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

only a quitter

Only?

Dude, seriously.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:31 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

How about Jim DeMint? Rand Paul? Marco Rubio? Pat Toomey? Think any of them are undeserving of leadership positions?

steebo77 on February 12, 2012 at 10:32 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

Indeed, he has. And a large part of the reason for that is that, after eight years of GWB, the voters very stupidly voted for a Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate. There wasn’t much the GOP members of Congress (new or old) could do under the circumstances. Even after the 2010 elections, when we regained the House, we’ve still been stymied by the Dem-controlled Senate.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM

That’s a good point. New ideas and solutions seldom come from seniority. All of our representatives deserve to be heard.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I loved W and he’s a piker compared to The Won but he spent too much money to.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Since when do rookies get leadership roles?

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

Where were YOU in November of 2008?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Palin ‘not convinced’ Romney a conservative

Zing , severely.

the_nile on February 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Of course

Republicans

don’t care if Romney is conservative or not. They just want anyone who might be able to beat Obama. If they have to sell off a chunk of their soul to make them believe a person, who can barely pay people enough to vote for him, will somehow inspire a wave of disgruntled voters to beat Obama, so be it.

Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 10:36 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”…

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

Right … which is why she implored us to stop attacking each other and doing the democrats job for them. It’s also why she asked everyone to unite no matter who the nominee is.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

New ideas and solutions seldom come from seniority.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

But with Newt as the exception!!

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

It took a while, but”quitter” finally showed up. No doubt we will be treated to “Alaskan Barbie” or some other juvenile substitute for political discussion.
On FSN yesterday, crickets for Palin’s speech. They dredged up washed up hack, Martin Frost. The breathlessly delivered headline was Romney”s great victory in the CPAC straw poll. If he received 39% of the 35% of those attendees who actually voted, then he received less than 14% of the total. That hardly seems like a mandate to coronate Obama-Lite.

FirelandsO3 on February 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM

which is why she implored us to stop attacking each other and doing the democrats job for them.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Can’t help but think that might also have been a reference to Romney.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Since when do rookies get leadership roles?

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

Since when is Jim DeMint a rookie?

steebo77 on February 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

steebo77 on February 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Don’t confuse him further. He already shot himself in the foot and it might be lethal.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 10:43 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

1) I can’t find the text of her speech at the moment, but my original response was to this post, which paraphrased what she said:

Sarah said what she wanted to say, including a warning to Republicans that they need to give Tea Party candidates leadership positions in congress.

WhatNot on February 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM

2) Not sure that’s part of proving oneself worthy of a leadership role, but it should be a prerequisite to being elected in the first place.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Republicans don’t care if Romney is conservative or not. They just want anyone who might be able to beat Obama.
Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Here I go again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
ALL OF OUR REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CANDIDATES CAN, AND SHOULD BEAT OBAMA IN THE GENERAL ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER.
And by “ALL”, I mean including the ‘dropouts’.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 10:45 AM

lynncgb on February 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

LOL! True enough, that man is an idea/solution factory.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:45 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 just saw that. Sarah said she was “ambivalent” about the movie. I think she meant to say “indifferent”. But I knew what she meant. Every once in awhile she has a sentiment and then finds the wrong word to express it. Some people think that shows a lack of intelligence. I don’t think it has anything to do with intelligence. The correct sentiment is there, she just grabbed the wrong word. Like misplacing your car keys. It happens.

Maybe she did mean ambivalent. She didn’t sound ambivalent though. If someone make a movie full of lies about me I’d find it hard to be indifferent to it.

Paul-Cincy on February 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

But she didn’t prostrate herself at the alter of The Party. Why is any party consider sacrosanct instead of a vehicle to reach a goal or goals?

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

How about Jim DeMint? Rand Paul? Marco Rubio? Pat Toomey? Think any of them are undeserving of leadership positions?

steebo77 on February 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I can’t answer in the abstract. It depends on the role, and the relative qualifications of those in contention for that role.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I loved W and he’s a piker compared to The Won but he spent too much money to.

as I read post on hot air about GWB i wonder about the short memories of people in our country.

9/11 DID HAPPEN. We don’t know what kind of President GWB would have been because 9/11 caused many changes that could not be forseen.

Could he have done some things better-of course, but in hindsight
many of the things he did have remained because better replacements have not been found.

Did we spend a lot of money in 9/11 wake-of course we did-but what were our options. Hindsight as we say is always 20/20.

Did we have to go into iraq-probably not but hindsight 20/20.

did we have to go into afghanistan-in my view yes-Bin Laden was there

gerrym51 on February 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I loved W and he’s a piker compared to The Won but he spent too much money to.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM

No question. That’s what “compassionate conservatism” will get you.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Here I go again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
ALL OF OUR REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CANDIDATES CAN, AND SHOULD BEAT OBAMA IN THE GENERAL ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER.
And by “ALL”, I mean including the ‘dropouts’.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Buddy Roemer can beat Obama? Holy crap, you ARE confident!

Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The president campaigns on Osmosis…eventually something good will happen with the economy, however small. He and the pres are trying to take advantage of it and are succeeding.

It will be pretty difficult to oust the first black president. %50 voted for him for that reason.

We need a manager now not a blowhard. Romney is a hired hand who is good at what he does.

I’d rather deal with him on social issues that Obama because he does have accountability in that area. (as we have shown here) The president does not.

tomas on February 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Right … which is why she implored us to stop attacking each other and doing the democrats job for them. It’s also why she asked everyone to unite no matter who the nominee is.
darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Yes, that was very clever of her (the coy mistress of the populist wing of the GOP). That came after she told us who not to vote for (in so many words).

She began this in Iowa, when she complained about “massive amounts of cash” and “crony capitalism” among OUR ranks (without ever naming names!). I want her to stick it to Obama. I can’t stand it when she engages in friendly fire, particularly after she makes the laughable claim that friendly fire is bad.

Actually she first did it in NH when she rushed up there to take the wind out of Romney’s sails the day he formally announced his candidacy. It was tacky as hell (but at least I have solace in knowing I didn’t contribute to her PAC in order to fund her kids’ summer vacation). Nor do I think it was appropriate for her to then diss voters in NH with the hilarious claim it’s the “non-politician in me“. It’s like being invited to someone’s home for dinner and complaining about the food.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 10:55 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

I, for one, would prefer if we had a bunch of servants in government instead of self-proclaimed leaders. Maybe then they would care about the country and its people. The greatest leaders are those who serve, not those with the most experience.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM

gerrym51 on February 12, 2012 at 10:50 AM

He should have scrapped No Child Left Behind and paid for the prescription drug initiative and been much more aggressive about the looming housing debacle that his administration so obviously noticed. Admittedly hindsight is 20/20 and could he have seen into the future he would have done all of those things. Maybe if saving money and cutting spending could become a goal we could have a paradigm shift, which is what I think is needed.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I saw that you mentioned surgery yesterday, I hope all is well and you are feeling better every day.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM

You know, I can’t find fault in every little thing that Oabam says or does even though I literally loathe the man. How can you do it with Palin … who’s on our side?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

1)I think reasonable people can conclude that hardly qualifies as a “demand”, don’t you?

2)What was that about “living in the real world”, again?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Amen! Compassion with other people’s money is easy.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I can’t listen to Obama. I’ve seen a lot of hucksters like him growing up in my neighborhood. So full of garbage.

tomas on February 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I, for one, would prefer if we had a bunch of servants in government instead of self-proclaimed leaders. Maybe then they would care about the country and its people. The greatest leaders are those who serve, not those with the most experience.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Well, sure, but, in an organization with 435 (I think that’s the number of Representatives in the House) members, someone’s got to lead.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

1)I think reasonable people can conclude that hardly qualifies as a “demand”, don’t you?

2)What was that about “living in the real world”, again?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM

George Washington should be a role model to every politician.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:03 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

I’m not sure that is a good comparison. You can’t learn leadership skills by putting in your time. Either you are a leader or you are not. It is more inate than experiential. And there just aren’t that many businesses that require you start in the mailroom and work your way up. With the proper credentials, you can start in a much higher position. Besides, Congressmen bring their experiences with them. They are not really HSers in the sense that they are immature teens.

Mr_Magoo on February 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM

But she didn’t prostrate herself at the alter of The Party. Why is any party consider sacrosanct instead of a vehicle to reach a goal or goals?

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Your comment reminded me of how she went after her own party in Alaska. She placed the law, principles and integrity above the party then, and now.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Since when is Jim DeMint a rookie?
steebo77 on February 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Are you sure he’s not a member of The Establishment? He endorsed Mitt in 2008 so, gosh, I’m not sure. Anyhoo, call me crazy but I’m quite sure that’s not who she was referring to:

Well America, it is time we drain the jacuzzi and throw the bums out with the bath water. We took a good first step in 2010, as much as the media wants you to forget that election. Tea Party Patriots won an historic victory. We the people rose up and we spoke up, and the message was we don’t want the Left’s big government agenda. We can’t afford it and we won’t pay for it.

Now the points I want to make about Congress, I toast the Tea Party members there in Congress. Many of them who have fought so bravely against the status-quo and agreed with us that you can’t get out of debt by getting deeper in debt – some even voted against giving the President another plastic card that we expect our kids and grandkids to have to pay off for us. Barack Obama has fought these folks every step of the way. He has dismissed them. He has lied about them. They have held their ground. They have kept their promises to the people who hired them, and now they need reinforcements. Will you help them?

This November we are going to take back the Senate and we are going to fortify the House. Be aware Washington, Tea Party Patriots are alive and we’ll elect more, and this time, establishment, we expect them to get leadership posts in Congress.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

You know, I can’t find fault in every little thing that Oabam says or does even though I literally loathe the man.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Ok You’ve got my curiosity up. What has he said or done that you can’t find something wrong with? I tried, a little, and I couldn’t think of a darned thing :-)

Oldnuke on February 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I consider that a feature, I don’t think anyone should get away with doing the wrong thing.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Well, sure, but, in an organization with 435 (I think that’s the number of Representatives in the House) members, someone’s got to lead.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I think you missed the point. Serving IS the best form of leadership. It’s not about coming up with ideas or forcing your will on other people. Those aren’t leaders, they’re dictators. The best example I can come up with is Jesus**…he led and served. GW had the same principle as well.

While you are correct that the House and Senate Reps both will end up with leaders, those leaders will naturally arise. You don’t need to vote in a leader. Vote in servants and one of them will decide to lead in order to best serve.

**This is not about religion, it’s an example, so back off anti-theists.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I tried, a little, and I couldn’t think of a darned thing :-)

Oldnuke on February 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Ever consider that maybe the problem’s not with HER?

Just a suggestion.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Ok You’ve got my curiosity up. What has he said or done that you can’t find something wrong with? I tried, a little, and I couldn’t think of a darned thing :-)

Oldnuke on February 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

lol … I knew someone would ask. I gotta think a minute.

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Ok You’ve got my curiosity up. What has he said or done that you can’t find something wrong with? I tried, a little, and I couldn’t think of a darned thing :-)

Oldnuke on February 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

He likes hamburgers?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM

1)I think reasonable people can conclude that hardly qualifies as a “demand”, don’t you?

2)What was that about “living in the real world”, again?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

1) What would you call it if not a demand?

2) Okay, so Americans are consistently bad at choosing good leaders. You got me there. But it’s not like Sarah’s/the TEA party’s track record on that score is much better. Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell come to mind.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

1)I think reasonable people can conclude that hardly qualifies as a “demand”, don’t you?

2)What was that about “living in the real world”, again?

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

1) What would you call it if not a demand?

2) Okay, so Americans are consistently bad at choosing good leaders. You got me there. But it’s not like Sarah’s/the TEA party’s track record on that score is much better. Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell come to mind.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

You know, I can’t find fault in every little thing that Oabam says or does even though I literally loathe the man. How can you do it with Palin … who’s on our side?
darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I don’t find fault with everything she says so you can put that ridiculous strawman away. I find fault at her hypocrisy, her vaguely worded attacks on our own candidates, her snake in the grass tactics…

I think she is doing more harm than good right now – witness her non-endorsement endorsement of Newt Gingrich (who, coincidentally, like Palin, is attacking the GOP from the Left). She’s not a uniter, she’s a divider, and considering the fact it’s the most important election in our lifetime, where unity is crucial, her backstabbing is not helpful.

And to be clear, I’m not saying she has to promote Romney. But she is actively trying to pull the rug out from under him and it’s unseemly. Let him rise or fall on his own…

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM

How does Nick or anyone else know that she got paid for her appearance?

NoNails on February 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Maybe Nick dumpster dives for a living,it would certainly add validity to his question,:)

heshtesh on February 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

D’oh! Sorry for the double post.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I don’t find fault with everything she says so you can put that ridiculous strawman away. I find fault at her hypocrisy, her vaguely worded attacks on our own candidates, her snake in the grass tactics…

Good thing that you don’t support Romney then…

And to be clear, I’m not saying she has to promote Romney. But she is actively trying to pull the rug out from under him and it’s unseemly. Let him rise or fall on his own…

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM

…oh…

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Listens to Glenn ,
I’m pretty sure you don’t listen to Glenn as he is a very kind person and you Sir or Madam
are just nasty with your comments sometimes .
I don’t insult personally , and I do compliment specifically .

Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I saw that you mentioned surgery yesterday, I hope all is well and you are feeling better every day.
Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Thank you! Off the pain meds which is good cause I hate pills. Just can’t move around much for another week so I’ll be spending more time than ever here at Hot Air:)

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Oldnuke on February 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

He didn’t prevent the SEALs from killing Bin Laden!

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I’ll be spending more time than ever here at Hot Air:)

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Excellent! I’m sure you will be back on the tennis courts in no time. Take care.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:23 AM

“…the voters have the power of term limits available at every election…”

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

This.

We have the government we deserve. We have the opportunity to change it every two years.

And I mean We.

novaculus on February 12, 2012 at 11:23 AM

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

Spectre pushed W‘s court nominees through, AFTER the 2004 election.. If it weren’t for that necessity, Santorum would NOT have endorsed Spectre.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:23 AM

That and her blah blah blah attacks at “The Establishment”…

She began this in Iowa, when she complained about “massive amounts of cash” and “crony capitalism” among OUR ranks (without ever naming names!)

So…if it’s in the Republican party…you’re okay with the permanent political establishment and crony capitalism?

Palin has a history of fighting corruption, even within her own party. Last night she took it to Obama, who has a history of Chicago politics. But she’s not afraid to challenge those within her own party who do the same things.

And to be clear, I’m not saying she has to promote Romney. But she is actively trying to pull the rug out from under him and it’s unseemly. Let him rise or fall on his own…

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM

This is what really bothers you about her, isn’t it? The fear that what she says, overtly or implied at Mitt Romney, might make people turn away from him.

theotherone on February 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

novaculus on February 12, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I know that I am very annoyed with me.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Oops, screwed up some quote marks there. Preview (when it’s working!) is my friend.

And to be clear, I’m not saying she has to promote Romney. But she is actively trying to pull the rug out from under him and it’s unseemly. Let him rise or fall on his own…

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM

This is what really bothers you about her, isn’t it? The fear that what she says, overtly or implied at Mitt Romney, might make people turn away from him.

theotherone on February 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

theotherone on February 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM

She’s not a uniter, she’s a divider, and considering the fact it’s the most important election in our lifetime, where unity is crucial, her backstabbing is not helpful.

And to be clear, I’m not saying she has to promote Romney. But she is actively trying to pull the rug out from under him and it’s unseemly. Let him rise or fall on his own…

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM

lol … ok, if she was tacitly supporting Romney you’d be thrilled and you say she was trying to be a uniter. Let’s not throw the hypocrite card too many times … ok?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM

You know, I can’t find fault in every little thing that Oabam says or does even though I literally loathe the man. How can you do it with Palin … who’s on our side?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

You err in assuming that “Buy Danish” is “on our side.”

After all, BD is one of the biggest supporters of Obama’s re-election on the site, i.e. a Mittbot.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:30 AM

He should have scrapped No Child Left Behind and paid for the prescription drug initiative and been much more aggressive about the looming housing debacle that his administration so obviously noticed. Admittedly hindsight is 20/20 and could he have seen into the future he would have done all of those things. Maybe if saving money and cutting spending could become a goal we could have a paradigm shift, which is what I think is needed.

judging by your answer I would say you have forgotten 9/11 happened

gerrym51 on February 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I tried, a little, and I couldn’t think of a darned thing :-)

Oldnuke on February 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Ever consider that maybe the problem’s not with HER?

Just a suggestion.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

My apologies, Old Nuke. Misread.

He is, after all married to a woman, you know.

And appears to love his kids very much.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Whatever for?

novaculus on February 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:20 AM

She’s not a candidate. That’s the difference. If she wanted to run she could have been as political as she wanted to be and risen or fallen accordingly. The Iowa speech was the last straw for me, and as I said she very cleverly didn’t attack any specific candidate. Nope, she prefers to deal in innuendo. And she never forgets to mention what a heroic reformer she is in contrast to OUR candidates who do eeevil things like organize a campaign and “raise massive amounts of cash”.

That speech was an appalling lapse of judgment on her part but she’s still proud of it apparently as she reminded us of it yesterday. If she had given the Iowa speech, and yesterday’s speech, and stuck to Obama I would have cheered them on without reservation. But her irresistible urge to stick it to our side (with indefensible generalities) helps no one but Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and… Sarah Palin).

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

gerrym51 on February 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM

In what way did No Child Left Behind help the war effort?

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

1) What would you call it if not a demand?

2) Okay, so Americans are consistently bad at choosing good leaders. You got me there. But it’s not like Sarah’s/the TEA party’s track record on that score is much better. Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell come to mind.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I’m not going to argue point No.1 with you any longer. And, no, I’m not agreeing to disagree. I think you’re just being obstinate and it’s impossible to get you to see that you’re incorrect.

Your response to point No. 2 marks you as a Palin-hater, not a reasonable interlocutor interested in arriving at a logical conclusion.

While you cite those who lost elections with Palin’s support as evidence of her track record being questionable, you conveniently ignore those who did win election due to her influence and backing.

You have a good day, sir.

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Yep. The vast majority of the independents that voted Obama last time, will NOT this time.
Obama’s modus operandi was a mysterious ‘unknown’ to the general public last election (but not to us here at Hotair).
And the Journalists fell all over themselves, trying to cover-up what little bit of info that was out there.
This time there’s really nothing ‘hidden’ about the man any more.
His cover is blown, and the Journalists can’t fix it.
.
Yep, pretty confident. But I do believe people can be OVER-confident, letting themselves relax before the battle’s over, there-by LOSING it.

That’s not gonna happen this time.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

She’s not a uniter, she’s a divider, and considering the fact it’s the most important election in our lifetime, where unity is crucial, her backstabbing is not helpful.

And to be clear, I’m not saying she has to promote Romney. But she is actively trying to pull the rug out from under him and it’s unseemly. Let him rise or fall on his own…

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM

lol … ok, if she was tacitly supporting Romney you’d be thrilled and you say she was trying to be a uniter. Let’s not throw the hypocrite card too many times … ok?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Of course, the Mittfilth want the Tea Party to be a captive constituency of the R’s much like African-Americans are for the D’s. Shut up, be a good little drone, don’t think for yourself or step out of line and vote for any piece of garbage (like Mitt or his buddy Teddy K) that comes down the line, that’s the Mittfilth mantra.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Yep, pretty confident. But I do believe people can be OVER-confident, letting themselves relax before the battle’s over, there-by LOSING it.

That’s not gonna happen this time.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Mitt has already shown that he HABITUALLY does this, so your point is moot.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

what does no child left behind have with spending too much money-your original post

gerrym51 on February 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

She’s not a candidate. That’s the difference. If she wanted to run she could have been as political as she wanted to be and risen or fallen accordingly.

I see…so if you aren’t running for office you can’t be “as political as you want(ed) to be.” That makes so much sense. Wait, then how can we criticize Obama? I know I’m not running for any office.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

novaculus on February 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

My representative is Mica, who heads the Transportation Committee. For the most part he is okay but several times he has been enticed by shiny high speed trains. He’s seems to be in the correct state of mine now but there is ever a spare dime I know I won’t be able to trust him. I email him all the time, I know he is thrilled. Oh, and he won’t have live town halls because his district is so spread out. Do I look like I give a flying flip that he might have to travel around a bit to look people in the eye?

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You err in assuming that “Buy Danish” is “on our side.”
After all, BD is one of the biggest supporters of Obama’s re-election on the site, i.e. a Mittbot.
ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Oh look! It’s a parrot littering the page with bird droppings!

lol … ok, if she was tacitly supporting Romney you’d be thrilled and you say she was trying to be a uniter. Let’s not throw the hypocrite card too many times … ok?
darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I am not a hypocrite and dreaming up hypothetical situations which cannot be proven one way or the other is a devious tactic.

Have you read her Iowa speech? Do you think it’s cool to make unsubstantiated allegations (like Flora Duh!)? To engage in vague innuendo? To suggest that there’s something wrong with fundraising? To accuse our candidates of being “crony-capitalists” without giving one specific example to back this up? The speech was a smear, I strenuously objected to it then, and I continue to object to these tactics.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

She’s not a candidate. That’s the difference. If she wanted to run she could have been as political as she wanted to be and risen or fallen accordingly.

I see…so if you aren’t running for office you can’t be “as political as you want(ed) to be.” That makes so much sense. Wait, then how can we criticize Obama? I know I’m not running for any office.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Logic & Reason Failure=the Mittbot trademark.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Of course, the Mittfilth want the Tea Party to be a captive constituency of the R’s much like African-Americans are for the D’s. Shut up, be a good little drone, don’t think for yourself or step out of line and vote for any piece of garbage (like Mitt or his buddy Teddy K) that comes down the line, that’s the Mittfilth mantra.
ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Look! The parrot pulled the slavery card! Brownie want a cracker? Bwaaaaack. Bwaaaaack.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I don’t insult personally , and I do compliment specifically .
Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM

If my memory’s missing it (and it certainly has here, in the past), then I’ll stand corrected.
My post you were making reference to, was based on my best memory of your prior posting history.
But again, I’ll stand corrected.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM

You err in assuming that “Buy Danish” is “on our side.”
After all, BD is one of the biggest supporters of Obama’s re-election on the site, i.e. a Mittbot.
ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Oh look! It’s a parrot littering the page with bird droppings!

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The three-state parlay highlighted not just Santorum’s strengths, but Romney’s structural weaknesses. At the most elemental level, it remains true that Mitt Romney’s greatest challenge is winning votes. He has now lost elections to five different rivals over the course of his career. The last presumptive presidential nominee to have lost to so many opponents was Richard Nixon, and his losses were offset by a large number of electoral victories. Whatever Romney’s personal, moral, and intellectual merits, he has stood before voters more than two dozen times now. And they have nearly always expressed a preference for the other fellow—no matter who the other fellow is.

The bedrock argument for Romney has always been that, whatever his weaknesses at inspiring voters, his money and campaign infrastructure would eventually carry the nomination and make him a formidable challenger for President Obama. In fact, this is precisely the argument the Romney campaign made in a strategy memo last week, on the morning of the elections. (In response, Santorum strategist Hogan Gidley quipped, “I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.”)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/taking-aim-santorum_626637.html?nopager=1

Keep whining, child. You and your fellow Mittfilth are putting on a spectacular and highly education display of informal fallacies and general lack of reasoning ability. Your dogged support of Obama’s re-election is interesting, but you’d probably be more at home with yourself if you honestly opened up and straightforwardly advocated voting for him instead of trying to depress voter turnout with Mittens.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM

gerrym51 on February 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

My original post was about W spending too much money. No Child Left Behind was a colossal waste of money, especially considering the money needed for the wars. I actually think the prescription drug coverage was a decent idea but it was a brand new entitlement that wasn’t paid for. I’m sorry I can’t agree with everything Pres. Bush did but he was the right man for the time.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Logic & Reason Failure=the Mittbot trademark.
ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

HA!! My criticism of Sarah Palin’s smears about our candidates=slavery. But you’re the “logical” and “reasonable” one.

I’ve already noted your trademark: Bird droppings.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Of course, the Mittfilth want the Tea Party to be a captive constituency of the R’s much like African-Americans are for the D’s. Shut up, be a good little drone, don’t think for yourself or step out of line and vote for any piece of garbage (like Mitt or his buddy Teddy K) that comes down the line, that’s the Mittfilth mantra.
ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Look! The parrot pulled the slavery card! Brownie want a cracker? Bwaaaaack. Bwaaaaack.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Wow, thanks for proving my point in bold letters! Do you always concede your opponent’s contentions so readily?

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Cleombrotus on February 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I’m not a Palin hater. Quite the contrary. I think she’s done this country a great service. But sometimes I disagree with her and think she’s well-intentioned but naive. It probably shouldn’t be (given the way the MSM was allowed to totally destroy her), but it’s surprising to me that so many of her followers rush to defend her no matter what she says or does.

I’ve actually defended her on liberal websites in the past, because I believe she’s been treated unfairly. But reading all the gushing comments here, I felt compelled to point out where I thought she was wrong. You can criticize what someone says without hating them. It’s too bad that I apparently wasn’t able to make that clear to you.

Syzygy on February 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I see your Mica and raise Visclosky.

novaculus on February 12, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Yep, pretty confident. But I do believe people can be OVER-confident, letting themselves relax before the battle’s over, there-by LOSING it.

That’s not gonna happen this time.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’m not so sure. Two next-in-lines in a row are going to turn some of the base off. A lot of the primary/caucus turnout has been lower than before. Maybe Romney can get an interesting VP pick to help.

Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM

HA!! My criticism of Sarah Palin’s smears about our candidates=slavery. But you’re the “logical” and “reasonable” one.

I’ve already noted your trademark: Bird droppings.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Keep winning friends and influencing people, child. Just try that attitude on independent voters and your goal of re-electing Obama will be a breeze.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Here’s the link for Daniel Hannan’s speech for everyone who is interested:

Full Speech: Daniel Hannan at CPAC 2012

It’s worth every minute.

PatriotGal2257 on February 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Did Sarah Palin write that Weekly Standard piece? What the hell is your point? Oh nevermind. Don’t bother answering that. It’s fruitless to argue with idiots and malicious ones to boot. For you to say I support Obama (who I ferociously and unrelentingly oppose) is a slander, so perhaps it is YOU who needs to “shut up”.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I’ve already noted your trademark: Bird droppings.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Yes, substantial powers of observation that. However, you still have not addressed the conundrum upon which your argument against Sarah was based. Namely, as you said in your own words, “she’s not a candidate” and “if she wanted to run she could have been as political as she wanted.” The flaw with this logic is that when extended beyond Sarah it precludes anyone who is not running for office from politically criticizing those who are. I would be willing to wager that is not your position. Rather, you are making a special rule that pertains only to one certain political analyst/politician whom you have a particular dislike for. You’ll pardon the rest of us for treating such an argument with the dignity it deserves.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Mitt has already shown that he HABITUALLY does this, so your point is moot.
ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Fine, ‘touche’, but I was referring to us voters and supporters who work mostly ‘anonymously’ behind the scenes, before the election.
.
However, I can’t disagree with you as pertains to Mitt.
.
But I would also insist he’s NOT a shoo-in for the GOP nomination, either.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Yep, pretty confident. But I do believe people can be OVER-confident, letting themselves relax before the battle’s over, there-by LOSING it.

That’s not gonna happen this time.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’m not so sure. Two next-in-lines in a row are going to turn some of the base off. A lot of the primary/caucus turnout has been lower than before. Maybe Romney can get an interesting VP pick to help.

Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM

After what happened to the last “interesting” pick, no sensible politician would take that spot when it is cast in those terms. Christie, although a terrible choice from both a gender and geographical balance standpoint, might be Mitt’s only real choice. Coulter hopes so, anyway.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:56 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

I’m going to play the same game you did when you jumped my sh*t for not going after after another poster who had accused you of being a Mormon, even though I had not seen the accusation.

You’ve seen the vitriol csdeven directs at supporters of Palin, why haven’t you ‘policed’ one of your own?

csdeven has no problem judging anyone who is supportive of Palin as being “toothless inbred worshipers of St. Palin the Victimized”, I think it’s only fair to judge him/her as being among those who posted those disgusting comments.

What’s good for the goose…so to speak, right BD?

btw, I finally stopped beating my children when they got taller than me. But now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time to open the door to my grandchildren’s dungeon and serve them their bi-daily gruel.

After their beatings, of course.

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Have you read her Iowa speech? Do you think it’s cool to make unsubstantiated allegations (like Flora Duh!)? To engage in vague innuendo? To suggest that there’s something wrong with fundraising? To accuse our candidates of being “crony-capitalists” without giving one specific example to back this up? The speech was a smear, I strenuously objected to it then, and I continue to object to these tactics.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM

We’ve gone over this before. This is what she said that you seem to compare to clubbing baby seals to death.

“Now to be fair, some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their “investments”? We need to know this because our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar “thank you” notes to campaign backers. It is an important question, and it cuts to the heart of our problem”.

You forget that Palin fought Republican corruption in Alaska … and won. She doesn’t want someone elected who feels obligated to reward donors with taxpayer money. Is that really something you disagree with?

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’ve already noted your trademark: Bird droppings.

Buy Danish on February 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Yes, substantial powers of observation that. However, you still have not addressed the conundrum upon which your argument against Sarah was based. Namely, as you said in your own words, “she’s not a candidate” and “if she wanted to run she could have been as political as she wanted.” The flaw with this logic is that when extended beyond Sarah it precludes anyone who is not running for office from politically criticizing those who are. I would be willing to wager that is not your position. Rather, you are making a special rule that pertains only to one certain political analyst/politician whom you have a particular dislike for. You’ll pardon the rest of us for treating such an argument with the dignity it deserves.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM

It’s ridiculously contradictory, since an active politician is far more constrained in their political roles and obligations than a private citizen is. After all, that’s what the Palin-haters were telling us when they wanted her to be a “kingmaker,” wasn’t it? Now that she’s actually acting in that role, they’re screaming like scalded rats.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

It almost seems like we need a Romney campaign poster that says:

Vote Romney … his supporters hate your guts!

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Indeed. But let’s have Danish answer for him/herself. I fear Danish will ignore the point and move on to another if it seems too difficult to address.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Flora Duh on February 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM

You give your grandxhildren “bi-daily” gruel? I found that mine can live on a daily portion. We had to tighten our belts here in Ohio. /

noneoftheabove on February 12, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Listens to Glenn,
I love Hot Air and the commenters here .
You surprised me with your comeback as you’re one of the folks
I agree with most .
My point this morning was that this always starts out as a slug fest
on the Sunday show stuff .
Yah I’m not too swift with IPad but I’m learning .
I am sorry , I just don’t know what else to say. Didn’t know I sounded so
trite .

Lucano on February 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Vote Romney … his supporters hate your guts!

darwin on February 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Ooohhh I like that!!! It works!

noneoftheabove on February 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’m not so sure. Two next-in-lines in a row are going to turn some of the base off. A lot of the primary/caucus turnout has been lower than before. Maybe Romney can get an interesting VP pick to help.
Dongemaharu on February 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM

EVERYONE should rally behind the nominee after the convention.
Considering what we’re up against, there’s no excuse for sitting this one out.
SCOTUS nominees alone, should be enough “drive” for all of the “anyone but Mitt” crowd to get out in November and vote for Mitt, IF he’s the nominee.
Same thing goes for the pro-Mitt crowd, if one of the others get the nomination.
.
Period.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Fine, ‘touche’, but I was referring to us voters and supporters who work mostly ‘anonymously’ behind the scenes, before the election.
.
However, I can’t disagree with you as pertains to Mitt.
.
But I would also insist he’s NOT a shoo-in for the GOP nomination, either.

listens2glenn on February 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM

We’ll see. I think that my prediction here in January 2008 that Mitt will never be President has merit, but I put nothing past the incompetence of Obama. However, the one thing that he’s good at, unlike Mittens, is winning elections. W’s margin of victory in 2004 was cut because he had Rove & Co. work to bolster the Republicans in Congress. Obama, by contrast, has no compunctions about letting the D’s in Congress burn if he gets the 270 EV’s necessary to win.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Indeed. But let’s have Danish answer for him/herself. I fear Danish will ignore the point and move on to another if it seems too difficult to address.

Pattosensei on February 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Yes, that’s the standard Mittbot way of dealing with Willard’s actual record, cf. Danish’s reaction to the Weekly Standard piece that echos Palin’s concerns.

ebrown2 on February 12, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4