Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:00 am on February 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

The new national frontrunner (the eleventh of the campaign) gets his turn in the spotlight this morning with appearances on three different shows. Jack Lew, Obama’s new chief of staff, will actually top him by hitting all five — a rare “full Ginsburg” — to spin the contraception “compromise” and explain how The One’s new budget will avert America’s fiscal catastrophe by squeezing a few more bucks out of the very rich. For Palin fans, though, there’s only one option: “Fox News Sunday,” where Sarahcuda will chat with Chris Wallace about the race. Seems doubtful she’ll endorse, but what about an “anybody but Romney” anti-endorsement? That’d help Santorum a lot with conservatives who are still undecided between him and Gingrich.

The complete line-up via WaPo:

NBC’s Meet the Press: Rick Santorum; Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff; Bill Burton, Priorities USA; Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal; EJ Dionne, Brookings Institution and Washington Post; Joe Scarborough, MSNBC

ABC’s This Week: Rick Santorum; Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI);George Will, ABC; Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist; Liz Cheney, Keep America Safe; David Ignatius, Washington Post

CBS’ Face the Nation: Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff; Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); Sen. Mitch McConell (R-KY)

Fox News Sunday: Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff; Sarah Palin, Fox News; Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard; Mara Liasson, NPR; Kimberley Strassel,Wall Street Journal…

CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Rick Santorum; Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff; Sen. Joe Liebermann (I-CT); Dana Bash, CNN; Mike Duffy, Time


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

LOL here’s the link to Sarapac – send her some money to cover her travel costs….

Bradky on February 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Ah, yes. The teenage girl ‘LOL’ hogwash.
I must admit to using that once or twice myself, but only when something is actually funny.

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Bradky on February 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM

But of course not, all money must go to Romney.

noneoftheabove on February 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

thebrokenrattle on February 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM

No more beatings, she’s not running and supporting Gov. Romney shouldn’t be antithetical to what you believe about Gov. Palin. I know it’s the recurring theme here but it’s not worth giving a moment’s thought.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

“You don’t need an office. You don’t need a title. And, you don’t need a TelePrompter to make a difference.”

Fallon on February 12, 2012 at 9:12 AM

So far, perhaps. But do you think he will amass enough to get over the line?

OldEnglish on February 12, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Better yet, how many actual red states has he won?

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Kissmygrits on February 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Well there is that. But it’s more like the bumbling, inept cartoon type of predator. You know, like Wile E. Coyote who, while we know can never win, still has us loving to laugh at the spectacle of the hilarious attempts. Her tactics escalate without limits, along with her frustration and so does the comedy. It’s just plain fun :-)

MJBrutus on February 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM

I wonder if anyone will ask Jack Lew about his $900,000 bonus from Citigroup in 2009? And how much income tax he paid on it?

rockmom on February 12, 2012 at 9:01 AM

My guess would be no.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I still find it amazing that whenever the conversation turns to SP, all the trolls come out and really pile on the vitriol. She must still worry them even tho she is just a citizen like the rest of us and not a candidate for office anywhere. Kinda like a lone wolf sitting on a snowy hillside watching every move they make. They know she’s out there, but don’t know when she’s going to attack.

Kissmygrits on February 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM

They’re severely afraid.

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Good point.

OldEnglish on February 12, 2012 at 9:15 AM

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Beep beep :-)

MJBrutus on February 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM

If the Carpers/Whiners were a political Party – most of it’s Members seemingly are posting here. …. just sayin.

ashiya on February 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM

So. What are you today, the war hero or the proud mother?

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 8:52 AM

You’ll never know. But you just keep on obsessing on it.

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Bradky on February 12, 2012 at 9:04 AM

So does that make Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, etc. etc., gutless wonders also? Of course not but it’s a compelling argument. Wait, no, it isn’t.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Did you think that by bolding your words, it would make them somehow more powerful?

It seems to me that you know very little about what happened at CPAC. Over 10,000 people attended, but only about 3,500 bothered to vote. The reason? They know the straw poll is worthless because the ballot box is always stuffed. Usually, it’s by the Paulians, but this year it was by the Mittbots who were bussed in.

Palin never mentioned any of the candidates by name and even if she had, it wouldn’t have affected the straw poll because it took place a long time before she even spoke. Her speech was the last event of the conference.

Romney has never won the conservatives at CPAC and never will. He’s got the money to bus in a big crowd and that’s the only reason that he manages to look good in the straw polls.

From the attendees and the media, the word from CPAC was the same- there was no excitement for Romney. The attendees simply were lukewarm for his candidacy.

The biggest thing that will come out of CPAC is a revival of the spirit behind the Tea Party movement. Palin’s speech will serve as the shot in the arm that the TPers need. Although she was the last speaker, her speech will be seen as the opening volley of the war to “throw the bums out”. Her words were not meant just for the CPAC audience. It was a clarion call to everyone who wants to get back to smaller government working for all of us and not working for just the plutocrats and the other takers who continue to elect those who promise them the most.

NoNails on February 12, 2012 at 8:31 AM

I agree….one slight correction. Let’s change “Mittbots” to
“Mittbutts”. Why? Because it is amusing.

Amjean on February 12, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Bradky on February 12, 2012 at 9:02 AM

They are dogs returning to their vomit.

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Lanceman – Sorry for getting our wires crossed at 9:04 am. Thanks for clarifying it.

WhatNot on February 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Palin is a reliable conservative like the Chevy Volt is a reliable car.

NickDeringer on February 12, 2012 at 8:16 AM

As if you would know. Being a Palin stalker does not make one a conservative.

james23 on February 12, 2012 at 9:23 AM

LOL here’s the link to Sarapac – send her some money to cover her travel costs….

Bradky on February 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM

He doesn’t have any money left. He gave it all to St Palin the Victimized last summer when she was leading him around by his nose with her coded messages that she was going to announce any day.

lol

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Sarah said what she wanted to say, including a warning to Republicans that they need to give Tea Party candidates leadership positions in congress. That shot across the bow in DC probably made some of the old guard fill their Depends.

WhatNot on February 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Yes, new members of Congress should get leadership positions because Sarah demands it. Sheesh. The naivete is stunning.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:24 AM

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM

first appearance by this freak since Willard’s triple disaster on Tuesday.

james23 on February 12, 2012 at 9:25 AM

You’ll never know. But you just keep on obsessing on it.

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I can tolerate the Bradkys, the MJBruti, even the odd BuyDanish. But a liar such as yourself is about the lowest form of scuzz there is.

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Is it because she suggested it or do you really believe that the status quo has been doing such a bang up job that they deserve to hold onto their power?

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Palin’s a quitter! No, she’s not!

next thread

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:29 AM

So far, perhaps. But do you think he will amass enough to get over the line?

OldEnglish on February 12, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I do. Romney has the electability argument going for himself. And every poll has shown that the huge majority of the GOP will vote for whomever can beat Obama and conservative purity is secondary. We are still trying to determine if a perceived more conservative candidate can maintain the electability edge over Obama. But as the days progress, the time for Santorum to make that case is running out. Losing the CPAC poll and the Maine caucus is going to dampen whatever bump he got from his three state sweep.

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I’m so full of it, even I don’t know what’s true

- csdeven

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Is it because she suggested it or do you really believe that the status quo has been doing such a bang up job that they deserve to hold onto their power?

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Neither. It’s the equivalent of someone joining an organization in an entry-level position and demanding a leadership role. That’s not the way things work in the real world.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM

24/7/365! Does your grammy know you have replaced her with me? Well, don’t tell her…….Considering she lets you live in her basement for free, it would be mean if you were to do so.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

What a Big-Government Statist Looks Like

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM

I saw this list yesterday and didn’t know where it came from. OK, now I know. This list sucks — Santorum looks like George W. Bush if he was a Senator. Some of them are probably good votes, but collectively it looks like Arlen Specter’s voting record.

Jaibones on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Neither. It’s the equivalent of someone joining an organization in an entry-level position and demanding a leadership role. That’s not the way things work in the real world.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If the organization is corrupt and broke , it needs new leadership.

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:24 AM

You’re not really that simplistic, are you?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I’m so full of it, even I don’t know what’s true

- csdeven

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Heh. That puke plays dumb cop/weird cop so often I almost consider it the second coming of AnninCA.
Without the recipes.

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Sarah’s observations are like “yeah, Capt. Obvious”.

I was a supporter, I wish she had run, but she doesn’t state much new info.

stenwin77 on February 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

most overused and ineffective insults:

1. your opponent lives in parent’s basement

2. see 1

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

no recipes! ripoff

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM

But that is NOT what noneoftheabove and at least one other poster addressed. So if you think she did not do it just for the money tell him why.

CW on February 12, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Palin charges speaking fees: eeeeevillle grasping opportunistic beeeotch.

Romney charges speaking fees: it’s capitalism, so hush your mouth you OWS follower of the pot-bellied socialist!

ddrintn on February 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I was a supporter, I wish she had run, but she doesn’t state much new info.

stenwin77 on February 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

WAS a supporter?

What changed?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM

You’re not really that simplistic, are you?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I’m a pragmatist who lives in the real world and understands how things work.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Heh. That puke plays dumb cop/weird cop so often I almost consider it the second coming of AnninCA.
Without the recipes.

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

If people would quit feeding the thing, it might go away. Shall we all try it for a day?

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I was a supporter, I wish she had run, but she doesn’t state much new info.

stenwin77 on February 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

So now the criteria is Palin must present new info? Maybe that criteria should be applied to the candidates instead.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I was a supporter, I wish she had run, but she doesn’t state much new info.

stenwin77 on February 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I’m curious: what sort of “new info” is there in conservatism?

ddrintn on February 12, 2012 at 9:39 AM

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:29 AM

If so, it will then be down to “the people”, who will reject him, for various reasons. That’s my point, Obama will beat him because he offers nothing that will sway the people to dump Obama.

OldEnglish on February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

let’s just try to get the candidates to mention F&F, Solyndra, the Keystone pipeline, or any f’ing thing.

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Most people in Congress are hardly at the entry level stage of their lives but are successful in their own right. They shouldn’t be staying long enough to become professional politicians but remain citizen servants. That’s who you get trillions in debt with single digit approval ratings.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

let’s just try to get the candidates to mention F&F, Solyndra, the Keystone pipeline, or any f’ing thing.

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

LOL…Mitt and his ‘bots will probably be too preoccupied with Santorum and his tax returns for a while.

ddrintn on February 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Hey, I asked you twice last night but you never answered me. Come on, proudly tell us which one of these are yours.

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM

If people would quit feeding the thing, it might go away. Shall we all try it for a day?

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I believe an attempt was tried concerning an anti-troll pact several years back. It lasted about 10 seconds.
That said, I don’t mind an honest troll. Liars on the other hand, I wouldn’t mind seeing excised from the body completely.
(Landru reference for Star Trek fans)

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM

stenwin77 on February 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I enjoyed Daniel Hannon’s speech more and he didn’t break any new ground. You would think that 15 trillion dollars in debt would be some kind of “Captain Obvious” moment and yet it isn’t. Congress needs to know that someone is paying attention.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM

holy crap, people are repugnant

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Rick Santorum is really against the individual mandate. Watch any debate and you’ll see that he’s barely able to contain his contempt for Gov. Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts.

However, in 1994, he was singing a different tune. Back then, he wanted to require people to buy health insurance. Here’s a 1994 LeHigh Valley article

“Candidates Diverge On Health Care Remedies”

“Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.”

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

If the organization is corrupt and broke , it needs new leadership.

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

My point is you wouldn’t hire someone fresh out of high school to run the organization. I certainly don’t claim to know the abilities and experience levels of all members of Congress, but there’s no doubt in my mind that there are plenty who are not “corrupt” who have been there for a while and put in their time and deserve to be in leadership positions. As in business, you work your way up from the bottom.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

So now we have Palin earning speaking fees…like everyone else, and repeating her message…like everyone else. I freakin’ give up. With hypocrites like these, the GOP is doomed. Long live Squishy Mitt!

Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Sarah said what she wanted to say, including a warning to Republicans that they need to give Tea Party candidates leadership positions in congress. That shot across the bow in DC probably made some of the old guard fill their Depends.

WhatNot on February 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM

That’s right Boehner, those are Allen West’s combat boots you are hearing.
HOOAH!

tencole on February 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM

are speaking fees bad? this is news to me

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I’m a pragmatist who lives in the real world and understands how things work.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Allow me to suggest that “in the real world”, we’re in deep … and she appears to understand why that is while you seem to think it’s more important to maintain corporate structure.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

holy crap, people are repugnant

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Yes, they are. And with csdeven’s abnormal obsession with Palin, one could easily conclude that he/she was among those displayed on that video.

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Most people in Congress are hardly at the entry level stage of their lives but are successful in their own right. They shouldn’t be staying long enough to become professional politicians but remain citizen servants. That’s who you get trillions in debt with single digit approval ratings.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

That’s an argument for term limits, which is another issue altogether.

And if one is a newly-elected member of Congress, they’re in an entry-level position. Regardless of their previous successes.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM

let’s just try to get the candidates to mention F&F, Solyndra, the Keystone pipeline, or any f’ing thing.

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Better yet, let’s get our spineless congressmen to do something…any “f’ing thing” about F&F, Solyndra, Keystone pipeline.

tencole on February 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM

are speaking fees bad? this is news to me

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM

News to me too….guess it doesn’t matter that each and every politician gets paid to speak while they’re in or out of office.

I guess there only bad if your last name is Palin.

tencole on February 12, 2012 at 9:56 AM

HA is going to have to give back their “Best Blog” award after this thread.

Vince on February 12, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Rick Santorum: Big Government Statist:

Rick Santorum along with then Republican Arlen Specter, neither of whom ever held a job in the private sector nor built a business and employed people or earned a profit were, also, promoters of providing private businesses with $100 million dollars of taxpayer money for what turns out to be a failed business idea and a failed model.

http://articles.philly.com/2006-07-21/news/25405074_1_waste-coal-diesel-fuel-foreign-oil

http://www.votesmart.org/public-statement/203321/senator-santorum-in-schuylkill-county-to-discuss-nations-first-coal-to-liquid-plant-with-department-of-defense-official-and-local-officials

http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/spector_01132003.html

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM

We’ll have to agree to disagree, the voters have the power of term limits available at every election. I am so sick of the status quo and where it has taken us.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Then you must REALLY, REALLY, hate Obama.

Right?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Allow me to suggest that “in the real world”, we’re in deep … and she appears to understand why that is while you seem to think it’s more important to maintain corporate structure.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Not at all. I understand why we’re in the mess we’re in. But I also understand the way organizational structure works. People have to prove themselves worthy of leadership positions. They can’t just demand them.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I’m probably wrong, but at the end of “This Week” they flashed up 3 pictures of those who didn’t run — Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie, and in the one or two seconds the Palin pic was up, I thought it was a pic of Julianne Moore, who played Palin in “Game Change”, in full Palin makeup and a red dress. A TV news program did that once before, using a Tina Fey pic. I don’t have TiVo, so I can’t check it. Anyone care to take a good look at it?

Paul-Cincy on February 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Sarah Palin Inc.

Palin speaking fees up around $100,000 these days. It’s all good. Pay me $100,000 and I’ll tell CPAC what they want to hear.

Sad. Really sad.

NickDeringer on February 12, 2012 at 8:14 AM

She did the speech for free, moron.

You know what’s sad? Climb the stairs from your parent’s basement, walk down the hall to the bathroom, look in the mirror, and you will have your answer.

steebo77 on February 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM

“Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.”

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Is there a way you can be more dishonest than this? Employers provide benfits for their employees to keep them around and get a very nice tax benefit from it.

What was the context of their comments? Was it govt. healthcare with a mandate? Was it doing away with group health plans? What? Link please.

Vince on February 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Paul-Cincy on February 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised. Chris Wallace insisted on playing a clip from it and asking Palin how she felt about it, even though she had made it clear there were more important matters to discuss.

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I enjoyed Daniel Hannon’s speech more

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I’m disappointed that I missed that one. I did catch about half of Grover Norquist and would have to say from what I heard, that he was better than SP also. Just sayin’.

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I like how she subtly plugs her new products.

ray on February 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Not at all. I understand why we’re in the mess we’re in. But I also understand the way organizational structure works. People have to prove themselves worthy of leadership positions. They can’t just demand them.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

She ran for VP. That wasn’t a walk in the park. Seems she has a lot of political experience.

Vince on February 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Neither. It’s the equivalent of someone joining an organization in an entry-level position and demanding a leadership role. That’s not the way things work in the real world.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If the organization is corrupt and broke, it needs new leadership.

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Congress is just like the teacher’s union, where seniority gives them more perks and power just for breathing longer* than anyone else there. (*See Bobby Jindal’s speech.)

Fallon on February 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM

People have to prove themselves worthy of leadership positions. They can’t just demand them.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Two things: First, this “demand” charge you keep bringing up – that’s just your spin and it’s simplistic, at best.

Second: and how does one “prove” oneself when the criterion is adherence to principles and not “time in grade”?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I enjoyed Daniel Hannon’s speech more

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Got a link, Ms. Munford? I’d love to hear it.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Palin’s alright with me. Only petty squalid minds latch onto this woman and won’t let go.

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM

We’ll have to agree to disagree, the voters have the power of term limits available at every election. I am so sick of the status quo and where it has taken us.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Well, I agree with that. Unfortunately, however, it’s taken a long time to get us where we are, and I believe it’s going to take a long time to get us out of this mess. But it can be done. It’s our responsibility as voters to elect representatives who (we believe) truly represent our views. And to kick out the bums who’ve demonstrated a propensity to game the system for personal gain.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

People have to prove themselves worthy of leadership positions. They can’t just demand them.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

a worthy point, not often made here.

Priscilla on February 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I like how she subtly plugs her new products.

ray on February 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I must have missed that. Could please tell us what “new products” she plugged?

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Lew on Fox now, attempting to continue the strategy of confusing “access” to birth control with forcing employers to provide birth control insurance coverage.

Now attempting to portray Catholic opposition to this mandate as not necessarily representative, suggesting that support for the mandate within the church is just as significant.

This is all they have. Pathetic.

novaculus on February 12, 2012 at 10:09 AM

She ran for VP. That wasn’t a walk in the park. Seems she has a lot of political experience.

Vince on February 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I wasn’t referring to Sarah’s experience, but rather her demand that newly-elected TEA party congresspeople be given leadership roles.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I like how she subtly plugs her new products.

ray on February 12, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Conservatism? Nah. That’s so 1980s.

Lanceman on February 12, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Welcome to the Sunday Mourning Slug Fest @HotAir .
Thank you Flora , Cindy , Katy and some I missed , for bringing
an adult perspective to this romp . I’m just not quick enough to join the
fray .

Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

People have to prove themselves worthy of leadership positions. They can’t just demand them.
Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

But ultimately, doesn’t that give more/less power to the constituency that is being represented? Aren’t all of our votes supposed to be equal?

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The fact is, Rick Santorum does have a long history of supporting gun control.

In the 90s, Santorum voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

In 1999, Santorum voted for a bill — disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns — which included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows.

Rick Santorum also voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Fienstein and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005.

Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection–like Democrat Arlen Spector and Christie Todd Whitman.

Rick Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate. Santorum also supported and openly campaigned for anti-gun New Jersey governor, Christine Todd Whitman.

Rick Santorum has a long record of supporting anti-gun legislation and politicians.

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Two things: First, this “demand” charge you keep bringing up – that’s just your spin and it’s simplistic, at best.

Second: and how does one “prove” oneself when the criterion is adherence to principles and not “time in grade”?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:05 AM

1) That’s what Sarah said. No spin here.

2) Advance conservative ideals through proposed legislation and demonstrate an ability to garner support for your proposals.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Actually Obama has done a ton of damage in three short years, long term residents seem to only whine and wring their hands. I’m sick of the “my esteemed colleague” shtick.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Mitt … is that you?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Well, I’m really old, and am going to stop at Petula Clark. :)

OldEnglish on February 12, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Ah Yes …
The days of lip-synching that we were all going “Downtown” to see Ed Sullivan.
(chuckle)
She was a cutie though!

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’m just not quick enough to join the
fray .

Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I’m sure you’re plenty quick and I’m sorry for my sometimes juvenile contributions :)

DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Actually Obama has done a ton of damage in three short years, long term residents seem to only whine and wring their hands. I’m sick of the “my esteemed colleague” shtick.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Exactly. Fresh eyes … fresh blood is needed in those positions. People who were elected to represent the views of small government, fiscal conservatives need to be able to lead and direct.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:18 AM

People have to prove themselves worthy of leadership positions. They can’t just demand them.
Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM

But ultimately, doesn’t that give more/less power to the constituency that is being represented? Aren’t all of our votes supposed to be equal?

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I’m not sure I understand your argument. It appears that you’re proposing that no one should have a leadership role.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM

1) That’s what Sarah said. No spin here.

2) Advance conservative ideals through proposed legislation and demonstrate an ability to garner support for your proposals.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM

1) Can you quote her? Perhaps you’re correct and I’m wrong. I’m certainly open to that possibility.

2) Isn’t it equally important that one first display that one HOLDS conservative ideals?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Romney having the money and ability to get things done…wow…why would you vote for that guy.

tomas on February 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM

DHChron ,
You’re pretty good . No need to be sorry .

Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Sarah Palin Inc.
Palin speaking fees up around $100,000 these days. It’s all good.
Pay me $100,000 and I’ll tell CPAC what they want to hear.
Sad. Really sad.
NickDeringer on February 12, 2012 at 8:14 AM

.
Sad indeed . . . she’s worth at least $150,000.
.
You, on the other hand . . . . . . let the bidding BEGIN !

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/210137-palin-not-convinced-romney-is-conservative

Palin ‘not convinced’ Romney a conservative

Zing , severely.

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Palin needs to get elected somewhere she can win and regain her credibility. She is now only a quitter and that is sad. She has some good qualities. I pegged her as the VP candidate more than most and that was from watching her debates for governor.

tomas on February 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I’m just not quick enough to join the fray .
Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I’m sure you’re plenty quick and I’m sorry for my sometimes juvenile contributions :)
DHChron on February 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

.
Nothing wrong with apologizing when you believe you should.
.
And Lord knows the rest of us are sorry for Lucano‘s sometimes juvenile contributions.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I’m not sure I understand your argument. It appears that you’re proposing that no one should have a leadership role.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It’s just an honest question. I’m just wondering if there isn’t a better way to decide the leadership roles, other than by the seniority of representative.

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Big Government Statist: Rick Santorum’s Solyndra

Rick Santorum along with then Republican Arlen Specter, neither of whom ever held a job in the private sector nor built a business and employed people or earned a profit were, also, promoters of providing private businesses with $100 million dollars of taxpayer money for what turns out to be a failed business idea and a failed model.

http://articles.philly.com/2006-07-21/news/25405074_1_waste-coal-diesel-fuel-foreign-oil

http://www.votesmart.org/public-statement/203321/senator-santorum-in-schuylkill-county-to-discuss-nations-first-coal-to-liquid-plant-with-department-of-defense-official-and-local-officials

http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/spector_01132003.html

Politico (15 Jan 2012) has an excellent summary of one of the main reasons that Rick Santorum received 797,000 fewer votes in 2006 than 2000. Rick Santorum cites then Senate Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter’s support for Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

Hello, Rick: Pat Toomey would have also supported them!

The pedal to the metal support that Rick Santorum gave to political opportunist Sen. Specter in 2004 exposed Rick Santorum as a political opportunist who would sell out his own principles for power…and the money that followed.

As Rick Santorum’s Big Government Big Spending policies became better known, it undermined his political support among all those who were not getting rich from government and were, in fact, paying those who were.

Rick Santorum talks the religious talk to distract from his Big Government Statist positions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71455_Page2.html

mountainaires on February 12, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Is there a photo from CPAC of the Romney relative with buck teeth who seems to always stand behind Romney when he speaks? It could be amusing to track the family and paid shills at Romney events.
WhatNot on February 12, 2012 at 8:36 AM

WhatNot has the fracking gall to call other people “idiots”? Oh well, at least he didn’t say anything about retarded children.

Sarah said what she wanted to say, including a warning to Republicans that they need to give Tea Party candidates leadership positions in congress. That shot across the bow in DC probably made some of the old guard fill their Depends.
WhatNot on February 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Since when do rookies get leadership roles? And are you seriously going to argue that Congress is filled with incontinent senior citizens? You’re doing a superb job of putting a big “Kick Me” sign on your back.

Were you aware of Gov. Palin stumping for a particular candidate at CPAC? Me either.
Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM

No, but she did fire a shot across Mitt’s bow. It was her typical, inappropriate internecine warfare (reminiscent of her Iowa speech) and ruined what had up until that point been a fantastic speech. That and her blah blah blah attacks at “The Establishment”…

csdeven on February 12, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Hey, I asked you twice last night but you never answered me. Come on, proudly tell us which one of these are yours.
Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 9:42 AM

That is a despicable allegation on your part. You want to play that game? When did you stop beating your children?

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4