears two days before Romney speaks at the Lincoln Day Dinner in El Paso County, Colorado. El Paso County is home to, among other groups, James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Young Life, two of the region's many evangelical organizations. The message of "Ocean" is one that every evangelical can agree with and applaud. Martin speculates that "this ad is yet more evidence of Romney trying to 'close the deal' with social conservatives," but while it certainly helps remind conservative voters of Romney's core values, I expect this theme to remain front and center throughout the general campaign if Romney is the nominee. The argument about the culture's decline and its impact on children is one that media elites regularly hoot at but which always resonates with soccer moms and coaching dads. Romney's putting out a notice that this will be an issue for his campaign, and seeing their agenda as part of the roll out of Romney's agenda is very reassuring to many social conservatives.
As is the sense that this campaign has a plan. Visit the Romney website if you haven't done so recently. Along with Rudy's, Hillary's and Obama's, it is quite obviously the product of a campaign that understands the virtual campaign as central to success in 2008. (Fred Thompson's unofficial campaign has a clunky site that underscores the disadvantage of not being a full fledged candidate in a race that has been full fledged since January.) A presidential primary campaign is not a bus ride with reporters along or a series of press conferences, but a short-lived $100 million dollar sprint which is already about half over. Iowa voters caucus on Monday, January 14, 2008 and by midnight on Super Duper Tuesday, February 5, both parties will have their nominees. To get to the nomination, the candidates have to have built and implemented a complex and comprehensive plan, and Romney's team gives every indication of having done just that. When Romney loaned himself $6.5 million in Q2, I assumed it was because that's what the plan called for to have met its goals, and that his personal financial commitment is to assure that the plan is implemented at every stage. Reviewing the ruins of the McCain campaign and you read accounts of successive blueprints drawn up and torn up in a sort of a carnival of lousy planning. (Here's another article from Martin on that subject.) All you hear coming out of Team Romney is the message, from the candidate or his many surrrogates. That's the sound of a campaign running on all its cylinders.
Last week a friend in Colorado, a very successful businessman long active in Rocky Mountain politics, e-mailed me that after close study he was going to send money to Romney as the best chance the GOP had in 2008. I suspect that is happening again and again as the Fred boomlet begins to flatten against the realities of what is necessary in 2008 --energy and extraordinary discipline. The Rudy-Romney race is far from over, and Thompson still could show the sort of planning a campaign in the new millennium requires, but the time for the Tennessee senator to get in and get organized is very short.
Why? Consider that when Florida changed its primary to January 29, in reality it announced that absentee ballots would be available long before that, and that "early voting" in the Sunshine State would get underway on January 15 --the day after the Iowa caucus results are in. California's absentee ballots will be available from early January forward, and 47% of the ballots cast in the last California primary --June, 2006-- were by absentee. Building an absentee ballot "chase" program is expensive, and all of those ballots in all of those states will be greatly impacted by the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, which increases the importance of those states beyond their already high value in the 2004 cycle.
All of which suggests that the strategic contributor --the donor who held back to see what happened early on and which candidate put together the best team and rolled out the most coherent plan while demonstrating in the early debates the stage presence and the early commercials the innovation that would be necessary to get to the main event-- might still pick Rudy on the basis of the national polls, but the donor who is really interested in making one contribution to the one candidate who will get the nomination and possibly the White House is looking very hard at the very professionally run Romney campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently, Giuliani, Hunter and Others are toast too. I'm not sure I trust your data. I can see McCain getting a healthy percentage. However, if I am not mistaken, I don't see how Ron Paul would be getting a majority of the contributions from military branches. It doesn't make any sense to me. |
|
|
Mitts Commertial "Ocean" is a breath of fresh air when it comes to politics. Can it be any more blatently obvious that Mitt is the real deal, and that he is what this country needs right now. I think I will go donate to his campaign right now.......You should to! |
|
The interesting thing to me is the lack of conversation by anyone else on this subject. (I'm referring to candidates)
Some topics that most campaigns cover are:
Abortion, Health Care, Education, Security-Foreign and domestic, immigration and the Economy.
Gay's and the definition of marriage has come up, but not so much in regards to marriage being an institution primarily for the raising and development of children.
We all can say that it isn't big news that someone is for healthy development of children, but fail to recognize that these other concerns listed above are all ancillary to a parent raising their child(ren).
I for one find that at least refreshing to see someone address the issue, one that seems so obvious and yet no other politician really has spoken about on a national platform.
This may all be rhetoric from Romney, but it's better than apathy from others. |
|
|
What does Rudy's undeniable and ever-growing strength in the polls and his overwhelming likelihood of being the GOP nominee have to do with our quest to put A Mormon in the White House? |
|
I believe, other than fav/unfav, polls are really meaningless. However some people (FT acolytes particularly) want to believe in them. Ok, so look at this poll this morning from Gallup. FT appears to have peaked and now moving down fast .. if u believe these polls .. which I don't.
Gallup 7/17 excerpt
On this basis, Giuliani is supported by 53% of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican), compared with only 30% for Fred Thompson, and 29% for McCain. Romney and Gingrich garner no more than 15% support, even when respondents are given two opportunities to name them as their preferred candidate.
Additionally, Giuliani beats Fred Thompson by 20 points, 54% to 34%, when Republicans are asked which of the two they would vote for should the Republican field narrow down to just these candidates. In June, he led by 53% to 41%.
|
|
Wasn’t it only a couple of weeks ago that the “new media” mavens on the right were wondering why no one on our side could come up with a timely, somewhat witty ad (on the cheap) that thousands of ordinary people would link to? Now we’re being treated to spin – from these same people – that what really makes a candidate stand out is the mainstream professionalism of his ads. What gives?
“Ocean” may or may not be great entertainment, but somehow I don’t see it capturing the imagination of the public the way that an Obama supporter’s “Hillary 1984”, or Hillary’s “Soprano’s”, or Obama’s “Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl” did and have. |
|
Whether the ad is good or bad in your opinion, or whether it speaks to you or not, is perhaps less important than the fact it seems to have generated a lot of conversation among a great many people. That can only be good for Romney.
|
|
Rocky Anderson is a lefty loon who subscribes to the nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories. His views are, well, not ones I would rely on. And to describe him as Romney's best friend is nutty, too.
|
|
**béésh ná’oobalí writes: "We understand you completely, ... likely one of those liberals who gratuitously cast aspersions on orthodox or fundamentalist Christians by pretending they will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon."
Nope, I don't think I fit into the box you want to put me in - don't follow either herd much. I have no problem with people who are religious so long as they don't seek to impose their beliefs on others.
So, your position is that there is no political issue around Romney's religion for many Republican voters? That seems quite unrealistic to me.
Can we get past your ad hominem response. I don't think attacking the messenger makes the issue go away. What's your evidence for the statement that the issue is a pretend one?
By the way, does your name mean Metal Windmill? I like it, why did you pick it? |
|
Romney is the Obama of the Republicans but instead of getting puffed by the media he is constantly attacked.
There is prejudice against Romney due to his religion. A few people are open about it but most use the flip flop issue to reject Romney.
They are not comfortable with Romney because they do not know him or other Mormons well. They know Baptists, Catholics, Methodists and lots of Secular types and they have a pretty good handle on those types but they are cautious about Romney. They are not sure how to evaluate him.
The unknown or perceived religious differences raise their perceived risk. Hence it takes a lot more positive information for them to decide to vote for Romney. He does well when he gets enough of the right information out and that offsets the concerns. |
|
|
These ads are also a visual version of Thompson's fluffy Op Ed pieces that have driven him up in the polls. Maybe Ron Paul should try a few of these. |
|
Thompson has a major gender gap. McCain had a lot more women supporting him than men in most recent polls. Much of Rudy's strength from conservatives comes from women who are concerned about security (not just national security).
As McCain craters many of his women supporters will have a hard time moving to Thompson. Romney also needs to find a way to get some conservatives from Rudy.
You all can laugh about the Ocean ad but you are not the target market for this ad. This ad and the Ann ad are designed to pick up women concerned about family security.
Right now there are doubts by the family conservatives about Thompson. This ad is also aimed directly at them.
Even if the combination of the ads get Romney another 2-4 points those are points that he needs. He is niche and micro targeting. He knows what he is doing. He also knows how many voters he needs in each state and what will move the ones who will move. Romney is seizing an opportunity and his critics can't even see it.
Romney critics laughed at Romney in the NH debate and the he moved up in the polls. The Lundzometer or whatever it is called was right, the rest of us were wrong. |
|
So Mitt is in favor of good things and is unalterably opposed to bad things. That's good to know.
I really like Mitt and would have no problem voting for him, but this ad...it don't cut it.
It really doesn't say anything. |
|
JayHub said: you misunderstand me, I don't have a dog in that fight. I am not a religious person, neither a Christian nor a Mormon, they're just two sides of the same coin to me.
We understand you completely, just as Hugh Hewitt often points out, you are likely one of those liberals who gratuitously cast aspersions on orthodox or fundamentalist Christians by pretending they will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. Thus in the process, you try to injure both by feigning concern about theology when you think them both based on equally benighted mythology.
As a liberal and a Democrat this conceit is at once dishonest and without honorable.
Stirring up trouble between religions
|
|
Just saw the "Ocean"....hilarious!!! Like something you would see on late 80's Saturday night live. except funnier. At the risk of repeating, who exactly is out there campaigning the other side?...Bueller...Bueller....I am Obama and I want child porn to pop up on your child's computer. High I am Rudi and I hope the pool water is filthy
silly, pointless, drivel
find some issues and stick to them for a change.
And wow no family dawg
Love and kisses
dirL |
|
|
|
|
|
I have never been able to understand why anybody would care a rotting fig about Mitt Romney's underwear. Are you some kind of pervert?
|
|
** Rich -- "JayHub writes: 'what Romney lacks is conventional Christianity" ... That is a really old saw. Think about how intolerent and bigoted you sound."
Rich, you misunderstand me, I don't have a dog in that fight. I am not a religious person, neither a Christian nor a Mormon, they're just two sides of the same coin to me.
I agree that to vote against Romney just because he's a Mormon is bigoted and intolerant, but in my comments I'm just discussing the political landscape as I see it. I think hoping that all the Republican voters out there will see Mitch Romney's LDS faith as something like Kennedy's Catholic faith in the 1960 is head-in-the-sand foolishness. They won't and it's a serious POLITICAL problem for him and the GOP.
I don't think it's right that people would vote against Barack Obama just because he's black either. It's bigoted and intolerant also, but that doesn't remove the reality that it would happen.
People talk about whether the country would elect a black President all the time. What's different with Romney's religion, whose membership represents only 2% of the US population? It has to be a legitimate topic of discussion. |
|
JayHub writes: "what Romney lacks is conventional Christianity"
That is a really old saw. Think about how intolerent and bigoted you sound.
You just said: A church that is 200 years old is not old enough even though it has 13 Million adherents world wide. A church whose name is The Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints is not Christian enough. A church that believes and teaches from the King James version of the Bible and whose other major scripture, The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ, refers to Christ or Jehovah 108 times more often than the New Testament is not Christian enough.
|
|
R-Bob
Gotta agree with Richard and periwinkle - your comments are squarely in the bigoted cheap shot camp - at least you sheepishly owned up to being a bigot. Do you consider it wierd that some Catholic nuns wear a curious hat (habit) as a witness to their commitment to chastity? So Mormons wear items of clothing in a similar vein except they are worn under normal clothes - how does this cause Romney to be unworthy of being President?
If you asked Joe Lieberman as you suggest, I'm sure he'd say - read Article 6, both Lieberman and Romney ran/are running for the Presidency/VP not for pastor or rabbi. |
|
I agree with periwinkle:
There is a substantial improvement on Townhall in the past month or so. There are far, far fewer people coming here and spewing their rabid anti-mormon blather.
R-Bob representing a small group of aberrants. Now real arguments with real reasoning are taking hod. |
|
** Alex writes - "What specifically does he lack in this department, in your opinion? Why? Does he need to be theologically "pure" for his family values to count?"
I think I'm repeating what I said, but what Romney lacks is conventional Christianity and, yes, a candidate does need to fit into a theological box for his family values to count with a lot of Republican voters.
While Mormons are adamant they are Christians, the great majority of Christians do not see them as such. A lot of even religiously tolerant Christians have questions about new "religions," those that have been created in the last 200 years, such as LDS, Bahai, Scientology, Unification, etc.
Hugh seems always to assume that the LDS faith has the same credibility and should be treated with the same respect as far older religions, but a lot of people, particularly conservative Christian voters, simply are not going to agree.
Ultimately, I think the theological box is as important as the family values. You have to have both. |
|
i just noted on another site (amjor conservative one) the longest thread I have ever seen. the whole subject is Jeri Thompson with comments that might make one blush.
I thought her boob pictures would be a challenge but never did I think so on a major conservative site.
they have now introduced the new Wolfewitz pictures which are awful |
|
one needs to remember that RG has not spent anything on media yet ... although he has a significant warchest that grows daily. his media drop later this year will be significant
FT has spent nothing either but he probably has yet to raise the needed money for the big media states. |
|
I cannot resist the correction. I don't know what you mean by magical, but LDS wear temple garment to show an outward committment to keep sacred covenants, there is no polygamy in the LDS church, nor would anyone want it, and I don't know what strident racial attitudes you are talking about.(?)
I must say, though that there has been a substantial improvement on Townhall in the past month or so. There are far, far fewer people coming here and spewing their rabid anti-mormon blather. Hey, that's improvement! Who says peer pressure cannot be good for something? |
|
I would direct you to my response to Thaale above. It should clarify some of my remarks.
You said, "Family Values means the right family values and includes a necessary element of conventional Christianity. "
What specifically does he lack in this department, in your opinion? Why? Does he need to be theologically "pure" for his family values to count?
|
|
** Alex writes: "I don't understand how you could have been faithful to your one and only wife throughout your marriage, have raised 5 well-adjusted boys and not have it where it counts as far as family values goes."
I'm not so sure I agree with this since I don't believe the term Family Values can be separated from its political meaning as conservative Christian Family Values.
I don't think a Scientologist, a Muslim, or a Hindu would get any Family Values credit as a candidate even though they equaled or exceeded Romney in his family commitment. Family Values means the right family values and includes a necessary element of conventional Christianity.
I think Romney is doing exactly what he needs to do to try and overcome the issue, but it remains to be seen if he will succeed in overcoming the issue of his religious "otherness" with many voters who voted for Bush. |
|
"Because if your theology is that far out of the mainstream, the values are irrelevant. Just ask Joe Lieberman!"
Question: If you have the right values, but the "wrong" theology, but the right values are linked to that "wrong" theology, how relevant politically is the "wrong" theology really if you end up getting the right values in the end? The bottom line is the same.
If you want his religion to be relevant, please point out a value that is disturbing first, then move backwards. |
|
Just a schmuck.
Your kind remains such a small group that those and other schmucky thinkers inconsistent with quality thinkers simply cannot be ignored or minimalized by saying "we may not share schmuckiness, but we share values." Because if you're such a schmuck, your comments on blog threads are irrelevant. Just ask Snapdigger! |
|
...mom and apple pie? (signify THIS)
As Mr. Hewitt notes, “Ocean” is indeed interesting on a number of levels. Unfortunately, what might be called the “raising the level of public discourse” level is not one of them. Or at least the ad doesn’t seem too concerned with such concerns.
Hugh speculates that, “Ocean,” may very well turn out to be “memorable in the way very very few ads turn out to be.” Regardless of its ultimate memorability, “Ocean,” is still, as townhaller Manfred succinctly put it, idiotic blather. (When candidates come out IN FAVOR of more violence and indolence and perversion, then will be the time to heed candidates who so oppose.) Must say though, we absolutely loved the piano soundtrack.
Please note, we make no judgment here of the EFFECTIVENESS of such political commercials. And that’s not just because that would be way beyond our limited abilities. Questions of political ad effectiveness—effective defined here as helping to get a candidate elected—are indeed fascinating. But are usually best left for campaign managers and marketers. (And are best avoided by political commentators , who generally better serve their public by sticking with questions like What does the ad say? How does it say it? Why is the ad saying it? (Often the real answer to that last question, btw, is “because if they’re talking about “X,” they don’t have to talk about “Y.”))
Lastly, Mr. Hewitt’s hints that “Ocean” is just an opening salvo for an issue Mr. Romney will address in more substantive and detailed ways. Right. Look, there is no sex in the champagne room and there is no such evidence that presidential candidate Romney has the alacrity to publicly address complex issues in a substantive and detailed—or, for that matter, forthright—way. (Though, in fairness, the same might also be said of other presidential candidates.)
///
On a lighter and/or perhaps less significant note, there seems to be a flaw in Ms. Noonan’s extended metaphor. That is, if you inhale too deeply in the ocean around you, it really doesn’t matter that much if the waters are polluted or pristine—in either case, you’ll still drown.
|
|
I have no details on this and do not have time right now to look up the finance reports. Someone else will have to verify it.
Giuliani trails Romney in overall donations
USA Today - Jul 15 6:55 PM
According to campaign finance reports filed late Friday by Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Romney's second-quarter fundraising outpaced Giuliani by $21 million to $17.6 million. |
|
|
Your last was the best comment I've read at TH for awhile, bar none. |
|
|
|
|
A vote for Romney is a vote for the traditional American family and the virtues which accompany it. |
|
|
Thanks for the correction. I glanced at the wrong month for for the Romney at 7 number. |
|
Andrew Sullivan is to "conservative" what a fish is to a bicycle. His political philosophy consists of nothing more than a collection of his own ideological tics. The fact that he's flirting with supporting Obama simply evidences Sullivan's superciliousness.
|
|
He has none, except getting elected. He's a brazen political opportunist. Hugh and Dean continue to disgrace themselves by supporting him.
|
|
Obama has a very liberal voting record in the Senate. Do you think he will really take on the teacher's unions with merit pay? - ha.
Change merely for the sake of change is not a virtuous goal. I believe that the partisan divide is good for America. Moderates seem to stand for nothing beyond getting along.
|
|
|
He is not as liberal as he has been portrayed. Just take a look at his merit pay proposal for teachers as an example. The bottom line is I want a change. I'm tired of the national discourse. I'm tired of politicians playing the fear card and the same old establishment people running our government. I want a fresh face without the polarization. When a "liberal" like Obama could get a "conservative" like Andrew Sullivan to consider him...well, it says something for Obama's ability to heal the partisan divide that has afflicted this country since 1992. |
|
|
After reading your last post I wonder if you need to change your name. If you are fiscally conservative and socially moderate why would you choose Obama over everyone else? He is neither a fiscal conservative, nor a social moderate. |
|
Story here:
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070716/POLITICS/707160344/1022
"Official campaign finance reports due by midnight were still trickling in Sunday evening, but John Yob, McCain's Michigan campaign director, said the report would show about $500,000 in Michigan donations for McCain, up from about $327,000 in the first three months of 2007. That bucks a nationwide trend for McCain, who raised about $1 million less in the second quarter than in the first.
"The numbers cap a week in which McCain's top two campaign aides resigned and dozens of other staffers lost their jobs after a disappointing six months of fundraising, big spending and lagging support in the polls.
"Romney gathered $622,000 in the second quarter, still ahead of any other Democrat or Republican. His financial figures came out Friday.
"'The numbers show Senator McCain's support in Michigan is growing despite the campaign restructuring, while Romney's fundraising in Michigan seems to be dropping due to his sagging national poll numbers,'" said Yob.
--Where's Dean's horserace graphic, with a new post all about this latest news? Where's Hugh to spin the news as wildly enthusiastic for Romney? We're waiting, fellas. |
|
|
Used to be through and through. The Republican party lost me shortly after Bush the Elder lost to Clinton. I remain fiscally conservative, though am socially moderate now. The rise of the Moral Majority and ever-increasing prominence of the religous right finally drove me from the Republican party. Today, I vote for the person, not the party. I would vote for Guliani over Clinton to give you an example. Though I would vote for Obama over any of the declared candidates at the moment. |
|
"Not all conservatives are impressed...."
Its funny. I never pegged you for a conservative. |
|
"my statement echoes many i have read, and yes i continue to respond to hewitt because of his claims of being a Christian.
he is a giant hypocrite and it is my personal mission to call him on it.
of course you exhibit the general conservative tendancy to want to limit free speech but i am used to it after participating on townhall."
I am sure that you think God has given you this mission of pointing out Hugh's lack of being a christian and being a hypocrit. Well, as it was once said very well, let He who is without Sin Cast the first stone.
As a christian, I know that it is not my place to point out anything regarding others. It is my place to take my sin before the Lord and ask for forgiveness. Judge not lest also ye be judged. A true christian understands this, which leads me to you..
You may be religious, but do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? Have you actually asked Jesus to take control over your mind, your will and your emotions? Have you asked Him to lead your every thought? How many hours do you spend in prayer each day? Are you paying your tithe? Are you placing your time in ministry and ministering to others? Instead of pointing out Hugh's sins, maybe you should be praying that God touches his heart for Hugh to seek forgiveness of this horrific hypocricies.
While you can be religious you can still be bound for hell, cause it isn't until you have Christ as your beginning and your end of every day that you are assured of salvation.
The worst hypocrits are the religious zealots looking for everyone elses sins and making sure they are the ones to point them out for the world to see.
Let me tell you this religious lib, if you are not paying your tithe you are a hypocrit, if you are not tithing your time to the Lord, you are a hypocrit, if you are judging others and not loving them as yourself, you are a hypocrit.. at least according to Jesus...
So, might I suggest you spend a little less time on the blogs pointing out everyone elses hypocrisies and spend more time in prayer. Praying for those you feel are in such deep sin/hypocrisy. |
|
"In the Corner, Kathryn spotlights's Romney's latest ad that doesn't feature any image of the candidate at all, just scenes of a beach, and children playing on it, while the candidate mentions Peggy Noonan's comment about "the cultural ocean our children play in."
If you watch it with the sound down, you might think it's about environmental policy.
It reminds me of the Nissan Infiniti ads that didn't show the car, but instead featured pastoral scenes of landscapes. This article cites the comment as coming from an ad executive, but I seem to remember it coming from Jay Leno: "The car isn't selling, but sales of rocks and trees are way up."
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBlMzY5NjE3MmJkMTFhOTExM2UyMTNmMzA5N2VhMjA=
I wonder why he didn't include the family dog in the video.... |
|
"Still, I diagree with Alex's implied reasoning that the best family man is perforce the best conservative presidential candidate. We've seen a lot of flawed men and women excel as leaders, and we've seen a lot of exemplary individuals be political failures. Unfortunately, familial success is no assurance of professional success."
That is definitely true, Thaale. I think I gave an implied reasoning that I didn't intend. Perhaps I could have put it better if I had indicated that he doesn't have to justify himself being in the arena of this issue. He is not a newbie on this issue. Naturally, I hope that all will will judge his policy proposals on their merits. Thanks for catching that. |
|
BG's descrption of Rudy being unchanged in the ARG Florida poll while Thompson and Romney are up is a little misleading. Rudy was up two points (31 to 33), Romney one point (11 to 12), and Thompson 14 points (13 to 27). I wouldn't lump Romney in with Thompson as risers while aserting that Rudy had remained unchanged.
I agree with Alex that Marriott-gate is a red herring. Neither Romney nor anyone else can be held responsible for everything every company they're associated with does. It's not like Mitt personally led the Marriott Porn Initiative.
Still, I diagree with Alex's implied reasoning that the best family man is perforce the best conservative presidential candidate. We've seen a lot of flawed men and women excel as leaders, and we've seen a lot of exemplary individuals be political failures. Unfortunately, familial success is no assurance of professional success. |
|
I just watched Ocean. It is perfect for the target markets that Romney is going after. It will build on strength and resonate in the suburbs and exburbs. I may not induce rabid anti Mormons, but it will reach all of the family oriented voters.
Family security is a key Republican core value. It is different from military security. This approach is a natural for Romney. He continues to run an very well thought out campaign. |
|
|
I found the "Ocean" ad chilling. |
|
|
I don't understand how you could have been faithful to your one and only wife throughout your marriage, have raised 5 well-adjusted boys and not have it where it counts as far as family values goes. Does complete fidelity to one's spouse and having taken care of your children well only get you a moderate social conservative designation? If the Marriott thing gets you bent out of shape, I think you are distracted by red herrings. He owns the family values issue. Now naturally, we need to know what he plans, but he is working on his own home turf. |
|
|
The Ocean poll differentiates Romney from Rudy and Thompson. It will make a difference. Romney has 6 months to crack the South. He is headed up. |
|
ARG is out with a new FL poll. ARG is a McCain friendly poll and not very Romney friendly. Rudy leads, Thompson is 2nd and Romney is in 3rd. McCain checked in at 7%. That gives you some indication of how bad the damage is from the meltdown.
Rudy's numbers are unchanged from the previous poll. Thompson and Romney are up. They seem to be benefiting from the McCain demise. |
|
I think it is of considerable evidence that the politicians have their collective heads up their butt. McCain burned through all his money while not airing a single commercial.
No that the American people are believers in 30 second sound bites, any longer, if they ever were.
Even the most intellectually challenged American has been tutored in the school of incessant repetition, to tune out and ignore commercials, as a positive good.
Of all the organizing, the most effective I have to say is Rudy Guiliani's "Shadow cabinet" efforts, and Fred Thompson's non-campaign campaign.
Both have given the observers a reason to want them; all the others are just wasting mega dollars.
Maybe Romney's efforts to buy Iowa and NH will redound to his benefit, but I doubt it. Iowa is a game that lots of candidates won't play, and NH is a favorite son state for him, just as it was to Ed Muskie and Paul Tsongas.
There is no longer enough time to make a difference in the national consciousness. One week after NH comes super Florida and a week later South Carolina and mega Tuesday. The day of patterning after a Jimmy Carter with a month or two to receive the publicity from an upset in either small state are over.
Presidents didn't used to even leave their homes to campaign as it was beneath the dignity of the office. Fred is trying to return to those happy days. We have had a run of lemon candidates in Carter, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole and Clinton, Gore and Kerry, all of whom were revealed to have major flaws. Ever since the "public" via 30 second "Colgate commercials", have been choosing candidates in primaries.
I would much prefer to return to the 'smoke filled rooms' where candidates were chosen by the pros who saw them up close and personal, under pressure, and could sort the wheat from the chaff before thrusting them in front of the populace as candidates.
I think the level of candidate was simply better when they could be vetted by their peers who genuinely knew them theri s=rengths and weaknesses. It also made for a more cohesive and participative government AFTER the election too.
Generals and campaign managers always fight the last war. That is how their "credentials" count for anything.
|
|
Hugh -
I thought you said Peggy Noonan engaged in "acceptable bigotries"?
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/eb2027cd-60a8-4ac0-9e18-d37161e446e6
What's Mitt doing referencing her in the Oceans commercial? I guess maybe he's not scouring every column looking for proof of anti-Mormon sentiments. Perhaps you should follow suit.
I look forward to seeing what he has in mind for the country once we all just "get serious" about cleaning up our culture. Some people that have spent decades fighting for the unborn might argue about how unserious we have been. Especially when the person telling us to "get serious" had no problems with abortion when his "deeply held beliefs" allowed him to view it as acceptable.
Prediction: Q3 - big time donations to Mitt from Mitt. In other words, a repeat of Q2. |
|
all you have to do is look at conservative issues to realize, most conservatives think with their emotions and not by logic and facts.
my statement echoes many i have read, and yes i continue to respond to hewitt because of his claims of being a Christian.
he is a giant hypocrite and it is my personal mission to call him on it.
of course you exhibit the general conservative tendancy to want to limit free speech but i am used to it after participating on townhall. |
|
|
An excellent political ad and made even more powerful and relevant by the imagery of the doting Mitt lifting what is likely to be one of his infant grandchildren as he approves of the message. Do not underestimate how such images resonate at a deeply emotional level as American parents look to successfully raise their children to negotiate the treacherous territory that has become the modern media world. |
|
This reminds me of when candidates say, "I'm for mothers and children." Is that to distinguish you from the candidates who HATE mothers and children? Jeez.
Here is my questions though: conservatives are a) against big government and b) in favor of free markets. Now, I am not a conervative, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but those strike me as the two pillars of American conservatism. So, how to change the culture of tv and video games without conflicting with one of those pillars? Does government censor television and film? Or does it interfere with the free market -- after all, pornography is a huge business in America.
I also find it stunning that he mentions Columbine -- I am not especially firey about gun-control (I lived for 10 years in South Carolina and live in a rural area now -- it should be a state-by-state issue with the feds only policing interstate transport so we don't have issues like all the guns people smuggle into NY from VA) -- nonetheless, it seems amazing to me to blame videogames as a cultural pollutant but not assault weapons. If guns don't kill people, then I think it is equally fair to say video games don't kill people.
Again, who doesn't want a more civilized culture? I wish people read more. I particularly wish adults would stop reading children's books (it is shameful that most of the people reading Harry Potter are adults) and start reading serious works. But I would feel sick if it were a campaign issue. |
|
please, libs do not know how conservatives operate when selecting their candidates. we don't think or react like libs do.. grade school children..
we conservatives think logically and rationally when selecting our candidates. the lack of reasoning amongst the liberals is quite apparent, when reading the comments posted; and apparently that is how you select your candidates. as far as hugh's 'mindless and irritating cheerleading', your analysis is well as i stated before grade school level.
if you find it so sickening then may i suggest, you stop reading? Does hugh have some magical hold over you? so much so that you can't control yourself you must read his blog? While hugh's analysis are from a perspective of logical dissemination and experience, i find them informative and educating, you obviously are out of your league. |
|
Florida may actually vote even sooner than Jan 29, if NH moves its date up, as seems likely. Florida will vote 7 days after whenever NH decides to vote.
And as you note, with more and more ballots being cast early by mail, there simply won't be time for tens of thousands of early voters in the large, early-voting states to wait and see the all-important Iowa results - even if we Floridians, Californians, South Carolinians, etc., really were as eager to slavishly follow the IA/NH lead as you keep assuring everyone we are. |
|
It is interesting, the media speaks to the Dems and their internet savvy. I visited the Romney site early on, and the mini me Romney shows the savvy of Romney on the new medium.
To me the Romney campaign does show the well implementation of a well thought out planning process. True business like project planning. Something that has been lacking in the other GOP campaigns.
I still believe that Romney will have the POTUS nomination and he will select Thompson as his running mate VPOTUS. |
|
romneys chances simply because of his mindless and irritating cheerleading.
its one thing to support a candidate quite another to breathlessly and obsessively act like a 16 year old in love for the first time.
sickening |
|
|
|