Rachel Maddow touted this on Twitter, saying “This ad will live forever — every other candidate can just pop themselves in at the end once Huntman’s out…”
I guess she means, “every other candidate except Romney.”
Me, I’m the eternal optimist. I think, This is the kind of ad that should give Huntsman a chance — if enough people see it.
I continue to believe — and am glad to entertain y’all’s observations to the contrary — that Jon Huntsman offers the GOP its best chance to provide a credible alternative to President Obama that independents and UnPartisans can seriously consider.
I’d put Romney in that category, too, except for the problem that this ad so ably points out. A problem I was talking about four years ago as well.
Related Posts
IMHO candidates lose points for attack ads and lose them quickly. This ad doesn’t even claim a position on anything. It’s pure attack. I had a higher opinion of Huntsman.
Well, now, that’s the dilemma, isn’t it — Huntsman can continue to stand at the far end of the podium and never get called on in debates and assure himself that he is a gentleman, or he can (in a perfectly straightforward, honest, calm and gentlemanly manner) point out some rather obvious problems with the OTHER more-or-less reasonable guy whom so many regard as the once and future front-runner.
There’s nothing wrong in pointing out why your opponent won’t do, not when it’s done this matter-of-factly and without malice.
The harshest thing Huntsman says is “perfectly lubricated weather vane.” He also says “missing in action” in terms of providing leadership.
The rest of the ad, he simply gives you Romney’s own words…
This is an old debate, by the way — a candidate SHOULD point out why he should be the candidate and not his opponent, and part of that is pointing out the flaws with the opponent.
The problem with “negative campaigning” is when it’s twisted and misleading.
Of course it’s some of those same inconsistencies that allow moderates and centrists not to totally despair at the thought of a Romney Presidency. That is to say, most of those flip-flops are on topics where he wants to make himself more palatable to the radicals on the right that seem to dominate the debate during primary season. The hope would be that, were he actually elected, Romney would revert to the slightly more moderate that he is. Still, he has said some appalling things lately, most notably that Citadel foreign policy speech.
Huntsman is as serious a candidate for 2012 as Fred Thompson was for 2008, when Fred’s transparent purpose was to assure the Republican party choice (John McCain) got the nomination. Huntsman was also a McCain supporter at the time.
There was just one problem. Since the 1991 “Keating Five” investigation granted McCain absolution, McCain has been a captive RINO beholden to the Dem party.
Anyone else notice how often Republican lawyers are often flip floppers, while Democrat lawyers are steadfast? That’s because Republican lawyers are without exception RINOs.
Conservatives seem to be well aware of the RINO factor, and prefer non-lawyers like Trump, Cain, and Perry. At this time, Cain has surprising momentum.
When SC liberals who vote in the Republican primary try to tell conservatives which candidates have the best chance, we laugh at your transparency. Very entertaining nevertheless!
” a candidate SHOULD point out why he should be the candidate and not his opponent, ”
Sure… a 90 second spot (normally 30 seconds) will be sufficient to explain the policy differences between two candidates.
You have a very low expectation of the intelligence of the voters. Most (if not all) negative ads are spun with half-lies, exagerations, and pure untruths.
You’ve bought into the “game” of politics hook, line, and sinker. It’s not always about crafting a message.
Huntsman has zero chance to win. He has zero chance to finish in the top four in any primary. To waste time waxing philosophically about what a great Republican candidate he is for Democrats and left-leaning independents is a waste of time. It would be the same as talking up Dennis Kucinich as a primary opponent for Obama.
As in when you use snippets of talk taken out of context, or when you use a turning weather vane to imply that a person has no steady direction? No. Politics is not going to appeal to statesmen until it gets out of the mire, and begins sensible and civil debate. This add has nothing to contribute, and it’s unnecessary–plenty of the other candidates have pointed out various apparent Romney flips.
I like Huntsman best, which is the best indicator that he doesn’t stand a chance of the nomination in this climate.
It’s not an “attack” ad in the sense of Willie Horton or McCain’s love child, and it is pretty much just factual.
This ad points out everything we or most of us already know about Romney. He does change his position(s) on issues depending on the current political climate. It does beg a question or query though. Do we want a leader who is not willing to change his or her mind on issues when change MAY be in the best interest of all?
Certainly, we didn’t want a Robert Byrd to continue serving in the senate when if he was still a member of the KKK. He changed his mind on race issues and became a champion for racial equality. Thurmond changed his mind, so did Hollings.
I may not be a staunch Romney supporter but at this point, considering the grotesque caricature of the political scene we have in front of us now, he is no better nor is he any worse than any of the rest, including Obama.
We have an absolute dearth of leadership in this country, especially the ones hiding inside the walled Beltway enclave, who fancy themselves to be the saviors of the nation when in action and deed, they are continuing to contribute to the downfall and deterioration of our country.
The anger, vitriol, and total disrespect for each other is palpable and the rhetoric by members of both parties and especially when Hilda Solis,a cabinet member, used the disgusting term, “teabagger” to describe members of the Tea Party during a speech in Florida this past Saturday.
I am far beyond holding out any hope for the next 4 or 5 years if what we have before us are our only choices.
The only hope is to vote for the Democrats at all levels of government. The problem with the Democrats is that they don’t fight. The problems with the GOP is they are wrong on all the issues. Plus they are just so completely bizarre in their temperment and demeanor.
“The only hope is to vote for the Democrats at all levels of government.” bud
Where is an “ignore” button when you need it?
@Bart– The “ignore” button on my computer is the space bar–it automatically moves me down the page.;)
@ Kathryn – Are you acting as the “amicus curiae” on bud’s behalf now? 🙂
“Est modus in rebus” – Horace
When we hold to a belief than only one party or political doctrine as being the only answer, thus fomenting the belief that their manifesto should dictate the fate of all, we then become a nation of subordinates. A population of individuals who are unthinking, uncaring, and unable to make decisions contrary to the dictates of the few who eventually occupy the highest positions of power.
When I read comments like the one bud wrote, it reminds me of the potential of this nation becoming just what I described. If we refuse to consider there must be balance among all things whenever possible, then we open the door to accepting a realm of extremism, either one way or the other. The inability to recognize the need for balance is a dangerous thing and should be avoided at all costs. Democrats simply do not have all of the right answers just as Republicans are not always wrong. To state that is the height of hyperbole and hubris.
It is the where to “draw the line” between extremes that is missing and so far, neither side has been able to demonstrate enough restraint to warrant trust when making decisions and laws.
“According to a Roll Call analysis of Congress members’ financial disclosure forms, the collective net worth of American lawmakers jumped 25 percent to over $2 billion in just the last two years — with 50 of the richest Congressmen and women accounting for 90 percent of the increase.” 6 of the top 10 wealthiest Congressmen are Democrats.”
Neither party is better than the other. They are all self-serving crooks… and the longer they stay in office, the worse the behavior becomes.
According to a Roll Call analysis of Congress members’ financial disclosure forms, the collective net worth of American lawmakers jumped 25 percent to over $2 billion in just the last two years
Hard work and perseverance.
Hey, that’s great to know, because I sure have been trying hard. But oops! I seem to have misplaced my $2 billion. Guess I wasn’t worthy…
Doug, if you don’t know plenty of people who illustrate that sometimes people who work hard get ahead and sometimes they don’t, and sometimes people who don’t work hard get ahead and sometimes they don’t, then absolutely nothing I’m going to tell you is going to help here.
And I’m not going to name all the people I personally know who illustrate this, in a variety of lines of work. As for public figures you and I would both know, I don’t know whom I’ve observed closely enough to judge their work performance. I mean, I ASSUME Warren Buffett works pretty hard, but I don’t know it. At the same time, I also know that there are plenty of factory workers and maids and construction workers who work as hard a human can work, but make far less than a thousandth what he does.
I really, truly don’t understand why it’s hard for you and Bud to get outside of your absolutist positions and see that human activity is complex, and results from many, many factors.
In my own life, I have had all sorts of ups and downs — times when I was working myself into complete exhaustion and everything was going wrong (I particularly remember a couple of periods like that in the 80s), and other times everything I did was right and obstacles fell before me as though they had never existed.
I see this in other people’s lives as well — the people whose lives I know well enough to say.
I just don’t know why it has to be all one way or all the other with the two of you.
Like I said, give me an example of a successful person who has not worked to achieve that success. I didn’t say that hard work GUARANTEES success. But I do believe that you cannot luck your way to success as bud claims.. Particularly his lubricous claim that the most successful people are a result of 99% luck.. That is just unsupportable. How much of your career would you credit with just plain old luck?
Try walking around your office and telling people they are lucky to have their job. Or tell your boss that luck is the only thing keeping you from sitting in his chair.
Bart you misunderstand me. I don’t fawn over the Democrats as some groupie would over the appearance of Justin Bieber. They have plenty of problems, mainly the lack of a spine. But the GOP has become such an extremist organization that to allow them to control the reigns of government is unthinkable. For now the only viable option to this lunatic bunch is the Democrats. Once we rid the world of GOP influence then we can build a better Democratic party and perhaps even see the rise of a sensible GOP once again. But for now I stand by my comment that the Democrats represent our only real hope for a prosperous, peaceful America.
How much of your career would you credit with just plain old luck?
-Doug
About 10-15%.