Romney: "McCain Is Not As Conservative As Mitt Romney"

There's going to be some hard hitting on both sides in New Hampshire. McCain v. Romney in the ring, and no holds barred. McCain might even wield the folding chair.

Posted by Bryan | January 4, 2008 4:50 PM

It's not even coherent.

Posted by JC | January 4, 2008 4:52 PM

I followed it pretty well. Admittedly I have several degrees, but in my gut I feel like I would have followed it just as well right out of high school. In fact, I haven't seen a single political ad this season that I wasn't able to follow, even if I disagreed with it. Maybe I'm not angry enough yet. Perhaps if I REALLY hated Mitt as soon I could tell it was a Mitt ad, the blood would rush to my head and I would red out, and then black out and then faint, and then suffer from short term memory loss, and then think "it wasn't even coherent."

Posted by Bryan | January 4, 2008 5:02 PM

Romney ran these types of ads against Huck in iowa and their effectiveness was basically nil. I can't believe that they'll work this time. They come across as mean, desperate and trying to come across as the defender of President Bush is pretty much a nonstarter in my mind. Besides, folks in NH are probably familiar with Mitt's Romney record in the Bay State and are aware that he wasn't exactly Mr. Conservative regarding such issues when he was in the State House.

Posted by jbentley | January 4, 2008 5:09 PM

"Nil" seems a bit harsh. Considering he was able to take such a big percentage in a state that clearly loved Huckabee and his message in way that made it almost unnecessary to spend money--I would say his ads stuck a chord with many. As it happens this wasn't enough. But don't let the Mitt-hate cloud things for you. He very well might not win in NH, but unless he's at the bottom of the polls, then technically, "nil" is not correct.

Let's just chill and see where this goes. Romney will attack on issues with a smile. McCain will grimace and get pissed (after first trying to smile about it as well, and then giving up), and then attack character (crap, I changed my mind on abortion and I consider myself to be an honest person). And one of the two will win, even it's not the one we like.

Posted by Bryan | January 4, 2008 5:22 PM

Quite a tit-for-tat going on up there...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 4, 2008 6:08 PM

Maybe I am a little older than some of you. I remember every single presidential election that John McCain entered. He lost! Republicans would not support him. I won't support him. To say he is not conservative is putting it mildly. This ad is a softball and doesn't go far enough to explain McCain's sprint away from party principles and conservative ideals. I say, GO MITT! Tell it from the mountain top!

Posted by Lori | January 4, 2008 6:54 PM

The last set of pre-Iowa New Hampshire polls released today do not have very encouraging news for Romney given that he is likely to lose even more ground in the coming days.

Posted by Dan | January 4, 2008 7:15 PM

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio will campaign with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, the next battleground in the 2008 presidential race. This is the guy that tells it like it is and is against illegal immigration. He endorses Mitt Romney.

Arpaio flies to N.H. to stump for Romney
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/12/31/daily49.html

Republicans want immigration reform and hate illegal immigration/amnesty. McCain and Huck are very weak (and destructive) in this area.

Posted by Debrar | January 4, 2008 7:38 PM

The horse's mouth right here.......

I'm from NH and will be voting for Mitt next Romney next week.

Never in a million years would I vote for John Mccain.

Posted by Chris | January 4, 2008 8:21 PM

How dumb is this ad? It could have been MUCH better.

Instead of this:

"On immigration, McCain supported this year's amnesty bill.

How about this:

"On immigration, McCain WORKED WITH TED KENNEDY TO CRAFT AND INTRODUCE this year's amnesty bill.

Romney campaign: INCOMPETENT MORONS

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | January 4, 2008 8:24 PM

The Republican Party is a sick joke, and the people of this country are fed up with them.
From Nixon to Bush, and from Scooter to Larry "Toilet Stall" Craig, the Republicans have proven themselves to be a bunch of lying, corrupt, evil, perverted, over-spending crooks.
When you look at all the money Bill Clinton left this country, it makes us all cry to know that Bush spent it all.
When the money was gone, Bush went to China for help.
Just think, we owe money to China!
That is the Bush way.
Cheney is no better.
You can't trust either of them.
No one does.
Why are we in Iraq?
The war should be on terror, not in Iraq.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet Bush has spent all that money to fight "his" war.
Yes his, because many Republicans have backed off from the war.
By the way, the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. almost five hundred billion dollars.
Forget Rudy.
Rudy Giuliani is no hero.
While he is often called the hero of 9/11, the truth is that Rudy was a terrible leader during his years as mayor of New York City.
He made bad decisions and took a girlfriend while being married.
In fact, he even wanted his lover to live in the same house with his wife.
Most people would call this perverted.
New Yorkers were so sick of his antics, that they wanted him out of office.
Then came 9/11.
The only reason people call Giuliani a hero today, is because he just happened to be NYC's mayor during that bad time.
Any mayor would be looked at as a hero if they showed their face under those circumstances.
If there was no 9/11, Rudy would have become a joke.
This is not the kind of leader we want in the White House. In closing, the New York Post reported in their paper on April 23, that Giuliani spent more than $48,000 dollars of campaign money on posh hotels while claiming to have spent the least of all the Republican candidates.
Rudy is a good time leader, and does it with other people's money.
Forget Mitt.
His ads look bad.
He can't seem to get his facts right, and will say things to make himself look good.
Red flags go up around him.
I spoke with his son Tagg at the New Hampshire debates back in June (2007), and while he seemed like a nice man, Tagg could not get his facts right either.
The worst Republican as of late, though, is Larry Craig.
He is a lying pervert who wanted gay sex with a strange man on a dirty toilet seat.
He pled guilty, then said he was not guilty.
Say what?
He is another Republican moron.
Did you hear about Washington State Republican Rep. Richard Curtis?
He offered $1,000 to a young man for unprotected sex while dressed in women's lingerie.
This sort of thing just goes on and on with them.
Remember Mark Foley?
Here is a letter I wrote that was in many newspapers and Web sites:

Once again, the Republicans have turned my stomach with shocking and repulsive behavior.
Mark Foley, a Republican member (now ex-member) of Congress, has sent many e-mails with perverted sexual content to a sixteen year old boy.
This is the same man who while in Congress, backed a bill that was meant to protect children from child predators.
Foley himself, is a man who preyed on a child with lust.
What is also incomprehensible, is the fact that some Republicans knew of Foley’s behavior, and yet, did not take a hard stand against this until it became public news. If I had a teenage son and/or daughter, I would not want them to go near any Republican leader for fear of either or both becoming a victim of a sick Republican pervert.

George Vreeland Hill

There were more than three hundred such letters in newspapers in 2007 alone.
Many of them in New Hampshire.
There are thousands on the Internet.
No lie.
THOUSANDS!
This does not even include articles, ads, radio, TV and other areas where the public takes notice.
In fact, one Republican in California wanted me stopped once, because I was hurting some Republicans in their elections.
I just want to do my part in helping to get rid of every Republican scumbag.
From phone scams to the Union Leader (NH) covering up for Republicans, the garbage never ends.
But the Republican Party will end.
Did you know that George W. Bush once made fun of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
He did, and in front of some shocked people during a black-tie event in 2004.
He said.... (While looking under a piece of furniture) "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
Then, while pretending to look out of a window, Bush laughed as he said..... "Nope, no weapons over there."
While he was laughing, there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq because of WMD.
George W. Bush should be removed from office because of that alone.
Face it, Bill Clinton lied about having sex, and was impeached because of it.
George W. Bush however, did far worse, as he laughed at the very people who are fighting for the United States of America!
That about sums it all up!
(By the way, this Bush/WMD was part of an article and letter I wrote as well.)
This leads us to John McCain.
All he seems to do is attack other candidates.
His Woodstock ad against Hillary Clinton was boring and without the facts.
He tells of Hillary wanting to spend a million dollars on a museum while he (McCain) supports spending more on the war in Iraq.
He wants you to believe that the Democrats are the big spenders, while it is McCain's Republican Party that has spent all the money Bill Clinton left us to a point where Bush had to borrow money from China.
Think about that again.
We owe to China.
That is the Republican way.
Also, it must be noted that McCain even laughed at war.
Remember when McCain changed the words of a Beach Boys song to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran?
McCain even laughed when he was done.
He thought starting a war with Iran was a laughing matter.
That is the real John McCain.
He just can't be trusted.
He is another George Bush, and you know what we got with him.
The Republican Party is a mess, and getting worse.
People do not trust any of them, and we are all tired of their act.
I am doing my best to make sure that no Republican wins an election.
Thank you for your time.

George Vreeland Hill

Posted by George Vreeland Hill | January 4, 2008 8:33 PM

Thanks for the mini book, George. I think this is a good advertisement. I don't buy the contrast ads as being "attack ads". Romney was down twenty points to Huckabee in some polls before he ran his contrast "attack" ads, as the mainstream media liked to call them. They work because they expose McCain for the Democrat in Repubs clothing. He and Lieberman do go together.

Posted by DLounsbury | January 4, 2008 9:19 PM

Romney has to align himself with Bush because he decided months ago not to run as a pragmatic, moderate fiscal conservative but as a Gitmo-doubling, Christianist-pandering, warmongering theocrat. He and his consultants surveyed the GOP field, saw that Rudy was already occupying the niche that was the best fit, and decided to rebrand Willard Romney as someone he isn't. That's what you call PHONY. Nobody likes it. Especially not after 7 years of discovering just what a spectacular phony George "compassionate conserative" Bush always was.
It's been a pleasure watching Willard's political career evaporate, and I'm happy that he's chosen to dispense a portion of his personal fortune to the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Posted by tinisoli | January 4, 2008 10:14 PM

Calling Dumbya Bush a liar is like spelling New Hampshire "New Hampshire."

(Pause while loyal Bush Repiglicans try to figure that one out.)

Oh, hell, no one can wait that long.

As for amnesty, if Plastic Mitt's plastic buttocks ever make it to the Oval Office, he'll be begging for Congress to send him a bill similar to it so he can take credit for it. What's his other option - trying to deport 11-12 million people while our crops rot and his estate lawn in Massachusetts runs wild? Yeah, sure.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 4, 2008 11:45 PM

George Vreeland Hill, the third! lol. How about you sign that little message too? Maybe stamp it with your name, a little insignia maybe?

Posted by lol | January 4, 2008 11:55 PM

Democrats for Hillary:

So ready to insult, brother. This was an online article, "Arpaio flies to N.H. to stump for Romney", and not put out by the Romney campaign. If you read the article, you'd see that it was a Phoenix Business Journal post.

Eat an apple, take an aspirin, and get some sleep.

Posted by Debrar | January 5, 2008 1:57 AM

I hope Mitt does well in NH because the thought of having to not vote in November if our candidate is Huckabee or McCain is depressing. I would not vote in a million years for McCain or Huckabee.

Mitt would be the best POTUS and I can't wait to vote for him in CA no matter what place he comes in in NH or Iowa. Plus I'm not sure why McCain coming in a weak fourth in Iowa and if Huckabee comes in a weak third in NH it makes them the heir apparents for the nomination?

Anyway Huckabee used religious bigotry to get most of his votes in Iowa and McCain has two many negatives to list in this post so I'll just sum it up as he's an angry old man. And I don't trust an angry old man that close to a nuclear arsenal. His temper is a big loser trait.

Posted by sheryl | January 5, 2008 4:42 AM

I think Mitt's ads are a sign of his strength as a candidate. He has had the most negative press against him (and Hillary too according to the report) and is getting hit by all sides from the other GOP guys, yet I still find him an extremly attractive, positive person. I think he comes across as a virile man that is exceedingly capable to lead this great country as president.

Posted by sheryl | January 5, 2008 4:58 AM

Too bad Romney endorsed Mccain-Kennedy 2 years ago:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romneys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/?page=1

If you don't like Mitt's positions, just wait a few months.

Posted by Peter H | January 5, 2008 9:22 AM

McCain might not be the most conservative Republican in the history of the party, but he's got the record to prove he's light years ahead of Mitt Romney. But I guess for those who actually support Romney, it's better for him to run away from his own liberal record and flip-flops, while going negative on the other candidates. Because, heaven forbid, he actually gets the word out to more people just how many positions he's changed in order to pander to voters in this election. And if anyone has been paying attention (which judging by some of the posts in this thread, I'll say 'no') to the media, there have been several reports about how his ads misrepresent the truth, or just flat out lie. It continues to baffle me why anyone would vote for a guy who is trying to buy and lie his way to the White House.

Posted by Publius | January 5, 2008 10:20 AM

Let me get this straight; now, McCain supports securing the border first? Is this a "flip flop"? As to his foolish "immigration" bill, which he describes as not being amnesty; how would the government have gone about collecting $2000 and ensuring people speak English? Who would've decided the appropriate level of English proficiency? Who would administer the tests? What if they couldn't pass? How many tests would they be entitled to take? Would we have to tutor them? Who would audit the process? What if the "poor" immigrant cannot pay? Would we round them up? Finally, for a "small government" advocate, how did McCain expect to accomplish these tasks for upwards up 5-10 million people? How many people would it take to accomplish this "project"? Would the nation be forced to unionize the test workers and administrators and guarantee employment after completion? McCain's proposal was incredibly simplistic and (obviously) not well thought out. So, why should we make him the Republican candidate for President?

Posted by Gregory Wood | January 5, 2008 7:06 PM

Romney: "McCain Is Not As Conservative As Mitt Romney"

Comments (22)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives