Romney takes the low road, attacks Clintons on ‘family values’

October 26, 2007

It was only a matter of time before a Republican presidential hopeful went there; Mitt Romney decided to go first.

Mitt Romney’s message to “family values” voters: Don’t let the Clintons anywhere near the Oval Office again.

Although Republican presidential candidates have been merrily mocking Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s policy leanings, Romney took the rare step of alluding to the Bill Clinton sex scandal.

Asked by a guest at a New Hampshire house party how he would instill family values as President, Romney said he’d lead by example.

“One of the ways that you help instill, if you will, family values is by having a White House be a place that demonstrates family values,” Romney said. “And, you know, I think during the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation’s character.”

This strikes me as misguided, for a few reasons. First, I haven’t seen any polling data on this, but I really doubt voters still care about the Lewinsky scandal a decade later. Indeed, there was scant evidence voters cared about the scandal at the time.

Second, I have no idea why anyone would go after Hillary Clinton because of Bill Clinton’s mistake.

And third, if Romney really wants to go after a rival candidate over “family values,” he’s picked the wrong target.

The other day, Matt Yglesias asked a question that I’ve been mulling over for a while.

A journalist friend of mine saw this story about Alan Placa and assumed that the news that Rudy Giuliani has long employed a known child molester must be breaking news. After all, if that had come out earlier, surely it would have destroyed him by now. I was trying to explain that, no, he’d weathered this unscathed because . . . but I really can’t come up with anything. Where are you Fred Thompson? Mitt Romney? Doesn’t someone think the GOP needs to be involved in fewer sordid sex scandals?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

It’s a reminder that this campaign cycle, at least thus far, has been surprisingly mild. Romney wants to blast someone for demonstrating poor character and moral judgment, but he skips right over the thrice-married serial adulterer who happens to be his leading rival for the Republican nomination.

In fact, I’d argue that Giuliani is leading the GOP field in large part because the most serious charge his Republican competitors have levied is that he’s opposed to the line-item veto. The former mayor’s record is brimming with scandals, large and small, but the field just isn’t willing to go there.

If Romney is prepared to start slinging some mud at Bill Clinton, who isn’t running, it would certainly make more sense to start targeting the more obvious choice. That he isn’t suggests one of two things: either a) the Republican field is big enough that they don’t want a repeat of Dean-Gephardt (two leading candidates tear each other down, allowing others to pass them both); or b) the last few weeks before Iowa and New Hampshire are going to get really ugly, when all the dirt starts flying at once.

Stay tuned.

All the Republicans candidates know that all the Republican candidates are losers and any of the Democratic candidates would be a winner. Ergo, if you want to sling some dirt, sling it at someone who is Constitutionally prevented from being in the race.

  • I think Romney knows he’s going to loose and wants a job with Rudy’s admin. Plus, they attack Clinton because the base loves it.

  • I think we should give Mitt a break here. Much as his sons tooling around in his campaign is equal to service in Iraq, his slinging mud about something no one cares about is completely equal to military service.

    Seriously, this is one of the reasons most of the Republican candidates seem to be bonkers. They’re literally playing a media game with no connection to real issues and real people. They’re living inside this bizarre bubble.

    Sadly, lots of people are in the bubble to. But worrying over Bill Clinton’s genitals never saved a life, balanced the budget, or ended a war.

  • Mitt Romulan is afraid of Guliani but he has to beat the Family Values drum to distract Das Base from the fact that a certain someone was governor of Massachussets [sic] when it unleashed the spectre of gay marriage upon America and destroyed civilization. (You have to look close to see the cracks, but it’s true!)

    I also think its amusing that after years of ReThuglican carping about Hilary being a ball-buster, Mittens seems to suggest that Bill’s behavior was something she could or should have controlled.

    However, he may have accidentally hit on a solution to the Democrat’s (or at least HRC’s) NASCAR Dad problem because I’m sure not a few of them wish their first wives had been so understanding.

  • How humorous that Mitt has to step over all the sordid sexual perversions in his own party to be able to cross the aisle to throw a little mud at a 10 year old dead horse of a scandal. Mitt should get a serious case of irony poisoning from that.

  • Oh well, I don’t see much discussion even here in the “Reality-Based” Community about Hillary’s record in the Senate –which is what I thought was a major part of choosing a candidate. I could care less about Willard’s hard-on for Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair. I’d much rather engage in political discourse on Hillary’s record (or any of the candidates) than bigoted slurs.

    And if you want to talk about a damning story about Rudolf W. Giuliani, how about the “scoop-and-dump” operation that he ordered as mayor that tossed 9/11 victims’ remains from the World Trade Center in the garbage? NeoCon scum.

  • Wow. The molestation charges are good enough for the church to penalize him:

    While no longer allowed to perform priestly duties or appear in public as a priest, Placa continues to maintain a residence at a church rectory in Great Neck on New York’s Long Island.

    And the reason the molestation charges weren’t pursued against him after the cases were brought before a grand jury was because the statute of limitations had run out. Sounds like there’s a case to send this guy to prison, absent the statute of limitations.

  • I haven’t seen any polling data on this, but I really doubt voters still care about the Lewinsky scandal a decade later. Indeed, there was scant evidence voters cared about the scandal at the time.

    Second, I have no idea why anyone would go after Hillary Clinton because of Bill Clinton’s mistake.

    You have no idea because you’re thinking like a rational person. You’re not thinking like a media-fed idiot or the jackals who feed those idiots scandalous tidbits in order to help their masters sell crap.

    Of course it matters that Bill clinton had an affair ten years ago, because it’s MUCH easier to giggle about that and play inuendo games all day long about cigars and blue dresses than it is to actually do… real reporting.

    Nobody with a brain cared about the affair back when it was first revealed, but that didn’t slow down the media one bit. They don’t care what the people with brains think. They only care about what the idiots who get into that stuff think, because they’re the dumbasses who buy all the crap in the commercials.

    The blow-dried bimbos who hold court over us from the other end of the tube weren’t selected because they have brains and want to know anything that really matters. What matters to their bosses is that they’re good looking, that they have nice legs, and that their teeth are perfect. What matters is that they help the corporate advertisers sell shit to the people who can be manipulated, not that they inform the people who can’t be manipulated.

  • But the Repub base, which is all that counts at the moment, knows Hillary Clinton is a murdering lesbo and only Mitt Romney has the “courage” to allude to it.

  • Oh well, I don’t see much discussion even here in the “Reality-Based” Community about Hillary’s record in the Senate –which is what I thought was a major part of choosing a candidate. -JKap

    No, silly. Name recognition and vicarious ‘experience’ are of utmost importance, and anyone who doesn’t realize this and pledge to support Hillary no matter what is a traitor.

    Pay no attention to the war drums.

  • So, then, I guess Mitt thinks there’s nothing to lose in having people wonder just what a Mormon means when he says “family values”. Good to know.

  • No sense talking about those things that allow one to have a family. Little things like a decent job, health care, a secure retirement, affordable higher education or clean air and water.

  • I dunno. I think Romney is implicitly swiping at “divorce on steroids” Giuliani and to, a lesser extent, Thompson married to a woman younger than his daughter. Certainly, if a media outlet reported Romney’s comments and also mentioned Giuliani’s issues, I doubt the Romney campaign would mind. Hitting the Clintons is safe for Republicans; directly swiping at his competitors in the primary is more risky since Republican primary voters may punish him for it.

  • ““One of the ways that you help instill, if you will, family values is by having a White House be a place that demonstrates family values,” Romney said. “And, you know, I think during the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation’s character.””

    Just taking this statement by itself – I don’t see anything wrong with it. There’s certainly nothing wrong with “family values,” unless it’s a code word for hating gays or something. And we expect our leaders to set an example for the people. And Clinton’s reckless philandering certainly didn’t set a positive example. If that’s as far as Romney’s going to take it, I don’t have a problem.

    I don’t think he’s crossed the line – yet, if this is all there is.

  • If Giuliani wins the GOP nomination, maybe the Dems will figure out a way to make Alan Placa the Willie Horton of 2008.

    Of course, in light of the fact that a substantial percentage of the US population is somewhat to very racist, that would be much easier to do if Placa had black or dark brown skin. But you go to war with the villains you have, not the villains you want.

  • Republican family values are defined as killing as many Iraqi familes as you can.

  • Romney takes the low road, attacks Clintons on ‘family values’

    Republicans read this and say, “There’s a high road????”

    Mormon Family Values: No Unwed 14-year old Girl Left Behind Act.

  • First, don’t assume that Romney was just going after Bill. Talk to the Clinton’s former security team and they have stories to tell you about Hillary’s gross immorality.

    Second, immorality in the White House is an abuse of power!

    Third, I applaud Mitt for recognizing the need for the President of the United States to properly represent the American people and our values.

  • Kasey, I don’t have access to Hillary’s former security team to have them dish about Hillary’s “gross immorality.” Do you? I’m trying to think about what’s so grossly immoral that she might have done. Funny I didn’t hear about anything like that, but then again I suspect you (Kasey) and I hang out in different circles.

  • Funny I didn’t hear about anything like that, but then again I suspect you (Kasey) and I hang out in different circles. -President Lindsay

    Kasey probably read all about it in an email forward.

  • kasey’s been drinking a bit too much kool-aid lately.

    and let’s not be using the terms “our values” when referring to mittens. his “values” are not mine.

  • I’ve been waiting all week for Mittens to come out into the light of day with this one. We’ve just had our third visit of the week from tag-teams of LDS “sisters” promoting “family values.”

    Where, oh where did the Jay-Dubs go? I’ve not had a copy of Watchtower stuffed in my face for several months now. I guess the Mormons must’ve cooked them and eaten them….

  • I do enjoy the cognitive dissonance that must ensue when any pearl-clutching Republican Moralist contemplates voting for an individual, Rudy, whose personal life is by any standard several orders of magnitude scuzzier than Bill Clinton’s.

  • Just taking this statement by itself – I don’t see anything wrong with it. There’s certainly nothing wrong with “family values,” unless it’s a code word for hating gays or something.

    Are you being ironic or deliberately obtuse? “Family values” and “values voters” are indeed code words. Is Romney going to try and maintain that adultery is practiced only by Clinton? Does adultery not occur in Republican families? Is adultery ok for wingnuts but only Democrats can be held accountable for this transgression? In point of fact there is something wrong with “family values”. It is nothing more than empty propaganda designed to mislead and distract gullible primary voters from the real concerns that face everyone in this nation: the illegal invasion or Iraq, the outrageously high debt this nation carries, the destruction of the middle class, the arrogance and stupifying malfeasance of this administration, and an economy that benefits only the few while most everyone else toils and loses more ground every year that passes. And Romney thinks that bashing Hillary because Bubba wouldn’t keep his damn pants on is winning issue??

    Republicans are retards.

    • Comments are closed.