Mitt Romney’s worst enemy
Update: This is an instant classic Iowahawk parody. Still wiping the tears from my eyes…
***
Sometimes, a candidate’s worst enemy isn’t his most staunch opponent, but his most overzealous fan. Mitt Romney’s speech was welcome and well-delivered. But come on:
Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst.
And:
Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. Why? Because Romney is running for the GOP nomination, and his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this and give a speech…
Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney.
Allah and the Hot Air crew are having an objectively great field day over this embarrassing public display of Mitt affection.
Some deep breaths are in order, methinks.
***
Bryan gets in the quip of the day: “I liked Romney’s speech quite a bit, but Hugh is making out like it was the St. Crispin’s Day speech as delivered by Winston Churchill in the Sistine Chapel on the first Christmas with Nazi bombers overhead.”
A quintuple snorter.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Huckabee surges to second in AP national poll, mostly at Fred’s expense
- Michelle Malkin » Who is Costas Panagopoulos?
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Andrew Young disses Obama, extols the Clintons’ blackness
- Michelle Malkin » Video: Andrew Young disses Obama, extols the Clintons’ blackness
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Mitt Romney
JustOneMinute
» Susan Rice To The United Nations
Belmont Club
» Good enoughBelmont Club
» Crusader RabbitRight Wing Nut House
» THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRAWeekly Standard
» Canada Plans to Save the Big 3, TooTigerHawk
» Blame America firstDavid Frum
» Will the Harper government collapse?Weekly Standard
» Enhanced Interrogation in India?
Well. Could be worse. At least no one claimed to be brought to tears.
No one questions Reid’s mormonism. But the media treat romney as if he had a different religion than Reid.
Geeeez, calm down. Mitt’s handsome and all, but he’s already married Hugh. I kid, I kid.
Harriet Miers. ‘Nuff said.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I too thought Mitt’s speech was good, but Hewitt’s lapdance and french kissing is more than a bit embarrasing.
Cool it, Hugh. You’re not helping your guy anymore.
Michelle,
I don’t get it. What about MR’s speech did you not like?
I go to Townhall for MKH. I do like Hugh’s interviewing on national security and war related issues, and he talks to Mark Steyn often, which is always worth dropping in for. Mark is simply awesome.
Hugh has mounted a peculiarly high horse about Romney, insisting that it’s now a two man race between Rudy and Romney. He’s slagged Fred repeatedly, when he’s not ignoring him. Now he’s slagging everyone who’s not on the Rudy McRomney bandwagon. It’s become very condescending and insulting to people who might be for another candidate in this primary. I’m still going there for the Hammer. She rules.
I wish the campaign were able to point to his staunch conservatism rather than whether or not he’s a Christian to focus on.
I mean what happened to the Conservatives? Bobby Jindal won on Conservative values. Any R can win if they are conservative and have a pulse. The reason this is a painful process is because we have these fringe issues about each of the candidates.
But at the core, none of them are really Conservative. But they are all definitely politicians.
It was a good speech by a professional life-long politician. It’s almost like they would be surprised if Bret Favre actually threw a touchdown pass. Romney worked on this speech for months.
Wow.
GET A ROOM!
I like Mitt Romney and have felt he is the best candidate who has a shot at the nomination for conservatives.
He was a governor of a very liberal state and so his record as governor is not as conservative as we would hope it to be if he were to become president.
However, Mike Huckabee was in a CONSERVATIVE state and he was governing like a liberal, which shows he is truly a liberal at heart. There is no way Huckabee should get the nomination if we expect to win in 2008. No wonder the MSM is pushing so hard for him to get the nomination.
Mitt Romney should get more leeway, though, because he was a Republican governing a very liberal state, kind of like Ehrlich was in Maryland. Romney is a far better choice than Mike Huckabee.
But if we don’t rally around someone capable of winning and who is a conservative (Romney) then Huckabee is going to end up with the nomination.
I to loved the speech but I’m not into inflating a Romney’s ego over it.
Hugh a little less ass kissing and a little more objectivity might be in order….settle down man.
Okay, the speech was good. My Hubby and
I were discussing Mitt earlier this week. He a Methodist, now California Southern Baptist like myself. I grew up in Mass. and still have family there. To
me, his religion is of no consequence. I suppose he had to address the issue.
Come on, we solved this issue with JFK. My dear Hubby thinks Mormonism is a cult. Well, that may be. I still believe it is of no consequence. Although I must admit if he was Muslim, at this point in history, I would have a problem with that. My greater concern is just how DID he get along in Massachusetts? Republican’s are the definite minority. My late father was a
Kennedy Democrat all the whiny way. You
don’t find many solid Conservatives running and achieving office in Massachusetts. I’m just sayin’ …I have
questions about what Mitt did in Massachusetts. Also, I work in healthcare and I think the jury may still be out on his Insurance/Medical Plan.
HH has been brilliant in the past, but his blind devotion to Mitt has been distracting, at best. Hugh has become predictable in his cheerleading for Bush, and laughable in his effusive support of Mitt. I read him less and less. I removed him from my favorites for several months, after tiring of Dean Barrett, but recently began reading HH again. I haven’t missed much. That quote jumped off the page when I read it at Hugh’s site. It’s more arrogant than McCain.
No one questions Reid’s mormonism. But the media treat romney as if he had a different religion than Reid.
1. Romney is devout, Reid is not.
2. Romney is Republican, Reid is not.
3. Romney is a threat to the Dems, Reid is a threat to the nation.
I see no reason to challenge Reid…
i have a hard time with catholics, lutherans and baptists following their particular denomnation. i find as a born again charismatic christian, how can you deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit? but, i do not call them ‘unchristian’ or non-believers or part of a cult. i call them fellow believers period. do i agree with all of the tenets of those denominations. NO, a resounding NO. if you say that Christ is your Lord and Savior, well you are pretty much a Christian in my mind. you love the Lord, that is all i need to know. i judge you by your fruits, not by anything else.
what i have a hard time with is a liar(there we go with that pesking fruit judging thing, i know). and a person who even when confronted with their lie, continues to lie and out of the same mouth call themselves an evangelical baptist. hmmmmmmmmmmm
that being said, yea, i guess Hugh is a little one sided. but, i agree with one thing, i do think Mitt is presidential and should be given a fair shake, period.
Inconceivable!!! (I wonder how many people will pick up on the referrence?)
I usually don’t comment much, but please uhangtight, where do you get the idea that Lutherans deny the gifts of the Holy Spirit?
I used to be a regular at Hugh’s blog, but for some time now it’s become little more than an “All-Romney, all-the-time” site that had better watch out lest it get scrutinized as some kind of in-kind campaign contribution.
Well, everyone is entiled to his or her opinion. My enthusasitic support of Guliani - even though he’s waaayyy off base on abortion (but better than Hillary - ’nuff said) has resulted in one or two genuine trolls on the board accusing me of being a paid automiton for Rudy. I also liked the speech of Romney and said so, though while agree that HH’s effusiveness seems a tad short-sighted, i won’t blame him for liking who he likes, no matter how hard he may like them.
The reason I’d take some burden off HH is A. the mainstream media will devour him for us and B. the aforesaid MSM is the real enemy, and in a world with limited time and resources, we should spend the time otherwise spent on HH against them.
And I do mean enemy. Of a free nation allowed to worship a it pleases. Enemy. in CAPS. In bold. ENEMY. In italics. ENEMY. But not in quotes, because they really are the ENEMY.
No action of any sort should be taken against them, except in the written and spoken arena of truth and ideas. And in that regard they need to be fought with all that we have. HH is small potatoes. I respectfully suggest that we keep him that way in our minds and stay focused on the much bigger picture. It really does threaten the nation that our forefathers built with their time, minds - and their blood.
Speak LOUDLY. But stay focused
I watched the whole thing; IMHO, he did a decent job of appealing for calm and fairness in matters of faith.
I am an evangelical Christian, finding my way to God after leaving the Mormon church. I had been attending 8 years. I know their doctrine, I know precisely what they believe about Christ, I have strong views differing from their teachings about Christ, but still have been troubled by the rhetoric about Romney’s religion, and the outcry from evangelicals, who ought to be the loudest opponents of a religious litmus test. Christians are under constant attack; we don’t want Christians kept out of the White House.
I’m undecided, but was impressed yesterday.
LOL
Since that movie’s so full of awesomeness I’m sure lots of us got it. PB FTW!
Clinton gushed less than Hugh after Monica’s oration.
I’m Jewish and will vote Romney if given the chance. Mormon theology is bizarre but I never meet Mormons who I don’t like and/or respect.
I like the clean cut aspect of Mormonism. I don’t want the Clinton slobs back in the White House. I saw Romney’s wife on CSPAN and was mightily impressed
ScottG, I grew up in the Lutheran church.. was confirmed in the Lutheran church…don’t want to get Off Topic, so think that is nuff said…
Interesting. I’ve never been to HH’s blog. I listen to him on the radio. I was thinking the other day that it would be surprising if he came out against Romney after all is said and done. I think the biographers of Presidential Candidates and wannabe Presidential Candidates end up in their
client’s corner because they have spent months with them, researching them. I think I just take that as a given and with a grain of salt. I don’t think I’d be terribly surprised if HH changed his mind and came out against Mitt.
Yes, HH’s man-crush on Mitt is getting ridiculous to the point that he’s sounding fanatical, but he’s a pundit who opening backs a horse in the race. He’s not pretending to be impartial.
Compare that to the Treason Media’s “reporting” reported on at The Corner: Associated Press Beatifies Hillary:
People can judge Hewitt by his professed agenda, but how many ignorant rubes are being suckered by AP’s blatant propagandizing?
I stopped listening and reading Hugh since his man-love began months ago.
Gee, why don’t all you guys just tell Hugh to shut up and that his opinion is not nearly as important as yours. If I am not mistaken you get to vote for whomever you wish in the primaries.
We’re hearing Huckabee is the obvious choice of the Evangelicals…and I admit he comes across as a conservative. That is, until he advocates closing Gitmo, or crying crocodile tears about illegals going to school! He’s outing himself more and more often.
Sorry, I did not read “fawning” or an over-blown commentary from HH that was not deserved for a very moving & uplifting speech.
#25
me too uhang, but I don’t believe your position is correct. Anyway no more discussion, agreed.
A Catholic Supreme Court and abortion should be fun.
At least Hewitt is up front with his bias. How many New York-based writers and bloggers are in Giuliani’s corner and won’t admit it?
For what it is worth I thought the speech was pretty good however I am having trouble getting past his record while Governor of Massachusetts. I could care less about his religion it is very nice to see a politician not afraid to confess his faith in God all I see is a man whose record does not show him to be a conservative. We have had almost 7 years of RINO control of the White House it is time to put in a real conservative that will not roll over on his/her convictions.
Let’s not forget that Mitt Romney was just as passionate in his debate back in 2002 when he was running for governor. When Mitt’s opponent questioned Mitt’s commitment to Roe v. Wade, Mitt answered by passionately discussing how his mother support for legal abortions cost her the Senate election shr ran back in 1970. So Mitt can be passionate on all sides of social issues.
#32 Alphonse, as long as it’s not a Muslim court. Plus, it sounds like you make the mistake so many do in thinking that the “Religious Right” is a monolithic organism. While I’m not Catholic, I can see the American Catholic Church is not the same as the Vatican. Walk in any church and spend time with the flock and you will find varied opinions on political issues. Churches are not only filled will Conservatives.
Oh puhleeze. If Allah’s boy hit one out of the park, he’d be dancing with exuberance too. Hewitt is a Romney supporter, has been from the git go, and he was relieved and very happy to see Romney deliver a speech on a delicate subject and do it so darn well. We all know where Allah and many of his commenters stand on Romney, but making fun of Romney or those who are enthusiastic in their support in combination with some of the blatant bigotry espoused at HA, just makes Allah look petty. It is offensive.
If ol’ Fred decided to do something that lived up to the anointing his supporters have placed on his head, there would be cartwheels.
If Hewitt was more objective, he’d pick up on stuff like:
***
At one point in the speech, Romney states:
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.
Romney needs a lesson in constitutional law. This is flatly false.
Or let me rephrase: Romney either needs a lesson in constitutional law or he is deliberately misusing what the Constitution says in an effort to pull a fast one on voters. Your choice.
The prohibition on a religious test for office that the Constitution contains is a prohibition on a particular creed being a legal requirement for office. In other words, it prevents Congress from passing a law that says, “To hold this federal office, you are legally required to be an Episcopalian” or “you are legally required not be a Catholic.”
It has absolutely nothing to do with what decisions voters choose to make based on a candidate’s religion. To cite an extreme example for purposes of illustrating a principle, if I don’t want a Satanist in office, I don’t have to vote for one. And if I as a voter have questions about a candidate’s religion, I am perfectly entitled–without violating the intent of the founders–to withhold my vote from a candidate until I have those questions answered to my satisfaction.
***
SOURCE
Sorry Michelle and AP, but I don’t think Hugh was off in the least. It blows mind mind that so many conservatives still support liberals like Giuliani or Huckabee, or candidates that stand zero chance of getting elected like Thompson. What candidate do you think would do the best job with all the following topics (and I don’t mean just one or two)…winning against Hillary? Illegal immigration? Managing our economy? Appointing proper Supreme Court justices? Fighting a war on Islamic extremism? I thought that Mitt’s speech will go down in history as one of the best candidate speeches ever given in the history of our nation. Cynicism is great when directed at our enemies. It’s moved into canabalism now that people who long-ago decided to oppose Romney, can’t even view his speech in an impartial manner.
Iowahawk has a great parody of Hugh’s Romney boosting. This is so good it might be worth a nod for post of the week.
That’s the opening, and there is lots more, like this little bit:
this too……
That is friggin hilarious.
Geez, that was so funny I forgot the link!
Brian72,
Hilarious! Well worth the read.
As if the Harriet Miers debacle didn’t haunt Hewitt enough… He’s doing it again.
Yup, Pal - just because HH can be a dolt in going overboard that shouldn’t be carried over to Romney. Don’t agree with “offensive”, but “petty” seems to work.
Yup again. Thompson has been a bit of a disappointment and somewhat underwhelming, at least so far. Too bad - maybe he’ll come to life yet.
But I think your larger point that anyone would cheer their candidate on is a good and obvious one to make.
Instead of something infuriating or frightening, here we merely have something terribly depressing. I used to like Hugh Hewitt and have appreciated his interviews, particularly with Mark Steyn, but this is so over the top on his part as to be self-parody. I suppose we should be grateful he is not going ga-ga over Huckabee. We laugh at the Democrats, but we should be weeping over our own offerings.
For those uncomfortable with Romney’s obsessiveness over his own religion (which kind of reminds me of Lieberman carrying on about his religion in 2000), please go to the Catholic http://www.faithmouse.com. Scroll down and you will find an amusing cartoon regarding it.
BTW, Catholics are generally cool on Mormonism and for good reason.
My sense of his speech is that Romney did not address any of the hard questions. For that, check out a recent Christopher Hitchen’s piece, either on Slate or his own website. In brief, Romney settled for stirring platitudes. Fine, but substitute “ROSE” (”Religion of Submission, Everywhere”) for just plain old “religion” in his speech and see how agreeable it is then.
Finally, I once spent a good amount of time studying Mormonism, going twice through the huge collection of original documents titled “Mormonism: Shadow or Reality,” a book which I think can be ordered from Amazon. This stuff is grim and ugly, and unless you can handle history in the raw — most prefer it pre-processed — I would approach it cautiously. My own conclusion was, and I have found no reason to revise it, that had the South won the Civil War, Mormonism would have unleashed to become a home-grown American Islam (which was Brigham’s original intent — to be fair, that would at least have spared us having to import them). It was a nasty cult that acquired political power and thus became a religion. My gratitude to Tom Wolfe for that insight.
My advise to Romney would have been to drop the business. Seriously people, if one can accept Mormonism, one can easily accept Mohammed flying to a Medinah on a winged horse.
I am NOT a Mitt fan. He’s a decent speaker. I don’t have a problem with him being mormon at all.
What I have a problem with is the fact that while Gov of Mass he was a borderline liberal. And now he proclaims that he never was and yet diss’s Rudy for being one.
Being from Maine I’ll never support a Massachusetts politician.
I can’t honestly say anyone has me enthralled. Not that it matters to me one way or the other. I’m an independent. I have to vote for whomever you guys decide is going to be the GOP candidate. Or toss my vote to the Libertarians out of sheer obstenancy. They usually run nutjobs but at least the nuts have the right idea. Small government. Don’t mess with my civil rights. That’s what’s important to me.
If I wanted to live in a socialist country I’d move to Denmark… anyone else see that story about the Demark ‘brain drain’ and the people getting angry that their young people are leaving rather than pay the 63% income tax? Holy Cow and I thought Maine was bad… well.. we are bad.. worst in the Nation… but still better than 63%!!!!!
Hewitt did write “10 Reasons Polygamy Should Be Legalized So I Can Marry Our Next President, Mitt Romney,” didn’t he? So it’s not much more embarassing than that.
Hugh Hewitt strongly believes that Mitt Romney is the best, most electable conservative candidate, and I’m not sure that his support for Romney deserves all of the homosexual innuendo displayed in these comments.
I mean, it’s not like he cross-dressed and allowed Donald Trump to grope him or anything.