Mitt Romney Hates Liberals

November 3, 2008 at 7:54 am | Posted in American politics | 9 Comments

Wow, I just watched Mitt Romney on the Today Show just now. He was there as a counter to Caroline Kennedy, an Obama supporter. Caroline was quite respectful, actually answering the questions that Matt Lauer had for her. Then Meredith Viera talked with Romney. He never really answered the questions Meredith asked him. For example, when the question was whether or not McCain’s campaign was dignified as McCain ran about 80% negative ads during the campaign, Romney did not answer the question, but instead talked about Barack Obama’s negative ads, and then entered a talking points piece, covering the usual attacks on Obama—bad for America on taxes, jobs, security. I was struck with how easily Romney shifted around instead of answering the question. Meredith actually had to repeat her question three times, and still no answer.

But what struck me as really rude and uncouth of Romney was his answer to the final question. Meredith asked him if he thought McCain could pull an upset. He answered that he thought he could. And then added, “I hope all those Obama supporters who are going to Chicago to the park to celebrate with Obama have a long cold night.” And laughed.

I thought, wow. There’s real hate there. It just saddens me. I guess it comes down to expectations again.

Advertisements

9 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. I thought Romney’s point on the negative ads was a good one. Because of the sheer volume of Obama’s TV ad buys attacking McCain, Obama is running the most negative campaign in the history of American politics. Ever.

  2. Kathy,

    That’s faulty logic. The question is how many of McCain’s ads are negative compared to how many of Obama’s ads are negative. The question isn’t the frequency of ads, but of the negativity of ads. Take for instance the “celebrity” ad. That ad may not have played much at all, but its extreme negativity far outweighed a comparable (if that’s possible) Obama negative ad. The purpose of McCain’s extreme negative ads (like the kindergarten sex ed ad) is not to air it frequently, but to get it salacious enough so that everyone talks about them. In terms of negative ads, which ones had more potency? McCain’s? or Obama’s? Clearly McCain went much more negative, and much more nasty than Obama ever did.

    This is something Romney will never acknowledge because he too would do the same as McCain. The Republican party has lost its way.

  3. Daniel,
    Absolutely agree with you on all counts. I just watched the segment on the MSNBC news site and was immediately struck with how much I disliked his attitude and I see it hasn’t changed much from his lovely speech at the RNC. How people can’t see these 8th grade politicians and vote for them repeatedly, I’ll never fully understand. So, I googled his words to see if anyone else caught his pomposity and came up with your blog. I think his comments were full of hot air and I was continually thinking, HELLO!!!!! Answer the QUESTION, please, or can’t you understand a simple question??
    Sigh.
    Definitely a BIG sigh for others more eloquent having to put up with such nonsense as Meredith did.

  4. I didn’t think I could be any more embarrassed to be related to the clown.

  5. Daniel, I respectfully submit that your assessment of Kathy’s logic completely misses the mark. Like Meredith Viera, you have deflected attention from the primary issue. Viera’s question was based on an intentional misrepresentation of the Wisconsin Ad Project report (made even more egregious since the preceding intereview with Carolina Kennedy made the distinction between percentage of negative ads vs. real number of negative ads). Based on the actual number of negative ads, the question would have been better posed to the Obama campaign. Also, your contention that it is the degree of negativity which is the sole factor to be considered is disingenuous on several levels. First, although the Wisconsin Project does code content, that data was not part of the study release and any contention regarding the comparable content from each campaign is based on purely personal anecdotal evidence. Further, degree of negativity is largely subjective based on one’s worldview. The fact is that in the four common markets compared by the Wisconsin report, Obama ran approximately 56% more ads but only trailed McCain by 16% in the negative ad percentage overall. Repetition is at least as effective, if not more effective, than content in the exercise of persuasion. Admittedly, Romney handled the question badly, but I think it is more than mitigated by Viera’s obviously partisan motives. Let’s let the people make a decision based on facts, not intentional, calculated misrepresentations.

  6. Slight correction…Obama ran approximately 44% more ads in the common markets studied than McCain.

  7. Mark,

    The reason why you judge by percentage over volume is because election campaigns are inherently unequal in funds. Rare do you find an election where candidates stand on equal grounds financially, despite the best efforts of some. Frankly, I don’t want public financing anymore of an election. Let the candidates work for their money. That’s a side issue, though. The point is that it is not Obama’s fault that he got more money and could run his ads more frequently. You’re seriously not going to tell me that if McCain had the same amount of money, he would have tempered his negative ads and not run as much as he had. That’s why you don’t judge by volume, but by percentage.

    As for Viera, she’s really not that good, and as far as her political leanings are concerned, she is conservative. You can see her partisan leanings when she has a Democrat on.

  8. Daniel, you’ve missed the point. Equality or inequality among the campaigns is irrelevant. What matters is real-world effect and effect is largely determined by volume. I could ask the reverse question, do you seriously think that if Obama had less money that he would have run fewer negative ads, but it doesn’t matter. That question, like the comparable percentages of negative ads is an academic question, not practical. What matters is what potential voters see and hear. In any event, the original comment dealt with the politically charged question asked by Viera. And while I agree that Viera is not that good (only one step below Couric), to say that she is conservative is like saying that Vladimir Putin is a democratic reformer.
    Have a good night watching returns. Despite it all, I think you’ll be happier at the end of the night than I. In the end, may the winner be the US.

  9. Mark,

    Let me ask you, how many of Obama’s negative ads do you remember? How many of McCain’s negative ads do you remember?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: