Video: Romney takes a shot at Palin?

posted at 2:05 pm on May 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

I can’t quite believe he meant to be this nasty but her fans at Conservatives 4 Palin are outrageously outraged. Either way, should make for a sweet battle royal in the comments between Mittheads and Palinistas. This is reminiscent, actually, of the last time he mentioned Palin publicly, when at CPAC he made a self-deprecating joke about how much more public interest there is in her than him — while also pointedly noting her absence. I think he’s trying to be self-deprecating here too by deflecting John King’s question about why there aren’t more Republicans on Time’s “most influential” list with a joke about how ugly they all are, but it comes off like he’s calling her a lightweight whose influence derives from her “cuteness.” (Which wouldn’t be the first time a GOP candidate’s made insinuations along those lines.) If she’s the butt of the joke, though, rather than the rest of the GOP, how to explain the mention of Rush here too? Surely Romney isn’t suggesting he’s also on the list for creampuff reasons.

Politico piles on:

“She’s bigger in the media than in reality,” lamented GOP consultant Mike Murphy, a longtime friend and adviser to John McCain.

“Palin,” he said, “is the only Republican politician right now who is interesting, a little different, connected to the last campaign and related to an occasional story in the National Enquirer.”

Another GOP strategist carped, “The media is still obsessed with the Tina Fey impersonations and intra-campaign drama.”…

Palin was initially not included on the Council because she didn’t respond to requests, but Sen. John McCain said in a conference call with reporters that he hoped she would be involved with the group.

“They would rather just ignore Palin,” said Murphy of the GOP mainstream, “but the media won’t let them.”

Of course they’d rather ignore her. They’re trying to nurture a media meme that the party’s finally rebuilding; the last thing they want is to put a spotlight on Palin and then see that meme cannibalized by tabloid stories about Levi Johnston or whatever. Until that business is settled, assuming it ever is, they’re better off keeping their distance. Even so, take Murphy’s warnings with a grain of salt: He’s been a Palin naysayer since the beginning, as well as a longtime advisor to … Mitt Romney.

After you watch, enjoy this amusing clip from C4P slapping Mitt around for his possible insult to Our Lady.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

his possible insult to Our Lady

As a Catholic I’m insulted by the use of this term.

Once again, liking, admiring and respecting someone is not veneration, adoration or worshipful.

KittyLowrey on May 4, 2009 at 6:17 PM

For me Romney gives himself away when he ask if its the most influential list or the most beautiful people list and then say I guess I’m not cute enough…whatever. Palin is beautiful both inside and out. Now do I blame Romney for being frustrated? No he spent 40 million of his own dollars tryin got get elected. Sarah will probably raise close to that with SarahPac. We’re willing to do that for her. She is a true conservatives, has conviction and principles and in a world where that is sorely missing… those of us looking for that will flock to her….

CCRWM on May 4, 2009 at 6:36 PM

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 6:17 PM

You wrote “her parents” didn’t watch her and she was “knocked up in high school” or words to that effect.

As has been mentioned in previous threads, she may or may not have been pregnant at the time of her wedding. Track was born pretty soon after her wedding, but not within the first six months or so.

20-some years ago.

In the present, the only reason I even care is to highlight your idiocy- you present an argument (she was knocked up in high school!), when refuted pretend “yeah, I knew that” and move on to your next talking point.

Or practice leaving over extended periods of time.

cs89 on May 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Upi no one seems to have corrected you on this but Reagan was the Govenor of California for 8 years…

CCRWM on May 4, 2009 at 6:41 PM

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 6:17 PM

You wrote “her parents” didn’t watch her and she was “knocked up in high school” or words to that effect.

As has been mentioned in previous threads, she may or may not have been pregnant at the time of her wedding. Track was born pretty soon after her wedding, but not within the first six months or so.

20-some years ago.

In the present, the only reason I even care is to highlight your idiocy- you present an argument (she was knocked up in high school!), when refuted pretend “yeah, I knew that” and move on to your next talking point.

Or practice leaving over extended periods of time.

cs89 on May 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM

I don’t know why any of that is anyone’s business. I really detest gossip. Although if you have some about Obama I’ll listen.

petunia on May 4, 2009 at 6:44 PM

mitt wise up the conservative people in this country love palin so go back and start blasting libs if you want are support

wade underhile on May 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM

ATTENTION CALIFORNIA;

TAX REVOLT SATURDAY MAY 16 @ TOMS FARM CORONA 4-7 PM
23900 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD CORONA, CA. 92883
http://WWW.tomsfarm.com

BE THERE WE NEED MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS 15,000

MALICIOUS DISORDER on May 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM

ATTENTION CALIFORNIA;

TAX REVOLT SATURDAY MAY 16 @ TOMS FARM CORONA 4-7 PM
23900 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD CORONA, CA. 92883
http://WWW.tomsfarm.com

BE THERE WE NEED MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS 15,000

MALICIOUS DISORDER on May 4, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Thanks I’ll be there with the hubby and two kids!

CCRWM on May 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM

oh I get it, you admit she was knocked up but you dispute that she was in high school. yeah, I realize that…she was knocked up after school.

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 6:17 PM

It doesn’t have any more to do with anything than does the question of whether Mrs Romney was a virgin when she married Mitt. Mmmmmmmmmkay?

ddrintn on May 4, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Yeah, self-deprecating it was. Maybe clumsy, but Mitt’s not mean like that.

mikeyboss on May 4, 2009 at 10:09 PM

It doesn’t have any more to do with anything than does the question of whether Mrs Romney was a virgin when she married Mitt. Mmmmmmmmmkay?

ddrintn on May 4, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Well, apparently you are twisted in your morality.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that the first woman president should be a good example to the children…THE CHILDREN…we need GOOD examples to help our children…OUR CHILDREN!!!!!

Our first woman president should not be somebody who got married because she was starting to get a bigger around the waiste. KnowWhatImean??

Maybe if Bristol had a better example, she wouldve had good morals growing up as well.

If you know anything about children growing up, the learn by EXAMPLE not by WORDS. So, if a impressionable gal is being told “Hey be abstinent, you betcha *winks*” yet the girl knows the person doing the moralizing was knocked up in the back seat of a Chevy while listening to Free Bird…she doesnt take the moralizer seriously.

That is why Bristol got knocked up.

Mmmmmmmkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay?????

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM

If you know anything about children growing up, the learn by EXAMPLE not by WORDS.
The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM

I take it your kids consider anybody who disagrees with them politically to be intellectually deficient?

And spamming repetitious blog posts to be a valuable investment of time?

cs89 on May 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM

That is why Bristol got knocked up.

Mmmmmmmkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay?????

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Can you swear to the absolute sexual purity of any of the Romney clan? Or is it that in the case of the Romneys it isn’t that important? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

If you know anything about children growing up, the learn by EXAMPLE not by WORDS. So, if a impressionable gal is being told “Hey be abstinent, you betcha *winks*” yet the girl knows the person doing the moralizing was knocked up in the back seat of a Chevy while listening to Free Bird…she doesnt take the moralizer seriously.

If you know anything about children growing up, you know the parents can’t always be responsible for their children’s lousy choices. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

ddrintn on May 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM

If you know anything about children growing up, you know the parents can’t always be responsible for their children’s lousy choices. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

ddrintn on May 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM

You are partially correct…not ultimately responsible. Ultimately, a person will make his/her own choices.

Still, it is clear beyond a doubt that the percentages of having children do what is right is to have made a good example yourself. Children learn by watching, not by hearing…and kids can pick out a hypocrite very easily.

You get preggers before marriage, the liklihood that your children get preggers before marriags is dramatically increased.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM

We’d better never let a guy who’s had an affair get into the White House….
/sarc

cs89 on May 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM

You get preggers before marriage, the liklihood that your children get preggers before marriags is dramatically increased.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM

If I’m not mistaken, Nancy Davis was preggers before she married Ronnie. DISQUALIFIED!!!!!! Mmmmmkaaaaaaaaay?

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 12:23 AM

If I’m not mistaken, Nancy Davis was preggers before she married Ronnie. DISQUALIFIED!!!!!! Mmmmmkaaaaaaaaay?

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Thanks for that sample size of uh ONE. You are quite savvy with statistics.

FAIL!

The Wall on May 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Oh yeah I forgot:

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkaaaaaaaaay???????

The Wall on May 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM

FAIL!

The Wall on May 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Yes you did.

Next.

cs89 on May 5, 2009 at 9:00 AM

I hardly think Romney’s comments were a “shot”. There are a lot of influential Republicans that were excluded from the list. Once again, the media, and our own party, are going after the one candidate who is best qualified to lead this nation.

Mitt should just tell everyone to *bleep bleep*

eaglesdontflock on May 5, 2009 at 1:38 PM

If I’m not mistaken, Nancy Davis was preggers before she married Ronnie. DISQUALIFIED!!!!!! Mmmmmkaaaaaaaaay?

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Thanks for that sample size of uh ONE. You are quite savvy with statistics.

FAIL!

The Wall on May 5, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Huh? A disqualifier for Palin isn’t a disqualifier all around? You’re very savvy with logic.

FAIL!

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Once again, the media, and our own party, are going after the one candidate who is best qualified to lead this nation.

Mitt should just tell everyone to *bleep bleep*

eaglesdontflock on May 5, 2009 at 1:38 PM

The media are going after Romney? Hardly. He doesn’t pose a threat.

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM

The media are going after Romney? Hardly. He doesn’t pose a threat.

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM

That’s not what their polling says. Palin and Romney are the ones they will go after. They went after Romney with a vengeance in the primaries, and during the VP selection process.

The ticket should be Romney and Palin. We need them both.

eaglesdontflock on May 5, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Doesn’t seem like a shot at Palin to me. It wouldn’t even make sense, unless Rush got where he is due to cuteness…and I doubt you’ll find many who will try to make that case. However, with the media fawning over a shirtless Obama in the recent past, its easy to see what Mitt was really going for, if you aren’t itching for an excuse to hate him.

thecountofincognito on May 5, 2009 at 5:52 PM

You are partially correct…not ultimately responsible. Ultimately, a person will make his/her own choices.

Still, it is clear beyond a doubt that the percentages of having children do what is right is to have made a good example yourself. Children learn by watching, not by hearing…and kids can pick out a hypocrite very easily.

You get preggers before marriage, the liklihood that your children get preggers before marriags is dramatically increased.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

The Wall on May 4, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Children do learn by example, but they can also be taught that choices made by their parents in their youth may not have been the best ones and do their best to avoid those same choices. I know I did…. I was born 6 months after my parents were married – it didn’t scar me nor encourage me to have an “early birth” Our children are also influenced by their friends, media and other outside sources. Children also rebel by doing the exact opposite of their parents teachings. IF (not that it really matters) Sarah Palin was pregnant before marriage, you have absolutely no way of knowing how, when or if it was discussed in their home. You can not make an across the board judgment like that, as per an earlier posting indicating if Bristol had had better morals. That’s pretty judgmental.

You ask what kind of example would Sarah be for our children? You indicate it wouldn’t be a good example. By your analogy, most of the former presidents weren’t good examples either. We’ve had presidents that have had affairs while in office, youthful indiscretions with drugs and alcohol, multiple marriages prior to the WH etc, so NONE of these were good examples? There will never be a perfect person hold the office of President of the United States, no such person exists. Yet there can be and have been effective and strong leaders.

ladyhawke53 on May 5, 2009 at 7:44 PM

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM

The media are going after Romney in a more insidious way, which instead of rallying the base around him, as their clumsy attacks on Sarah do, drive them away. Anyone notice the comments when the Boston Globe claimed Mitt was now endorsing comprehensive immigration reform? Turns out that was baseless. I didn’t notice any big post about Romney’s response the paper later printed stating it never happened and his position on the issue hasn’t changed at all. Then this, going through mental gymnastics to try and paint this anti-Democrat comment as a shot at Palin to make Romney look like a jerk.

Who do they REALLY fear?

thecountofincognito on May 5, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Way Cool! That C4P clip smacking down Mitt for smacking down Sarah made national news on Politico and Chris Matthew’s Hardball show. It’s gone Viral!

Who wants to bet that Olby piles on the bandwagon given he can’t resist any chance to get in a dig at Sarah? Then again, Olby might be one of those “girlie-men” who would get spooked by viewing the video. Remember how Olby had a hissy fit over the turkey video?

sarahpalinfan99 on May 5, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Then this, going through mental gymnastics to try and paint this anti-Democrat comment as a shot at Palin to make Romney look like a jerk.

Who do they REALLY fear?

thecountofincognito on May 5, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Sarah Palin. They feared Romney more than McCain. But the media will be in love with him by 2011. And easy mark, again.

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

I didn’t really see Romney take a shot at Palin. Obviously he thinks HE is a more prominent republican than Sarah. What’s wrong with that?

He is not entitled to his opinion?

Borislav on May 5, 2009 at 10:53 PM

ddrintn on May 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Well, then I guess we’re in for an additional four more years of Obama, if the only one they fear is one they’ve already beaten. That sucks.

thecountofincognito on May 5, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Well, then I guess we’re in for an additional four more years of Obama, if the only one they fear is one they’ve already beaten. That sucks.

thecountofincognito on May 5, 2009 at 11:06 PM

We’ll probably be in for four more years in any case. But she hasn’t been beaten any more than Romney has been beaten. If she were beaten, she would be totally off their radar screen now. She isn’t, believe me.

ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 12:31 AM

I didn’t really see Romney take a shot at Palin. Obviously he thinks HE is a more prominent republican than Sarah. What’s wrong with that?

He is not entitled to his opinion?

Borislav on May 5, 2009 at 10:53 PM

If he thinks that, he’s delusional.

ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Honestly, though, my hunch is that Romney will be the nominee in 2012, and he’ll be demolished. Palin will run and win in 2016.

ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 12:36 AM

ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 12:36 AM

The economy would have to be pretty rosey for Obama to demolish Romney.

thecountofincognito on May 6, 2009 at 12:44 AM

Fact: Nancy Reagan was “knocked up” or preggars before she was married to Ron. She was two months pregnant so all the holier than thous conservatives should remember this when they are passing judgement. Just sayin.

AReadyRepub on May 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4