Serious human beings

posted at 7:00 pm on July 17, 2010 by Doctor Zero

Even as the starting bell rings for the first round of the Republican presidential free-for-all, we’ve got a couple of anonymous Mitt Romney advisors coming off the top rope, aiming elbow smashes at Sarah Palin’s back.  They said she’s “not a serious human being” and “if she’s standing up there in a debate, and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

This childish and incoherent nonsense does a lot more damage to Mitt Romney than Sarah Palin.  What, exactly, are the criteria for being considered a “serious human being?”  Should she just give up her half-hearted attempts at humanity and drop dead?  I would think raising a Downs-syndrome child would earn her a certain degree of automatic credit for seriousness.  It’s certainly not the kind of thing a frivolous human being would do.  Romney should begin his campaign by firing anyone who maintains a Daily Kos diary.

The crack about fifteen-second debate answers is slightly more coherent, but utterly ridiculous.  Anybody who can rock a sitting Presidential administration with Facebook posts has nothing to prove to the faceless minions of a voiceless bystander to the ObamaCare drama.

The contenders for the GOP nomination will need to take some shots at each other, but they need to do it without questioning the very humanity of prospective candidates who haven’t even declared yet.  In case the Romney machine hasn’t noticed, Palin is popular with the Tea Party folks, who will be producing much of the grassroots energy during the 2012 election.  Slouching into agreement with the laziest media caricatures of Big Mama Grizzly is not going to impress them.

Let me offer Romney, and the other GOP contenders hoping to climb into the steel cage with him and Palin, what we’re looking for in a serious candidate.

This election will not be fought over the fine details of a few specific pieces of legislation.  It will not be a contest to find someone who can escort an unpopular Barack Obama from the White House, then trot back inside and continue shoveling trillions of dollars into the deficit furnace.  We don’t need a national CPA to provide a lecture on deficit reduction during his inauguration, then return for a State of the Union speech in which he explains spending cuts are pretty much impossible, while forklifts roll in with massive new tax packages.  We have no use for someone who thinks ObamaCare is an awesome machine that just needs a new transmission and some mag wheels to reach its potential.

We are about to conduct an election about the very philosophy of our government.  It is our last chance to avoid the Great Crash which Obama has brought to our doorsteps… but which would have lurked twenty or thirty years in the future even without him.  The Obama presidency has begun a fundamental transformation of the relationship between Americans and their government.  The groundwork for this transformation was laid over many years, by politicians from both parties.  Government bloat has accumulated for decades.  The State isn’t really changing all that much under Barack Obama.  It’s working to change us.

To reverse this process, we must reach farther back than the administrations of George Bush or Bill Clinton.  We are being crushed by engines of regulation, taxation, and corruption that were designed in the first decades of the last century.  We’re approaching the end of the story that began during the New Deal.  It won’t be good enough to merely rewind the tape a few years.  Even such a half-hearted measure, simply returning us to where George Bush left us, would be the most spectacular reduction of State power in our entire history… and it wouldn’t be good enough.

The Republican candidate for president must be determined and sober about the magnitude of the change facing us, but also able to draw strength from an enduring belief in the spirit and capability of the American people.  It’s not hard to be a “happy warrior” when you stand in the front ranks of such a mighty force.  Our candidate must understand the fatal flaws of Obama’s ideology, not just the weaknesses of individual bills he has supported.  A comprehensive knowledge of America’s socialist history, from inception to its current death throes, will be required.  The Republican candidate must be able to explain why individual Americans will succeed, where the State has failed.  It will be necessary to describe the love of liberty to a people who don’t universally share it.  They must learn to celebrate freedoms judged too dangerous for their feeble minds by the Democrat Party.  They must learn to focus their will against a leviathan State that has no intention of dying quietly.  Like Sarah Palin, they must be ready for their very humanity to be questioned, through dark insinuations of greed and racism.

We certainly do need some serious people to apply for the Oval Office job that will be opening in 2013.  Mitt Romney disqualified himself when he failed to speak out against ObamaCare.  Next, please.

Cross-posted at www.doczero.org.

Doctor Zero: Year One now available from Amazon.com!


This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

Maybe he needs new advisers – you know some serious human beings ;)

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM

LOL–”advisers” can’t help him, even serious human beings, because he comes off as a ‘droid.

Did I forget to mention that’s he boring?
He also takes forever to answer a question and then still doesn’t really answer it (as with his “side of favoring life” answer sharrukin noted above)–just like Oilbama.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

She can do it with the support of the masses -just dump her hyusband, marry a black man,while annouoncing gay tendencies, claim minorty(female mixed-marriage ac/dc victimhood as a candidate) and buy two 15 minute capable telprompters. Practice the more humble curtsy to defuse our enemies and refuse to go on Fox news and announce to the world that Chrissy Matthews sends thrills up her leg and she’s a shoe in.

Her theme should be kept simple like Obama did with Hope and change -I’d suggest the favorite of every fourth grader “unfairness”(which also seems to be the average voter’s view of life)

And they thought that this system of “democracy” would work?

Don L on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

I merely answered your question.
You didn’t say anything about “circumstances.”
Jenfidel

Wasn’t my question, Jenfidel, I was just adding to the thoughtline.

whatcat on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Sorry, whatcat! It was Dr Evil’s question–you’re right.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Did I forget to mention that’s he boring?
Jenfidel

Boring and slick. Not an attractive combo in a candidate.

whatcat on July 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM

I agree about Sarah and Flip Flopney, but other than that, I don’t know what you’re trying to say.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 12:53 PM

We don’t need another Progressive President, No matter how they try to nuance their Progressive agenda. With Bush it was “Compassionate Conservatism” but he ran as a Reagan Republican.

In Romney’s case, he doesn’t appear to have a political core (There is no there – there) even a Progressive core so he could easily be swayed, depending which way the political wind is blowing. If his aides are trying to SELL him as the “Serious Republican Contender” they are doing a clumsy job of it.

I don’t believe that is the case with Sarah Palin – she is the Anti Progressive, that’s why the Left hates her so much.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 1:02 PM

And they thought that this system of “democracy” would work?

Don L on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Remember Ben Franklin replied upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention when asked what form of government had been chosen for our new nation: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The Founders knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Sorry, whatcat! It was Dr Evil’s question–you’re right.
Jenfidel

NP – I’ve never made that same error myself! ;^)

whatcat on July 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Right on, Doc Zero.

Romney wants to be president, and can’t even control his own staff? Speak volumes.

Either that, or he knew about and and condoned this juvenile attack on Palin. Which would make him a liar.

In any case, not ready for primetime.

Norwegian on July 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM

If his aides are trying to SELL him as the “Serious Republican Contender” they are doing a clumsy job of it.

With Mitt’s history of flip-flopping on the issues and love of statism, he’ll never be able to be sold as the “serious Republican contender.”

I don’t believe that is the case with Sarah Palin – she is the Anti Progressive, that’s why the Left hates her so much.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 1:02 PM

And why I love her so much!

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 1:05 PM

If he has, he hasn’t generated enough interest for anyone to research and find out :) Mitt Romney does not ENERGIZE anyone….his vacillating on principles is just one reason.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM

I think the reasearch may have been done, but you would have to go over to the Democratic Underground or Kos who are his natural constituents to find out.

As you suggest, why bother?

He is about as interesting as watching paint dry, and lacks a fundamental core of values that would give that dullness any respectability!

sharrukin on July 18, 2010 at 1:05 PM

And may I mention that you exaggerate the criticism of Palin by Hot Air commenters. Much, if not most, of the criticism is aimed not at her but at her less rational supporters (like, er, you!).

… there is absolutely nothing to be gained by alienating Palin supporters (who is the favorite candidate of Republicans right now).
Buy Danish on July 18, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Funny -it appears that the Mittbots are as touchy about criticism of him as the Palin supporters are of her.
You agree that it doesn’t serve anything to be alienating Palin supporters but if you really think I’m one of the most rabid ones you must have no understanding of how committed many of them are to her. If Romney is the nominee can he and the GOP afford to have a portion of the conservative base kiss it off like some of the Hillary supporters did?

katiejane on July 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM

In Romney’s case, he doesn’t appear to have a political core
Dr Evil

That’s one thing you can’t say about Palin and a select few other potential candidates. You know that such are practical, but they do have a consistent visible ideology that drives them. Not a whole lot of pandering and fingers in the air.

whatcat on July 18, 2010 at 1:08 PM

I will say this, whomever thE GOP puts up in ‘12 better be able to FIGHT, and with gloves off, ya dig? maybe this incident shows us Team Romney can dish out and take whats needed to overcome the Chicago tricks that took my Clintons down.

Romney ‘12/ Hillary ‘16 / Sarah ‘24

ginaswo on July 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

LOL…Uh, it helps when your attack hurts the intended target and doesn’t have a blunderbuss recoil that bashes your own face.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM

We certainly do need some serious people to apply for the Oval Office job that will be opening in 2013. Mitt Romney disqualified himself when he failed to speak out against ObamaCare. Next, please.

Oh, My, Dr. Zero…you sure aren’t going to be invited to Allahpundit’s next big bash with that attitude

…bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Brav-f*ckin’-o.

Lockstein13 on July 18, 2010 at 1:10 PM

If Romney is the nominee can he and the GOP afford to have a portion of the conservative base kiss it off like some of the Hillary supporters did?

katiejane on July 18, 2010 at 1:07 PM

They have lost the last two election cycles 2006/2008

If they take back the house in 2010 it’s going to be because of the Tea Party, Mama Grizzlys folks.

Will the Republicans alienate those same people in 2012, who are energized right now? Success will only build momentum. Romney’s team are lagging in reading the public’s mood, otherwise they wouldn’t’ be shooting spitballs at Sarah Palin…..When you really think about it, The Republican Party is trying to take back the Senate and House and Team Romney is acting like Romney’s political fortunes are his only focus (so who is really the serious human being here?) They make Romney look like he is just a superficial, self interested, career politician, good job – good ole boys.

This isn’t the summer of the “Country Club Republican” not with unemployment hovering at 10%.

The American People know, that we all can’t indulge ourselves in electing, impractical, vacillating elitist of any brand.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Much, if not most, of the criticism is aimed not at her but at her less rational supporters (like, er, you!).

Buy Danish on July 18, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Remind me again why criticizing a political/public figure’s supporters is productive?

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 1:26 PM

if you really think I’m one of the most rabid ones you must have no understanding of how committed many of them are to her. If Romney is the nominee can he and the GOP afford to have a portion of the conservative base kiss it off like some of the Hillary supporters did?
katiejane

Also, considering in general the growing importance of Republican-Conservative woman’s vote I think doing something that ticks them off is not a real bright idea. Even on the left more than a few women didn’t take a liking to the 2008 “silly girl” type attacks on Palin.

whatcat on July 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM

LOL…Uh, it helps when your attack hurts the intended target and doesn’t have a blunderbuss recoil that bashes your own face.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM

That was fun to watch – Romney had to comment, he couldn’t just ignore Sarah Palin’s response to his unnamed aide’s remark….because he knows “Mama Grizzly” is strong, and popular…makes him look “Beta” to her “Alpha”

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I hope he knows something I don’t. I’m disappointed with Palin. As I see it Palin is busy being a celebrity working for party harmony rather than reform. I hoped for better from her.

The Boss emeritus fearlessly says what she believes, what she knows to be true, and doesn’t worry about making enemies in the process. I haven’t seen that from Palin in a good long while.

Venusian Visitor on July 18, 2010 at 3:39 AM

Maybe the trip from Venus to Earth has scrambled your brain. Sarah is out there every day talking about the major reforms needed, and has a lifelong record of being able to deliver major reform to government. It’s one of her strongest features, and why the dirtbags in the GOP establishment fear her so.

Remember, once she became Governor of Alaska, Sarah teamed up with the FBI and sent a whole bunch of Republican hacks to prison.

As for being a celebrity … if working one’s ass off to promote the Constitution and the Rule of Law, as well as common sense conservatism, Freedom and Liberty, makes one a “celebrity” then I say we need a hell of a lot more “celebrities”!

Sarah is out there endorsing wonderful candidates, men and women who believe in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If that makes her a “celebrity” then by God we need more “celebrities.”!

What Sarah is really doing is playing chess, while the rest are playing checkers.

gary4205 on July 18, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Here’s the differenc between the two:

Mitt wants to be president.
Palin wants the government out of our lives.

jacrews on July 18, 2010 at 8:23 AM

You sir/ma’am have stated in brilliant simplicity the entire debate. Not even Sarah herself could have done better.

Can’t add anything here but awe and admiration.

Nothing else needs to be said.

gary4205 on July 18, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Green Room has joined the peanut gallery in lying about Romney. Romney spoke out against Obama care. Romney spoke out against anonymous comments immediately after Palin legitimized them with her camp.

Green Room will appear to be the slime machine in 2011 primaries.

PrezHussein on July 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Romney spoke out against anonymous comments immediately after Palin legitimized them with her camp.

PrezHussein on July 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Heh…Romney spoke out against anonymous comments after Palin sinned most grievously in having someone anonymously respond to the anonymous smear from an anonymous Romney adviser.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I will say this, whomever thE GOP puts up in ‘12 better be able to FIGHT, and with gloves off, ya dig? maybe this incident shows us Team Romney can dish out and take whats needed to overcome the Chicago tricks that took my Clintons down.

Romney ‘12/ Hillary ‘16 / Sarah ‘24

ginaswo on July 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

If the Republicans take back the Senate and the House in November – The investigations into what the Democrats have been doing can start…why do you think San Fran Nan was snapping back at Gibby the other day?

There is no need to take The Democrats in “One Bite” when you can make a meal of them, over an extended period of time, leading up to the 2012 elections – thus weakening them beyond recovery. Which means taking on the Obama machine isn’t going to be the same as it was in 2008….it’s going to be carrying scandal baggage into the 2012 election cycle.

Obama’s not into “pivoting” or he has been blocked by Reid and Pelosi agenda. He should have moved to the center a long time back, that’s why his poll numbers are low…he’s hoping the house and senate turns over – Nancy and Harry’s legislation hasn’t made him popular with a lot of folks and the Democrats hold both houses so fair or not Obama is this time judged by the company he keeps. “The Progressive Led Congress”

Maybe Romney doesn’t understand there is more than one way to skin a cat….but Sarah Palin and both the Clintons do.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Romney ‘12/ Hillary ‘16 / Sarah ‘24

ginaswo on July 18, 2010 at 11:37 AM

So who is helping get Republicans elected in November?

Sarah Palin 2012!

Dr Evil on July 18, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Romney spoke out against Obama care.

No, he did not.

Romney spoke out against anonymous comments immediately after Palin legitimized them with her camp.

This isn’t true either: The comments weren’t anonymous: they were made by his staffers.
Palin didn’t “legitimize them,” Time Magazine’s Halperin did.

Green Room will appear to be the slime machine in 2011 primaries.

PrezHussein on July 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM

The slime machine of who or what?
And who’s having a primary in 2011?
Exaggerate and screech much?

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Palin? ahahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahahha….good one.

Funny how some think the GOP and conservatives have a platform that is driving the electorate to them. It is not! I have yet to see a platform or purpose…just more fear of the electorate which drives politicians to do NOTHING. The same thing that elected Obama is the same thing that will throw out the Dems…the incumbents are not serious and have no answers for our predicament. Just watch McConnell and Cornyn today (Sunday).

So, let’s elect someone serious and smart…Palin and Huckabee are disqualified….NEXT!

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Here is someone smart explaining what I mean!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G6yITxq4as&feature=player_embedded#!

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Romney spoke out against Obama care.

No, he did not.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

You are either stupid or a liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How does it feel to be a liar?

PrezHussein on July 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM

During a 2008 debate, ABC News’ Charles Gibson told him, “You seem to have backed away from mandates on a national basis.” Romney replied, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

NEWSWEEK: Back in February 2007, you said you hoped the Massachusetts plan would “become a model for the nation.” Would you agree that it has?

ROMNEY: I don’t … You’re going to have to get that quote. That’s not exactly accurate, I don’t believe.

NEWSWEEK: I can tell you exactly what it says: “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.

ROMNEY: It is a model for the states to be able to learn from. During the campaign, I was asked if I was proposing that what I did in Massachusetts I would do for the nation. And the answer was absolutely not. Our plan is a state plan. It is a model for other states—if you will, the nation—it is a model for them to look at what we’ve accomplished and to better it or to create their own plans.

NEWSWEEK: There are obvious similarities between Obamacare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?

ROMNEY: I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at. He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.

On Monday, Kavon Nikrad of the sight RightoSphere.com, said that he approached Romney at a book party hosted by Freedom Foundation of Minnesota and asked him if he would support the repeal of the “individual mandate and pre-existing exclusion.”

Romney, whose support for an individual mandate while governor of Massachusetts has caused severe headaches for him in recent weeks, responded: “No.

Asked by the Huffington Post to clarify his position, Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom clarified that, “yes,” the former governor wants to repeal the individual mandate. “He believes the mandate is an issue best left to the states, and that it is wrong to impose a one-size-fits-all federal plan on the entire nation.”

But on another front that Nikrad found problematic, Fehrnstrom conceded that Romney doesn’t support a full repeal of Obamacare; just its more controversial provision.

Good news for Romney supporters is that they can legitimately claim that Romney said ‘this’, or that he said ‘that’ because it is frequently true.

He is the say anything candidate!

sharrukin on July 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Funny how the Romneyites and other RINOs flap their gums about what it takes for Republicans to win…

while Sarah Palin is doing all of the heavy lifting!!!

landlines on July 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Romney spoke out against Obama care.

No, he did not.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 2:39 PM

You are either stupid or a liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How does it feel to be a liar?

PrezHussein on July 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Yeah, right. Romney was right there in the middle of the fight. AFTER the fight.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 3:27 PM

You are either stupid or a liar. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How does it feel to be a liar?

PrezHussein on July 18, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I, of course, am neither.
I have no memory of Mittens speaking out against ObamaCare.
He merely thinks it needs “tweaking.”

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 3:47 PM

So, let’s elect someone serious and smart…Palin and Huckabee are disqualified….NEXT!

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I find Palin serious and smart and even Huckabee’s not so bad, except that he’s a statist the same as Romney.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I have no memory of Mittens speaking out against ObamaCare.
He merely thinks it needs “tweaking.”
Jenfidel

On the other hand, who better to advise on government run healthcare than someone who made it the law of his state?
I mean, if Charles Manson needed to improve his murder skills wouldn’t Jack The Ripper be best equipped to do the skill tweaking? So, in like fashion, let the original bumbling nanny state liberal come to the aide of his disciple! : )

whatcat on July 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM

This childish and incoherent nonsense does a lot more damage to Mitt Romney than Sarah Palin.

Indeed it does.

In the GOP primaries, there’s plenty of room for serious, measured criticism, and zero room for ad hominem attacks like this one. Romney needs to apologize to Palin for the indiscretion of his staff and reign them in ASAP.

petefrt on July 18, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Funny how the Romneyites and other RINOs flap their gums about what it takes for Republicans to win…

…while Sarah Palin is doing all of the heavy lifting!!!

Amounts raised in last 18 months:
Romney 3.7 million
Palin 3.4 million

Candidate donations by PAC:
Romney $215,084
Palin with $137,500

“Heavy lifting” hmmmmm

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Amounts raised in last 18 months:
Romney 3.7 million
Palin 3.4 million

Candidate donations by PAC:
Romney $215,084
Palin with $137,500

“Heavy lifting” hmmmmm

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 6:07 PM

“Heavy lifting” refers to voicing opposition to Obama’s agenda — and taking the resulting abuse — not ONLY collecting chits to cash in during the primaries.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Most people who attack Romney do bother to touch on, you know, the issues.
ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 11:05 AM

Ha! Using this thread as evidence, the negative comments either assume without sufficient evidence that he has a rogue advisor and implicitly endorses their idiotic comments about Palin, or are that he is “plastic”, “over-privileged”, born with a “silver spoon” blah blah blah, not about, you know, the issues.

Buy Danish on July 18, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Ha! Using this thread as evidence, the negative comments either assume without sufficient evidence that he has a rogue advisor and implicitly endorses their idiotic comments about Palin, or are that he is “plastic”, “over-privileged”, born with a “silver spoon” blah blah blah, not about, you know, the issues.

Buy Danish on July 18, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Yeah, it’s usually about, you know, government mandates. Not about the sex lives of his kids.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Amounts raised in last 18 months:
Romney 3.7 million
Palin 3.4 million

Candidate donations by PAC:
Romney $215,084
Palin with $137,500

“Heavy lifting” hmmmmm

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Candidate contributions represented just 5.8 percent of Palin’s PAC spending through June, records show. Roughly 4.4 percent of Romney’s PAC money went to candidates, while Pawlenty spent 4.7 percent of his money on GOP office seekers.

The average size of Palin’s individual donations is $337, compared with $989 for Romney and $1,975 for Pawlenty. But Palin’s unique donors total 1,740, compared with 771 for Pawlenty and 354 for Romney.

Goldman Sachs employees gave more than $74,000 to Romney’s PAC, while Morgan Stanley employees donated to $37,500 to Pawlenty…

So most of Romney’s money comes far fewer donors and he gave less of what he received than Sarah Palin.

Seems corporations and the wealthy seeking influence like Romney but your average joe isn’t too impressed.

sharrukin on July 18, 2010 at 6:35 PM

Heavy lifting” refers to voicing opposition to Obama’s agenda — and taking the resulting abuse

Uh-huh. But this was my original point. Being AGAINST the Obama agenda is easy and doesn’t take brains, it is how Obama got elected…being against the Bush agenda. We need ideas, we need a banner to rally around…not just speaking in opposition. What are Palin’s suggestions for foreign policy? For healthcare? For taxation? For debt reduction? NADA.

When you stack up the field of GOP potentials, there is a serious lack of smarts. Meg Whitman has been an example of policy cred and focus, so has Paul Ryan and he is not even running for high office (not yet, oh please, oh please).

Pawlenty, Huckabee, Palin are so far just jabbering nay-bobs.

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM

Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney: The Truth

The media loves to create controversies like this, but you’ll have to read the truth to know what’s really going on. Don’t let the media sway you one way or the other. You must always do your own research before making assumptions and definitely before making any conclusions.

dnlchisholm on July 18, 2010 at 6:56 PM

dnlchisholm on July 18, 2010 at 6:56 PM

LOL. The truth is just as likely to be at a pro-Romney site as it is at a pro-Palin site. The fact is that Romney’s advisers have been anonymously trashing Palin since before the 2008 election. This is behavior in keeping with that behavior, and the only commonality is Mitt. He needs to name names.

alwaysfiredup on July 18, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Mitt Romneycare–the socialists’ favorite Republican and big league dickwad.
No thanks

james23 on July 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Uh-huh. But this was my original point. Being AGAINST the Obama agenda is easy and doesn’t take brains, it is how Obama got elected…being against the Bush agenda. We need ideas, we need a banner to rally around…not just speaking in opposition. What are Palin’s suggestions for foreign policy? For healthcare? For taxation? For debt reduction? NADA.

What are Romney’s? Just simply reforming ObamaCare?

When you stack up the field of GOP potentials, there is a serious lack of smarts. Meg Whitman has been an example of policy cred and focus, so has Paul Ryan and he is not even running for high office (not yet, oh please, oh please).

Pawlenty, Huckabee, Palin are so far just jabbering nay-bobs.

jawbone on July 18, 2010 at 6:48 PM

They’re all just jabbering nay-bobs, including Ryan (who by the way wasn’t elected to the House yesterday). They’re, uh, out of power at the moment.

ddrintn on July 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Mitt Romneycare–the socialists’ favorite Republican and big league dickwad.
No thanks

james23 on July 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Right…never mind the fact that it was conservatives who first proposed the idea of individual mandates during the Clinton administration as an alternative to HilliaryCare.

In fact, it was the conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation who came up with the idea.

Mitt Romney has been consistent in his opposition to federal mandates. Mitt Romney opposed HillaryCare for the same reasons he opposed ObamaCare.

Mitt Romney position is clear. Individual mandates are ok at the state level but not at the federal level. As Mitt explains it:

“If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.” (Source.)

Conservative Samizdat on July 19, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Mitt Romney disqualified himself when he failed to speak out against ObamaCare.

Also, when he raised his hand in agreement to the question of believing in the hoax of Global Warming. He’ll say anything to get elected. We don’t need these sycophants anymore.

Kini on July 19, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Right…never mind the fact that it was conservatives who first proposed the idea of individual mandates during the Clinton administration as an alternative to HilliaryCare.

In fact, it was the conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation who came up with the idea.

Mitt Romney has been consistent in his opposition to federal mandates. Mitt Romney opposed HillaryCare for the same reasons he opposed ObamaCare.

Mitt Romney position is clear. Individual mandates are ok at the state level but not at the federal level.

Conservative Samizdat on July 19, 2010 at 1:07 AM

I was traveling over the weekend, and only now had a chance to catch up on these comments. I expected a certain degree of rancor from Romney supporters, and hold none of it against them. When you write a piece like this, you’re calling someone’s baby ugly. The primary season is the time for these discussions, and they’re bound to become heated.

There were many reasoned responses as well, with Samizdat’s standing as a fine example. The character of these responses evokes a certain resemblance between the candidacies of Mitt Romney and Ross Perot. They’re blank slates, upon which their supporters chisel detailed agendas, with little support from anything they’ve actually said or done. This is true of every politician to some degree, but in the case of Romney and Perot, the process is intellectual, rather than purely emotional.

During the 2008 election, there was a guy who spammed Hot Air threads, particularly those concerning Sarah Palin, with detailed resumes for Romney, Palin, and Obama. He was an extreme, somewhat unhinged example of the problem I see with many of Romney’s supporters – you’re defending his resume, his theoretical advantages, not anything he’s actually said or done.

It’s fascinating to note posts as late as last night, pretending the comments from Romney aides might have been invented by an unscrupulous reporter… fully a day after Romney issued his weird little Tweet castigating his own people. I had some poor fool on Twitter castigating me for engaging in “hyperbole” for accurately quoting what the Romney people said.

The particular points raised by Samizdat illustrate my fundamental disagreement with Romney. The faction of “conservatives” that think individual mandates are a swell idea have no business getting anywhere near the Republican nomination. I don’t want the government controlling my health care, and I don’t care if the bill is 60 pages long, or 6000. You could write a perfectly ruinous, totalitarian single-payer health care plan on a postcard, after all.

Romney supporters shrieking that it’s a “lie” to say he didn’t oppose ObamaCare base their anger largely on comments he made after the bill was passed, speculating the Supreme Court might overturn some of its worst provisions. You’re digging into obscure Google archives to find anything he might have whispered during the final weeks of the bill’s passage. I’m not interested in supporting politicians who want to take a chance on the Supreme Court knocking down legislation they should be opposing with every fiber of their being. I got my fill of that with George Bush and campaign finance reform.

Romney didn’t “oppose” ObamaCare – he criticized it, gently. Nothing he’s said or done suggests he could effectively lead the effort to repeal it, or is particularly interested in doing so. I view this as the top item of business on the American agenda. I have no interest in anyone who thinks ObamaCare can be upgraded from a catastrophe to a disaster. It’s not what this country needs, and they’d never get a chance to perform their fine tuning anyway, because Obama would destroy them.

Returning to the original source of this controversy: either Romney wanted his aides to make these comments, or encourages a campaign atmosphere in which most of them think this way… or he’s lost control of his own campaign before the primary really gets under way. The only way he could have re-asserted that control would have been firing the individuals involved and issuing a full-throated condemnation, not a Tweet calling them knuckleheads. These people didn’t express a policy difference with Sarah Palin. They literally questioned her humanity, and implied she’s an idiot. That’s exactly the kind of rhetoric we do not need in the GOP primary.

Doctor Zero on July 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM

When Romney tweeted that Palin had “proven her smarts,” I’m sure the Romney knuckleheads just chuckled, and said, “Yep, that implies exactly what we were trying to convey – she’s proven it alright!”

Romney has now proven his smarts by this too, for all the world to see. Next, please.

dtestard on July 19, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Mitt Romney position is clear. Individual mandates are ok at the state level but not at the federal level.

Conservative Samizdat on July 19, 2010 at 1:07 AM

That’s nonsense UNCONSTITUTIONAL is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Individual Mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL At Any Level Of Our Government, City, County, State, National.

And IF the Individual Mandate is found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL -because it is, look to Massachusetts having to make it’s “Romneycare” come into compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Than Romneycare is going to be front and center again (IN THE MEDIA) because it’s going to leave a trail of havoc in it’s wake in Massachusetts.

A Bad Idea Is A Bad Idea – it doesn’t matter what scale it’s introduced State or National.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Goldman Sachs employees gave more than $74,000 to Romney’s PAC, while Morgan Stanley employees donated to $37,500 to Pawlenty…

I don’t like anyone who takes money from Goldman Sachs. They are Pinnochios’ favored big business and they sold off their Deep Water Horizan holdings the day before the blow. I am enough of a skeptic to believe that was not by accident, rather was insider info and Goldman Sachs is a corrupt corporate entity that seeks favorable staus from Big Government. Lots of Corporatism going on in the HealthScare Bill by big phama, Medical Assn., lots of corporatism going on in the Financial Reform bill by big banks and big Investment firms.

Didn’t Paulsen come from Golman Sachs? Its a lib organization being propped up and protected by Big Govt while small business is allowed to, even forced to, wither and die do to regulation and gov’t madates. Much easier to control a few monopolies than a whole bunch of small business and big business and big Govt both know it and are playin the game.

If Romneys’ in I’m out!

dhunter on July 19, 2010 at 10:01 AM

During the 2008 election, there was a guy who spammed Hot Air threads, particularly those concerning Sarah Palin, with detailed resumes for Romney, Palin, and Obama. He was an extreme, somewhat unhinged example of the problem I see with many of Romney’s supporters – you’re defending his resume, his theoretical advantages, not anything he’s actually said or done.
Doctor Zero on July 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM

No, my defense isn’t theorectical or based his resume. I’m defending what he’s actually said and done.

I’ve provided links showing that Romney was consistent in his opposition to HilliaryCare and ObamaCare. Did you read those? I don’t think you did.

I also provided links to my personal blog in defense of the cost of RomneyCare, the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare and how the legislature mangled Romney’s plan. Did you read those? No.

None of my defenses are theoretical or obscure google facts. All my sources on the blog are cited and well known.

So, all you’re doing is attacking the form of my defense but not the actual substance by merely characterizing it as an “intellectual process” rather than an “emotional process”

In essence, what you’re saying is just an easy way to dismiss an argument with out actually having to address the pertinent and relevant issues. You are doing the same thing which you accuse me of doing except yours is a blend of intellectual and emotional process.

Instead, lets engage an discussion on the “factual process”, which I have provided, cited and is open for verification as well as interpretation.

I engage in a debate on facts, why don’t you?

Romney didn’t “oppose” ObamaCare – he criticized it, gently. Nothing he’s said or done suggests he could effectively lead the effort to repeal it, or is particularly interested in doing so. I view this as the top item of business on the American agenda. I have no interest in anyone who thinks ObamaCare can be upgraded from a catastrophe to a disaster. It’s not what this country needs, and they’d never get a chance to perform their fine tuning anyway, because Obama would destroy them.

Doctor Zero on July 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Doc, nobody can single handedly repeal ObamaCare except maybe a large body of senators or majority of Supreme Court justices.

Opposing and criticizing ObamaCare is the only thing an individual can do at this point regardless if its Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Doc Zero or myself. None of us can wave the magic wand and make it go away.

We can collectively put pressure on elected leaders to repeal it. However, that may not be successful because members of Congress may disregard the popular will as evidence by the passage of ObamaCare and Congress so far has been unwilling to repeal it despite massive support for such a plan.

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you looking for a superhuman politician who can overturn ObamaCare all by himself/herself?

They literally questioned her humanity, and implied she’s an idiot. That’s exactly the kind of rhetoric we do not need in the GOP primary.

Doctor Zero on July 19, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Come on now, we have an unnamed Romney aide who made a statement of his own opinion. We have no facts that Romney ordered it or ratified it.

Moreover, the timing is really bad to launch an attack just as both Palin and Romney have been doing a fantastic job of helping people win in the 2010 elections. I just don’t believe Romney ordered it or ratified it.

The only people who are making an issue of this is Romney/Pain fans and aides. Romney and Palin seem to unfazed by the incident. For all we know, they had a private chat. Moreover, we know that they’ve been amicable and supportive of each other.

Conservative Samizdat on July 19, 2010 at 3:49 PM

And IF the Individual Mandate is found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL -because it is, look to Massachusetts having to make it’s “Romneycare” come into compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM

If RomneyCare is unconstitutional it will be unconstitutional according to the Massachusetts Constitution, not the Federal Constitution.

States are free to make their own decisions based on the police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.

A Bad Idea Is A Bad Idea – it doesn’t matter what scale it’s introduced State or National.

Dr Evil on July 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM

That might be true.

However,if you’re a conservative, you have to accept that “Federalism” whereby states are free to make their own decisions for and on behalf of their citizens. The upside is that states are free to make decisions. The downside is that states are free to make bad decisions.

You can’t remove or take away a state’s federal power simply because a state has made a decision that a person in another state disagrees with.

If California or Illinois wants to go bankrupt because they have too much unfunded liability, that’s they’re choice even if I don’t like it. States have the freedom to make financially wise or unwise decisions.

Likewise, each state is free to fashion thier own health care plan as they wish even if the plan itself is wise or unwise.

Conservative Samizdat on July 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM

If RomneyCare is unconstitutional it will be unconstitutional according to the Massachusetts Constitution, not the Federal Constitution.

I’ll refudiate that. A fine for “inactivity” (scholars say it has never been attempted before) is effectively a taking – there is no quid-pro-quo (this-for-that) in such a fine. (We’re not taking about failing to mow your lawn or restrain a pet, since the lawn growing or a dog barking is activity, and laws can regulate activity.) The “takings” clause of the Fifth amendment applies to the states through the 14th amendment (and the Slaughter House cases). Per Wikipedia:

“The Supreme Court has held that the [14th] amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth and Sixth Amendments, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment (except for its Grand Jury Clause).”

and

“The 5th Amendment extends to proceeding involving “fines, penalties and forfeitures” as such are “criminal proceedings” within the meaning of the 5th Amendment.”

[But you can refudiate me by calling the Mass. fine a tax and not a taking, like the Obama administration wants to.

Obama/Romney ’12.

dtestard on July 19, 2010 at 8:33 PM

And they thought that this system of “democracy” would work?

Don L on July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM

Remember Ben Franklin replied upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention when asked what form of government had been chosen for our new nation: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The Founders knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Jenfidel on July 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM

They knew that a democracy would fail. A republic is a different form of government, and the Founders knew it wouldn’t be easy.

Slowburn on July 20, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3