Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Multimedia / Transcripts'

| Subcribe via RSS

***Ads Do Not Necessarily Represent The Opinions of the Staff of comMITTed to Romney***

***Support comMITTed to Romney by visiting our sponsors***

Profile Image of Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson

Fox News: “Romney hit a Home Run”

Fox News’ commentary said Mitt had “hit a home run.”

Fox’s Frank Luntz said “With just two days to go, Mitt Romney hit a home run tonight.” Other key quotes about responses from Luntz’s focus group: “Mitt Romney consistently got the best responses throughout the evening…incredibly favorable.” “When Mitt Romney talked about where he stood on immigration, the dials shot through the roof.”

The overwhelming response in blogs is positive. Mitt really helped himself tonight.

From the National Review:

Kathryn Jean Lopez says:

“The fighter is out in him tonight. No one is going to call him a wimp tonight, that’s for sure. He’s taken initiative, from minute one. And he’s turned the tone of his campaign around. He’s letting Romney be Romney — the confident, forward-looking candidate with a conservative temperament he is — it was those qualities that first made me pay attention to him when he was in the statehouse. I think he’s being himself tonight. We saw him be himself during the religion speech. And we’re seeing it tonight. This Mitt is the Mitt we have to see everyday from hereon out. It took a while for him to be unleashed but I don’t think it’s too late by any stretch. Let Mitt be Mitt and Mitt might win.”

From Rich Lowry:

“Politics is a game of adjustments, and Romney adjusted to the debate from last night, realizing that he’d be under constant attack tonight and he’d better gird himself and go on offense. He spoke forcefully and put the case for himself as the reformist businessman in the best possible light. I think he basically dominated the first hour, and fell off a tab after that, but otherwise was truly excellent. His best performance yet, in very high pressure circumstances. His answers on taxes, job creation, and immigration were top notch … [I]f he somehow wins NH, tonight will be a big reason why.”

McCan’ts “Experience” Question; I.e., Why Not McCain?

McCain wants us to believe with 20+ years in Washington, and over the age of 80 at the end of a 2d term, he’d change his stripes and try to improve the system he’s helped construct and has benefited from for 2 1/2 decades. Sorry, but if he was serious about fixing something before he would have done it by now. And because of his age he’s a lame duck president on day 1. A nearly 80 year old with a history of a temper with his finger on the button? Quack quack. Others also noticed the McCain slam on Bush (the remark about governors). This is why McCain is NOT a republican candidate. I’ve heard one Senator say that if a secret poll were taken on the Senate floor, they’d nearly unanimously support Mitt over McCain, which McCain seems to acknowledge in his comment he hasn’t won any congeniality contests in the Senate. And he’s supposed to suddenly “change” and work with these people to get things done? GOP: IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. MCCAIN WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT HE’S DONE FOR THE PAST 24 YEARS.

Here’s another quote from Mark Levin tonight at the National Review in that regard:

“[C]ome on John McCain. You’re known in Washington as, well, very temperamental and holding grudges. Let’s not pretend you are Mr. Positive when, in fact, you are not.”

Expect mainstream republicans to reject this man, starting tomorrow in the AM radio shows when they call out his school-yard tactics with cohort Huckabee.

After Wyoming’s sweep by Mitt, McCain’s undignified attacks last night and Mitt’s performance tonight, expect Mitt’s poll numbers in NH to take a bounce upward. With the race being as tight as it is, Mitt’s performance tonight was big.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson

Report from the Rally

Here I am again to report on events later in the day January 2 in Urbandale and at the night’s Romney rally.

A Brief Chat with Doug Gross

Toward the end of the afternoon I was privileged to sit down for a few minutes with Doug Gross, Mitt’s Iowa chair.

Doug Gross

He’d told the troops in a mid-day rally session that he met Mitt in April of ‘06, and was impressed that Mitt had the whole package. He told me in our interview that for him, the “whole package” meant Mitt had “leadership, values, an ability to get things done and executive experience.” Doug helped the campaign organize for the Ames straw poll, and when I asked him to compare the caucuses with the straw poll, and he said “caucuses are like a straw poll on steroids,” with the need to make sure about “ten times” the number of people show up in caucus locations throughout the state. The caucuses, though, don’t actually select delegates for Iowa. As Doug explained, the voters express a preference for a candidate in the caucuses, but delegates aren’t chosen until June of 2008, when they’re pledged to support the voters’ preference. I asked Doug as we closed what his experiences with Mitt have shown him in the 18 plus months they’ve worked together. He responded that in a campaign “any candidate’s character is tested; Mitt always acts professionally, above board and ethically.” Given the attacks Mitt has endured, that’s saying a lot. Doug, thanks for taking the time!

Pix from the Rally

Mitt’s supporters made their way to a rally at about 7:30 local time. The press was very well represented, with, I’d estimate, 20-30 different cameras set up in a corner of the large room on a platform. Here’s a shot of the size of the relative side of the room. The press is hard to see, but it’s to the right.

ssc_0065.JPG

I made my way to the left of the stage and stood next to a lone cameraman from C-SPAN. Doug Gross welcomed the crowd from the end of a catwalk extending from the main stage, and inspired confidence that Mitt was, in fact, going to be the Republican nominee and our next president. Doug gave way to Dan Jansen, the Olympic speed skater, who recounted how he’d met Mitt before the ‘02 Olympics and knew Mitt was something special. Dan then ceded the stage to Mitt and Ann. Ann expressed her appreciation and love for the people of Iowa. She then introduced the Main Man. I was able to get a few shots of him as the night went on.

Here’s one as Mitt addressed the crowd from the catwalk:

ssc_0066.JPG

Mitt’s speech covered his bases: education, overwhelming militant jihadists, and his confidence that the unified American spirit can overcome the challenges we face. He gave Dan as an example of dogged determination that had inspired Mitt, saying “it wasn’t because America had won a gold medal, that had happened before,” but was inspiring because Dan had dedicated himself and finally attained his goal at being the best in the world at something after things had gone wrong in three prior Olympic games. Mitt then gave a tidbit I’d not heard him relate before; he talked about Derek Parra, the speed skater in the ‘02 Olympics that had converted from rollerblading in LA, and found he was fast. Ultimately he won a gold in Salt Lake. When Derek had been asked what his favorite Olympic moment was, it wasn’t winning the gold, but being one of the few athletes chosen to represent America by carrying into the opening ceremonies the flag that had flown over the World Trade Center on September 11. Here’s a link to a story where Derek tells it in his own words. I was in the crowd that night in Salt Lake, and Mitt’s account was absolutely correct. Instead of applause, the crowd, tens of thousands strong, fell reverently silent. At that moment the world paid tribute to the victims of those attacks. Mitt recalled the event with reverence.

Mitt’s speech was a great one. At one point he quoted Yogi Berra as saying he didn’t like making predictions where the future was concerned, but he foresaw a good result in Iowa tomorrow night. I’ve got to say I’m feeling it too.

After the speech he and Ann mingled with some folks in the crowd, before they were whisked away, I believe to be on Fox. Here are a few shots of Mitt mixing it up:

ssc_0067.JPG

ssc_0068.JPG

ssc_0069.JPG

Some CNN Before Blogging

I’m not sure if many of you caught this, but David Gergen was on with Anderson Cooper tonight, along with Gloria Borger. Both Gergen and Borger made some pretty frank statements about Huckabee not seeming “ready,” and that Huckabee has lost his momentum. It confirms what some, including myself, have observed: as the limelight has shown on Huckabee for his 15 minutes of fame, he’s seemed to wilt and do strange things. Here’s the link to the transcript on CNN’s website. After comments that Rudy’s lack of attention to Iowa was certainly hurting, and that McCain will still suffer for his position on immigration, Gergen and Borger shared the following exchange with Cooper (from CNN’s preliminary transcript):

“GERGEN: I think Huckabee had a real chance to take off. And it’s not that he peaked too early, but that once attention turned to him, he started doing strange things.

In first place, his responses to the Bhutto assassination, you know, what we ought to do about Bhutto is we ought to build a fence between us and Mexico. It was like, “What?” He’s not been in the loop on a lot of foreign policy questions.

I mean, to run off and do, to start that ad and going to Arkansas and make an ad and then pull the ad and then show it to the press, to guffaws on the reporters. There’s been a weirdness factor here that I think has really startled a lot of reporters, and I think it’s probably going to hurt him with a lot of the voters.

BORGER: He doesn’t seem ready.

COOPER: Not ready for prime time?

BORGER: Not really.

COOPER: Gloria Borger, appreciate it. David Gergen, as well. Thanks very much.”

Pretty stark words from Gergen, nominally a Republican and a former Clinton advisor, and Borger.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Great Romney Speeches: CPAC 2007

I’ve pointed out Romney’s comprehensive policy statement “Strategy for a Stronger America” in previous posts.

One of the nice things about this document is that it provides the text to a number of Romney’s major speeches. I spent some time reading the text of these speeches and was struck by how powerful and well thought out they are. They are worth reading.

Below is the text of the speech Romney delivered at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

“The mainstream media is surprised that we’re here. They wrote our obituary last fall. Course, they’ve written our obituary before: after Watergate, after the 82 midterm elections, after Iran-contra, and after Bill Clinton’s election. The truth is that their wishful thinking reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I predict that we’ll be around a lot longer than . . . say, newspapers.

“No, conservatism is alive and well. And it is needed more than ever. America faces a new generation of challenges, critical challenges. Today is similar in many respects to what we faced as a nation 30 years ago, looking at the menacing face of communism.

“In fact, 30 years ago, in this very conference, one man stood up and told America what was needed. It was conservatism, a new coalition of conservatives that would lead to a brighter future for the nation. Ronald Reagan said this: ‘What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.’ And here is where he said that this conservative alliance would lead: ‘I have seen the conservative future, and it works.’

More »

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Huckabee says John Bolton is a foreign policy advisor…

but John Bolton denies it.

I’ve lost count of the number of gaffe’s Huckabee has had in the last couple days, but add another one to the mix. Some choice bits:

In recent days, Mike Huckabee has tried to answer long-standing questions about who is on his foreign policy team. On Friday morning, he listed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has “spoken or will continue to speak.”

At a Thursday evening press conference, Huckabee said, “I’ve corresponded with John Bolton, who’s agreed to work with us on developing foreign policy.”

Bolton, however, has a different view. “I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet,” said Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.


Okay, if that weren’t bad enough, it gets worse
:

Transcript from CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: “Let’s go back out to the campaign trail right now. Presidential candidate appears to be trying to change the subject after making what some are calling a notable gaffe. That would be republican Mike Huckabee. He’s a former governor with less foreign policy experience than some of his rivals. Now some are wondering if that is becoming obvious out on the campaign trail. Let’s go out to Iowa, Dana Bash is watching all of this unfold. You’ve learned about the concerns inside Huckabee’s own camp about his national security experience. Explain to our viewers what’s going on.”

DANA BASH: “Well, Wolf, in a very candid moment today, a senior Huckabee campaign official told me that with their candidate, quote, ‘There is no foreign policy credential.’ And that unlike many other presidential candidates, he can’t boast about knowing Benazir Bhutto. This official also said that until they can, quote, ‘get him briefed’ and up to speed on Pakistan, they’re going to try to bring it closer to home. Mike Huckabee is responding to crisis in Pakistan in an offbeat way, tying it to a red hot campaign issue: immigration.

GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE: “There were more Pakistanis who illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border. 660 last year. That’s a lot of illegals from Pakistan.” (Me: by the way, that’s wrong, far more illegal immigrants come from the Philippines, Korea, China and Vietnam according to the Dept. of Homeland Security)

BASH: “Sounding an alarm about illegal Pakistanis in America is a surprising tactic for a candidate who preaches tolerance. He dismissed any concern it looks like xenophobia.”

HUCKABEE: “No none. Not at all. I’m just saying that a lot of Americans sitting in Pella, Iowa maybe look halfway around the world and say how does that affect me?”

BASH: “When asked by CNN for the source of his statistic, 660 illegal Pakistanis, Huckabee seemed unsure.”

HUCKABEE: “Its come largely from CIA numbers, and ill get u the exact source, but those are numbers that i got today from a briefing, and I believe they’re CIA and/or immigration numbers.”

BASH: “A senior Huckabee campaign official admitted to CNN the former Arkansas governor has, quote, ‘no foreign policy credential.’ that’s why his campaign turned to immigration, a top concern for Iowa GOP voters especially men he’s been losing ground with. The pivot followed a gaffe, not appearing to know martial law was lifted in Pakistan two weeks ago.”

This is getting embarrassing. Huckabee evidently just makes stuff up and hopes that nobody calls him on it. This might have worked in Arkansas, but he isn’t in Little Rock anymore. (no disrespect intended to Arkansasans)

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Huckabee contemplates suicide for “guys who spent tens of millions of dollars and aren’t further ahead”

I was disgusted when I saw the video below. How long will Huckabee get a pass on this kind of language? Who wants their President talking this way? Last time I checked, suicide is at best morally ambiguous and at worst a mortal sin. How can a “Christian leader” talk so lightly about such a tragic act that takes over 30,000 lives per year (and another 24,000-750,000 attempted suicides) in the United States and leaves a massive wake of devastation?

“…and the point is, with limited resources, if you look at where we are, even in the national polls, we’ve spent a nickel to the hundred dollar bill of some of these guys. It’s not that I’m depressed thinking where we are, heck, I’m pretty encouraged. If I were some of these guys who spent tens of millions of dollars and weren’t any further ahead, I’d have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with some razor blades in both hands at this point saying how much money does one have to spend uh, you know, to get on track?

First, let’s set aside that he gets his math wrong by two orders of magnitude (he meant to say a nickel for every dollar unless he believes that Romney has spent $654M in Iowa). Those kinds of gaffes are par for the course for Huckabee.

What is he saying here? Is he saying that Romney should be depressed and commit suicide? Is he saying that if he were in Romney’s place he would be committing suicide? That seems more likely. In that case, what does it say about the moral fiber and character of Romney vs. Huckabee that Mitt is nowhere near considering suicide given that’s where Huckabee would have ended up were their situations reversed? Do we really want someone so unstable and suicidal as our next POTUS?

Huckabee fans, before you accuse me of being willfully literal in my interpretation of Huckabee’s comments, let me assure you that what I think Huck is really saying is that he feels really good about his position in Iowa and that Mitt should feel really bad.

I just object to the way he’s saying it. It is crass, mean spirited, and unbefitting a public office holder, much less a “Christian Leader.”

I sent emails to the American Association of Suicidology (AAS) and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) letting them know about Mike Huckabee’s disgusting and trivializing remarks about suicide. These are leading suicide prevention and issue advocacy organizations.

If you feel similarly, you can email the AAS at info@suicidology.org and the AFSP’s Public Relations Manager, Wylie Tene at wtene@afsp.org.

UPDATE: Apparently, this story first broke back in October. And, it’s not the first time he’s done it, and he’s been called on it in the past. “Razor blades in a bathtub” is a regular part of Huckabee’s repertoire.

Implication? He must actually think that this line is funny and continues to use it despite being made aware that it can be taken the wrong way!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

John McCain endorses Romney

Or is this another detour of the Straight Talk Express?

Here’s how McCain described Governor Romney in 2002:

We’ve got a great team here, but it’s led by a man of honesty and integrity. It’s led by a man who is prepared to serve and a man who I have grown to know for his honesty, his decency, and his committment to America. I am proud to be in his company amongst you. (applause)

We have a man of unimpeachable integrity, and decency, and honor who could do a lot of other things my friends, we all know that. The Romneys, they could (garbled) Arizona! (laughter).

They could do, they could do a lot of things. Yet this man, has willingly stepped forward to serve the state of Massachusetts and our Party, and young Americans and again give them a public office holder that they can look up to, admire, and emulate, that’s why I’m committed to this race. In the state of Massachusetts as the state of Arizona, tough decisions are going to have to be made. There’s only one kind of person who can make those decisions and that’s a man of intellectual integrity, honesty, and experience.

But I also have great and tremendous regard for Mitt Romney ’cause I think he brings honest and integrity and can act as a role model to the young people of Massachusetts and all over this country.

I think we have an opportunity to (garbled) not only across Massachusetts but America. A negative campaign doesn’t work. People of integrity are still willing to serve this country. May I please ask you to give your warmest possible welcome to the next governor of the state of Massachusetts. (enter Mitt Romney, shakes hands with John McCain)

That was then, but these days you can’t go two days without John McCain or his campaign calling Mitt some variation of liar, dishonest, and fake.

Is this what would be called an “election-year conversion” by John McCain? Which characterization of Mitt Romney is true and which one is false? Stated another way, was he lying then or now?

By contrast, here’s why I’m supporting Mitt Romney for President.

Please help!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Rush Limbaugh “non-endorses” Mitt after the speech!!

Add Rush Limbaugh to the list of “non-endorsements” Mitt is getting (see prior post on “non-endorsements from Sean Hannity and Richard Land)

This is somewhat long, but you must read the whole thing! (Note toward the end when he starts caveating about how he doesn’t endorse in the primary…with “non-endorsements” like these, who needs endorsements?!)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to start with Mitt Romney today, Mitt Romney’s speech. Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values, including religion. Mitt Romney did this because he has been relentlessly attacked as something less than a true American. I watched this. I had seen some excerpts from the speech published before he made it. I thought he was inspiring, folks. I think he set exactly the right tone and I am stunned by some of the criticism I am seeing of this speech, particularly on some conservative websites. “He didn’t include atheists; he didn’t include agnostics; he didn’t say and reach out to Hindus.” I don’t understand it. Of all things to take from this speech that Romney gave today, that he didn’t reach out to atheists and didn’t reach out to agnostics, is beyond me. I thought he showed today his ability to confront, to articulate, to persuade, and to lead.

He also demonstrated he is more than willing to take a huge risk. Everybody, from his advisors on down, said: “Don’t do this speech until after you’ve won a primary someplace, or until you’ve won the nomination. Don’t do this speech now. Too much can go wrong with it.” Bob Novak had a column today, said, “I don’t know what’s going to happen here; what can he say?” Well, he said a lot of things. It’s amazing how the Drive-By Media is going gaga over empty suits like Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Neither of those candidates can hold a candle to any of ours: Romney, Rudy, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, none of them can. They’re empty suits compared to our side, and for our side to sit here and start talking, “He didn’t address atheists”? Let’s start with the audio sound bites, and let’s go to the precedent for this. This is September 12th, 1960, in Houston at the Rice Hotel, presidential candidate JFK addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association about being a Catholic. We put together here just a little montage.

JOHN F. KENNEDY: But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

RUSH: Now let’s go to the Drive-Bys and their analysis prior to the speech being given, a montage today from CNN, ABC and PMSNBC.

HARRIS: Mitt Romney speaks out on religion, but don’t expect him to explain his Mormon beliefs.

BRZEZINSKI: Romney isn’t expected to focus on specific teachings.

BERMAN: If people are looking for him to explain the specific doctrines of his faith, the Mormon religion, they will be disappointed.

BASH: Do not expect him to talk about how he prays. He does not intend to sort of uncloak the mysteries of Mormonism.

RUSH: You can tell what this is all about. These people are hoping like hell that they can destroy him because of his Mormonism and scare people and set it up in advance that he’s not going to be honest, that he’s not going to be forthcoming and he’s got something to hide. It didn’t come off that way at all. We’ve got some sound bite excerpts, and let’s just get started. Here is the first.

ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities of my church or of any other church, for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I’m fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

RUSH: There was big applause. We cut the applause in the interests of time here, but there was a lot of it, and there were many applause lines, and a couple of them went on for an extended period of time. Here’s another excerpt.

ROMNEY: I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they’re right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. There is one fundamental question about which I’m often asked: “What do I believe about Jesus Christ?” I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind.

RUSH: You can see he’s not reaching out to the atheists here, is he? Not reaching out to the agnostics, not reaching out to the Hindus. I’m still stunned that I read that kind of criticism on some conservative websites today. Here’s another excerpt.

ROMNEY: It’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter, on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It’s as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America, the religion of secularism. They are wrong. The Founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation under God, and in God we do, indeed, trust.

RUSH: I tell you, this stuff was, to me, it was inspiring listening to this. You’re listening here to a Republican candidate for president give an inspiring speech about American values in which he’s including religion because he’s been relentlessly attacked. Frankly, this is the kind of thing missing from the campaign. Where are we as a country? Where are we going? What kind of people are we? What binds us together? It isn’t health care. It’s not Social Security. It’s not all those little policy-wonk things. It’s who we are as a people and our acknowledgement, our Founders’ acknowledgement that we are all created by God, and it’s that creation from which we have our liberty and our freedom and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t come from any other human being. Those values are not imposed upon us. It can only be taken away by men, but they are granted to us by virtue of our creation. This is a perfect place for this kind of values speech to be made in a presidential campaign. One more sound bite.

ROMNEY: You can be certain of this. Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty has a friend and ally in me, and so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen. We do not insist on a single strain of religion. Rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith. Recall the early days of the first Continental Congress in Philadelphia during the fall of 1774, with Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, and Baptists and Congregationalists and Presbyterians and Catholics, then Sam Adams rose and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together by the grace of God they founded this great nation.

RUSH: And the applause there went on and on and on. Romney also made it a point to say, in regards to prayer, that he will need the prayers of all Americans as president of the United States. There was nothing exclusionary; there was nothing threatening. I’m telling you, as far as I’m concerned, I think he was inspiring. I think he set exactly the right tone in this speech. But back to the people criticizing him and what he said. They really ought to look at themselves in the mirror, because what they really seem to be saying when they say he didn’t reach out to the agnostics and the atheists and the Hindus, what I think they really seem to be saying is, if you don’t share my religion, not my beliefs, but my religion, then you’re not qualified to be president. What they’re saying is, you can never say enough, you can never say the right thing because you’re not of my religion, and therefore you’re not qualified to be president. Atheism is a religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Agnosticism is too. If you want to say that he didn’t reach out to them or the Hindus then he’s not qualified because he didn’t acknowledge them, what kind of analysis is that?

This is poison, this kind of analysis, coming from conservatives on reputable websites. When I saw it, I was distressed by it. I expect it from liberals; I expect that kind of reaction. He didn’t address the atheists and the agnostics? He didn’t really explain his religion? He really didn’t explain why he should be nominated and so forth? All of this that people are saying reveals partisan thinking, the thinking of those who support another candidate, not seriously thinking about the nature of the process here and what Romney was trying to do with the speech. They’re looking at this strictly within the confines of a political speech, and I think it went beyond those bounds. The critics — I guess it’s quite natural — they put their own agenda into this speech. He didn’t talk about taxes, they’re saying, he didn’t talk about electability. This wasn’t a speech about taxes. This wasn’t a speech about electability. It wasn’t a speech about policy. It was a speech about American values, what binds us together as a people and as a nation and what will continue to bind us together in the future as a nation.

I have to tell you, I don’t endorse candidates in primaries, and this is not an endorsement. I’ve said this repeatedly. But Romney, throughout all of this — you try running around having your religion attacked and threatened and lied about every day, folks, and not get bitter, and Mitt Romney has not been bitter. He has not gotten angry. He easily could have. He’s kept a positive outlook and approach, despite being demeaned and doubted in ways that no other candidate has had to deal with.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Don’t doubt me. Now, just a couple final thoughts here on the Romney speech and the atmosphere surrounding it. As I mentioned, I don’t endorse candidates in primaries, but Romney certainly should have our attention in a good way. Whether he’s the nominee or not, he hasn’t been bitter; he hasn’t reacted in an angry way — and I’ll tell you, he has every reason to have done so. He’s been demeaned. He has been doubted in ways that no other candidate has had to deal with, and those who continue — even after this speech — to try to pick him apart with attacks on his character, which are really just disguised as supposedly thoughtful inquiries, should be ashamed of themselves. But I’ll tell you, I don’t think one candidate should be singled out this way, frankly, and this is another thing about this that is very, very irritating to me. If religion is important in this election — and I guess it is, because the Drive-Bys and the Democrats have made it important, and they make religion important in every election. I’ll tell you, you evangelicals? Don’t have short memories here. You are just as hated by the Drive-Bys as Mitt Romney is. You are just as despised by the Democratic Party as Mitt Romney is, and you know it. You have been the focus of full-frontal assaults on your religion for as many years as I can remember being in public life like this.

All the way back to the eighties, during the Reagan years, you know how you were portrayed. You’re stupid. You’re hayseed hicks. You have CNN with questions in a debate and some guy in a basement like the Unabomber holding up the Bible and asking, “Do you believe every word in this book?” Like, “You idiot! You can’t possibly.” You know how you’ve been insulted. You have gun racks in the back of your pickup truck. You get to church on Saturday night, and have a barbecue in the parking lot in order to be the first in the pew you want on Sunday. You go to NASCAR races. You’re missing a couple of front teeth. You chew tobacco, and you are stupid. That’s what they think of evangelicals and the so-called Christian right, and they’re dumping on Mitt Romney the same way. You have to understand why. They fear the morality of religion. They fear the moral guideposts. They fear that people of faith, whatever the faith is, believe in things larger than themselves. Liberals, some Democrats think the end-all is with them and with humanity, and that there is nothing larger (other than right now the environment), and anybody who knows there is something larger than themselves in this life, anybody who knows that there are questions human beings are capable of asking, but we will never be capable of answering while on this Earth, scares liberals to death, and they can’t control people like that, and they fear what they consider to be the judgmentalism of people like that. And they fear the standards, both moral and ethical, that people of faith — I don’t care what faith we’re talking about — conduct their lives with as best they can.

So it’s not just Romney that they are targeting. It’s people of faith who are public about it everywhere, and they’re doing their best to discredit anybody with faith of any kind. Do you note that the Democrats are never, ever, asked about this? If religion is important in this election, in that we want to know how someone’s faith may impact their governing, then I think all the candidates need to give a speech of this kind. All the candidates need to be asked questions like this. All the candidates need to spell out where they are coming from — Rudy, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee — not just the Republicans, either. Democrats as well. The Democrats mix the pulpit with politics all the time. They go into church and raise money for campaigns, in violation of laws, and nobody calls them on it because of where those churches are. They mix it all the time, and nobody ever calls them on it, and nobody ever tells them, “Aren’t you being a little hypocritical here? You’re out there constantly ripping evangelical Christians and the Christian right, and there you are in a church making speeches,” and in Mrs. Clinton’s case, using a Southern black dialect to talk to the flock that’s inside the church? Where do the Democrats draw the lines on religion and governing? What do they believe? How do their religions influence their views? You know, Harry Reid is a Mormon. I wonder how Harry Reid feels about his brother Mormon being attacked like this, and having to defend himself, and how come Harry Reid doesn’t have to defend his Mormonism in context of how he governs?

“Well, Rush, he’s not running for president.”

I don’t care. He’s in public life. He’s got a pretty powerful job. He’s the Senate majority leader. How come he doesn’t have to explain his belief in Mormonism? How come Orrin Hatch doesn’t have to? Understand what this is, folks: This is an effort to destroy the character and integrity of a good man, a decent man, on the basis of religion. It’s not the America I grew up in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, one more thing about Romney, I don’t want you to forget this. This was articulate, it was clear, and it was somewhat courageous. Everybody was telling him not to do this. He showed leadership doing this today. He exemplified characteristics of somebody who is not afraid to lead. I hope you get a chance at some point to watch the whole speech or to at least read it, maybe watch it. It will be, I’m sure, replayed on a number of cable outlets.
END TRANSCRIPT

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Mitt takes religion questions head on in NPR interview

Mitt runs the table in an interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel.

I recommend you listen to the whole thing, but here’s my favorite part at the very end:

[Siegel] One last point: In the CNN-You Tube debate, there was a moment when one of the people who submitted a question asked all the candidates whether they believed in every word of the Bible, and two of your rivals — Mayor [Rudolph] Giuliani and Gov. [Mike] Huckabee — both made a point of saying, “Well, in some parts it’s allegorical, in some parts it should be interpreted, but yet, I believe in the Bible.”

And you seemed — if I read you right — to make a point of saying it’s the word of God, and even when considering some modification, you backed up, said, “No, I’ll just stick with that. It’s the word of God.” [That] left the impression — and I want to ask you — do you hold a literal belief, say, in the Genesis version of creation?

[Romney] You know, I find it hard to believe that NPR is going to inquire on people’s beliefs about various parts of the Bible in evaluating presidential candidates, and actually, I don’t know that that’s where America has come to — that you want to have us describing our particular beliefs with regards to Genesis and the Book of Revelations, so —

[Siegel] I raise Genesis only because creationism is a national issue in a variety of ways, and —

[Romney] Well, but then you could ask me a question and say, “Do you believe that we should teach creationism in our schools, in our science classes and so forth?” and I’m happy to give you an answer to that. But I don’t know that going through books of the Bible and asking, “Well, do you believe this book? And do you believe these words?”, that that’s terribly productive. Particularly when we face global jihad, when we have 47 million people without health insurance, when we have runaway costs in our entitlements, to be asking presidential candidates about their specific beliefs of books of the Bible is, in my view, something which really isn’t part of the process which we should be using to select presidents.

My point is the Bible is the word of God, and I try and live by it.

Touche! Mitt is going to do just fine on Thursday…have no fear.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Mitt — Rush — Hugh

1: The New News Cycle: Romney and Thompson Defend Rush
2: Governor Mitt Romney rushes to Rush Limbaugh’s defense

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Thomas Alan
Thomas Alan

National Journal Interview

September 29th, 2007 | 1 Comment | Posted in Transcripts

The National Journal had a interview with Gov. Romney yesterday.

Q: I want to start by asking you about the very unusual message that you’ve been delivering to your fellow Republicans in the primary: You’ve been telling Republicans that it is time to get their house in order. You’ve been talking spending excess, immigration and ethics. What do you think has caused your party to go off track?

Romney: There’s nothing like having a lot of power and anticipating that you’re going to keep it forever. My dad used to say that there’s nothing as vulnerable as entrenched success. And my dad said some members of our party began to think we would be in charge forever and began fall prey to some of the excesses that Democrats have long be subject to, which is overspending and earmarking, and some of the problems associated with power, which is unethical conduct. So you’ve seen that from both parties, and it’s something we cannot accept in the Republican Party.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Nate Gunderson
Nate Gunderson

Ad Contest Winner: “Ready for Action” by Ryan Whitaker

September 27th, 2007 | 4 Comments | Posted in 2008, Mitt Romney, Multimedia, Transcripts

Here is the winner:

The press release:

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President announced that Ryan Whitaker’s video, “Ready for Action” is the winner of the “Team Mitt: Create Your Own Ad!” contest. The contest is an unprecedented initiative that empowers supporters to create the campaign’s newest television advertisement by remixing or “mashing up” a large variety of the campaign’s photos, videos and audio clips, as well as their own multimedia content.

Whitaker, a 23 year-old college student from Provo, Utah, will become the first amateur ever to have his work used as an official television advertisement for a presidential campaign. Created using the online video editing tools of Yahoo! and Jumpcut.com, Whitaker’s ad was the clear favorite in the contest, receiving the most views and the most “love” of all 129 submissions, and receiving 47% of the votes cast among the nine finalists highlighted at MittRomney.com.

Alex Castellanos, Senior Adviser and media strategist to Governor Romney, said, “Ryan’s ad is the first, but it certainly won’t be the last. This revolutionary use of user-generated content empowers our grassroots supporters and their efforts immeasurably strengthen our campaign.”

The ad will be personally introduced by Governor Romney at the culmination of the final Rally for Romney tomorrow. Rally for Romney is a nationwide grassroots fundraising initiative designed to mobilize and empower volunteers across the country to build support at the grassroots level. This week Rally for Romney call days are taking place in more than 50 cities, in 25 states. The dates and locations of all Rally for Romney events can be found at www.MittRomney.com/Rally.

The ad will air once a day for a week in five Iowa and New Hampshire media markets, beginning Wednesday, October 3. Scripts and viewing links are below.

Script For “Ready for Action”:

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: “The right course for America in a world where evil still exists is not acquiescence and weakness, it’s assertiveness and strength.

“We believe in a strong military. We believe in a strong economy. We believe in strong families and values.

“There is not one challenge that America faces that we can’t overcome with the innovation and energy and passion, which has always been at the heart of America.

“It is time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I’ve done that in business, I’ve done it in the Olympics, I’ve done it in Massachusetts. And, frankly, I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington.

“Now is the time, this is the place for us to lead a great coalition of strength.

“For our families, for our future, for America.”

~Nate Gunderson

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Nate Gunderson
Nate Gunderson

Interview with Glenn Beck Transcript

September 22nd, 2007 | 2 Comments | Posted in 2008, Interviews, Mitt Romney, Transcripts

Romney

Click here to read the whole transcript. It’s quite lengthy and it’s very late right now so I won’t quote any highlights.

~Nate Gunderson

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Mike Laub
Mike Laub

Transcript of Gov. Romney Interview With Jan Mickelson

It took me a long time to type this, but I think it is important that it get out there… Please help me with the spelling, punctuation, and any mistakes that I might have made…

For an updated version, with better spelling, go here.

Jan Mickelson: Um, Good morning Sir, Welcome aboard.

Governor Mitt Romney: Thank you good to be with you this morning. Marshal town is one of my favorite places. I used to work in marshal town.

Jan Mickelson: As a what?

Governor Mitt Romney: I worked there as a consultant to fisher controls. It was one of my first assignments as a young consultant and I made the track, gosh it was a long period of time, back and forth from Des Moines to Marshalltown. I worked in Marshalltown. I worked for a guy named Larry Sully who was head of that division. He told that I would come to love the people of Iowa and he was right.

Jan Mickelson: You have a photographic memory.

Governor Mitt Romney: Not Really. But there are a few things you can remember such as how good the stakes was at Rubs (or Ruths or something), there is a place called Rubs, in Monture and I used to go there with …

Jan Mickelson: Did you cook your own.

Governor Mitt Romney: I did cook my own.

Jan Mickelson: Are you any good?

More »

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Jeff Fuller
Jeff Fuller

“THE MAKING OF MITT ROMNEY”: Boston Globe Offers LOADS of Info/stories on Romney

It will take me a few days in may spare time to process all this information, but make sure to check out the Boston Globe’s “The Making of Mitt Romney” 7-part special edition. There seems to be over a dozen of detailed and lengthy articles highlighting different phases throughout his life.

I’ve been reading just about everthing Romney-related for over a year now, and I’ve learned lots of new things more about him after just spending the last hour going through less than a quarter of it.

One thing that I’ve noticed so far from the peices I’ve read is that it’s pretty hard to find one of Mitt’s personal contacts from his past that have anything bad to say about him.

Thoughts? Impressions? Favorite Parts/Quotes?

Jeff Fuller

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Mike Laub
Mike Laub

Mitt Romney interview a day after winning the GOP presidential debate.

May 5th, 2007 | No Comments | Posted in 2008, Interviews, Transcripts

Share on Facebook


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]