New Romney Ad Bashes Hillary — And Uses Fox Debate Footage!

Comments (14)

jeffgee wrote on November 2, 2007 11:06 AM:

Meanwhile, Rudy gets to use Fox footage in his ads. Plus, he gets the velvet glove treatment from Cavuto when talking about healthcare and lying about cancer.

jeffgee wrote on November 2, 2007 11:08 AM:

Maybe Fox can make a deal with him. They'll roll out a new show called "Mitt Men" in which pomaded businessmen connive to gain power.

Anonymous wrote on November 2, 2007 11:12 AM:

Tell Fox to go Cheney themselves.

Doesn't being a really crummy governor count as a demerit?

goodgirlroxie wrote on November 2, 2007 11:39 AM:

This isn't the ONLY problem with Romney, as you know.

Here is a direct quote from him: "And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about.' But don't forget. The most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."

That statement provides us with a very clear window into who this guy really is. I can't for the life of me understand why the alternative media hasn't picked up on this outrageous statement and run with it.

Linda wrote on November 2, 2007 11:44 AM:

This isn't the ONLY problem with Romney, as you know.

Here is a direct quote from him, made recently during a debate forum: "And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about.' But don't forget. The most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."

I cannot for the life of me understand why the alternative media has not picked up on this outrageous statement and run with it. It provides us with a very transparent window into who this guy really is.

Linda wrote on November 2, 2007 11:46 AM:

I didn't mean to post that message twice. Sorry.

Clarity wrote on November 2, 2007 12:06 PM:

Linda,
Our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and property. What's the problem here? Please explain.

acf wrote on November 2, 2007 12:15 PM:

Newt Romney, the George Bush candidate for president. He has all the sleaze and rules don't apply to me principles of Bush, witness the people he has around him, the things he says, and what he has others say for him.

Incidentally, I know the name is Mitt (actually Willard), and not Newt, but that's my Obama/Usama moment. Romney was my governor, at least nominally, so I know him, well. I took to calling him Newt for several reasons, first because it looks and sounds like the former Republican Speaker of the House, and second because it comes out like spit, to express my feeling for him. Call me petty and small, but contemporary politics a practiced over the past 20 years, demands it.

Rob Mac wrote on November 2, 2007 12:46 PM:

Clarity, to answer your question to Linda:

The New Hampshire license plate (as Jon Stewart pointed out) says "Live free or die." Also, have you ever heard the expression "Give me liberty or give me death?"

I would say that this is the problem with Romney's statement. There is a very long tradition in this country of considering our liberties to be more important than our physical safety. Obviously there are tradeoffs to be made. We allow ourselves to be searched before we get on airplanes, etc. But to turn "Give me liberty or give me death" on its head is a dangerous position.

Central Square wrote on November 2, 2007 1:02 PM:

Doesn't he kind of slap around W. with 'if there was ever a time we needed change in Washington to bring strength to our America it's now!' Shouldn't the Dems be saying this?

Xenos wrote on November 2, 2007 1:08 PM:

Clarity:

Those rights are inalienable by the state, which was a revolutionary idea at the time (the king had rights to your life, property, and liberty). It is counter-revolutionary, to wit, monarchist, of you to value protection by the state above your civil liberties. Which is to say the Romney is patently un-American.

Keep in mind the George Washington himself set the policy forbidding torture or mistreatment of prisoners, which was a routine practice for the British Imperial forces. Washington was willing to lose th Revolutionary War over the issue - it really is a founding, first principle for the Republic. Monarchism/imperialism go hand in glove with torture and a contempt for civil liberties. I'll stick with George Washington, thank you.

Linda wrote on November 2, 2007 1:32 PM:

Clarity, Romney is confused about what our inalienable right to life means, by mistakenly redefining that right to be a right to be kept alive.

Slaves were "kept alive," but were not free to pursue life. Zoo animals are "kept alive," but are not free to pursue their true natures/life.

This is not just semantics, but gets at the root of a basic American value upon which our freedoms and our democracy are based.

The inalienability of our right to life is not a right to be safely housed and fed, as Romney does not simply imply, but actually says outright.

It is very dangerous for our democracy to tell Americans that our inalienable right to life is simply a right to be kept alive. For someone who is pursuing the office of U.S. President to have this backwards translation of our Declaration of Independence should raise more than just a few eyebrows. This is not a partisan issue. This is an American value that Romney is flat-out wrong about.

TJ wrote on November 2, 2007 1:57 PM:

To say nothing of the fact that many people have actually died to preserve the rights that Romney seems willing to discard. How dare he suggest that I should hold my life worth more than their sacrifice.

mac wrote on November 2, 2007 3:34 PM:

Props to Romney on this.

Maybe he'll get the Sonny Bono law set back to something reasonable. (not!)

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)