According to the LA Times and WSJ, Mitt Romney has run the first negative ad of the 2008 Campaign (is this accurate?) — Against Mike Huckabee. Have a look.

I can’t help but add that this approach (for Romney) seems a bit ironic and risky — given the fact that it’s pretty well known that he has (apparently) hired illegal immigrants to take care of his lawn. Seems like Huckabee could create counter-ads that really hit Romney hard on immigration (for hypocrisy) — but does Huckabee have the $$$?


  1. se7en December 11, 2007 at 7:01 pm - Reply

    You kidding me?

    I would better characterize it as a ‘contrast’ ad, but anyone see Fred Thompson’s campaign ad at the GOP YouTube/CNN Debate? I know it wasn’t broadcast as a commercial, but it was an advertisement that was negative on Romney, Huckabee, (& Rudy w/ extended version).

    I have no problem with Thompson’s ad, but to say Romney’s is the first negative ad is ridiculous. It simply contrasts each other’s records with facts. Huckabee could do the same thing with facts to make Romney look bad.

  2. John Hamer December 11, 2007 at 7:17 pm - Reply

    It is a hit ad and it’s also a lie. Huckabee didn’t support scholarships for illegal immigrants. He supported giving scholarships to American citizens. It may well be that the parents of those citizens were illegal immigrants, but that’s neither here nor there — the constitution made those children citizens. For that we can blame the founding fathers or we can amend the constitution.

    Romney is arguing that we should punish children for the crimes of their parents. It’s like saying “Huckabee gave a scholarship to the son of a convicted murderer!” Oh my! The crimes of the parents have nothing to do with the rights of the children. Rather, since they are citizens, it would benefit us all to help them advance and assimilate so that we don’t create some kind of permanent underclass that we would have to support by welfare.

  3. Ty December 11, 2007 at 7:20 pm - Reply

    This has been billed as an “attack” ad, but it’s not. I agree with the previous comment: it’s a “contrast” ad. Huckabee as frankly admitted that what is shown here is true and he still supports those propositions. Iowa voters have a right to understand the contrast between the two candidates. If they still prefer Huckabee, fine. But in one of the few states where illegal immigration is *the* concern on the minds of voters, this was a smart move on Romney’s part.

  4. Paula December 11, 2007 at 8:59 pm - Reply

    I had heard about the “attack” ads, but I agree– this is really mild compared to the stuff we saw in the last campaign here in San Diego. If this is as bad as it gets, I’ll be happy.

  5. Jana December 11, 2007 at 9:15 pm - Reply

    hey john, just a note on your language: referring to undocumented immigrants as “illegals” is a racial slur (tho a mild one)…

  6. Mark D. December 11, 2007 at 10:57 pm - Reply

    “Illegals” is a racial slur? That is ridiculous. Were these individuals born with the disposition to break the law?

  7. gerb December 11, 2007 at 11:35 pm - Reply

    Jana, “illegals” is the correct definition.

  8. John Dehlin December 12, 2007 at 12:46 am - Reply


    What’s a better term? I changed to illegal immigrants….

    Let me know a better term.


  9. John Hamer December 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm - Reply

    Probably “undocumented immigrants” is the best thing to say.

  10. Equality December 14, 2007 at 11:55 am - Reply

    How about “differently citizenized”?

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.