Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on June 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

How happy do you think Romney is that, two days after he committed to making his first non-Fox Sunday morning appearance of the year, The One dropped a DREAM Act bombshell on him? Now, instead of spending 20 minutes attacking Obama on the economy, he’ll spend 20 minutes squirming through questions about whether he’d reverse O’s decision as president, what he has in mind for his own version of DREAM, and whether he thinks it’s possible to avoid a complete intraparty clusterfark over this issue. Makes me wonder if the White House didn’t accelerate the timing of yesterday’s policy shift because they knew Romney had nowhere to hide this weekend.

Here’s the line-up via WaPo. Plouffe, McCain, Graham, even Kim Strassel of the amnesty-friendly Wall Street Journal: Is there a single person on any show this weekend who opposes DREAM on the merits? Rich Lowry’s the only possibility that I see. Pawlenty might privately oppose it too, but as a top Romney surrogate he’s not going to come out strongly against it. Especially in a forum as prominent as this.

NBC’s Meet the Press: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); David Plouffe, White House senior adviser; David Maraniss, Washington Post; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Mark Halperin, Time; former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal

CBS’ Face the Nation: Mitt Romney; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal; Rich Lowry, National Review; Jan Crawford, CBS; John Dickerson, CBS and Slate

ABC’s This Week: David Plouffe, White House senior adviser; former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN); George Will, ABC News; Matthew Dowd, ABC News; former Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee; Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation

Fox News Sunday: David Plouffe, White House senior adviser; Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); Michael Hayden, former CIA Director; Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard; Joe Trippi, former Howard Dean campaign manager; Karl Rove, former Bush White House senior adviser; Juan Williams, Fox News


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 5

A short unpleasant history that combined with a link in her nic to a politicians donation pages reeks of professional paid political operative.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I thought I worked for Romney. Besides being a Muslim and an illegal immigrant. And Hispanic. Because I support Senator Rubio’s position on immigration reform.

Now I’m a political operative for Kerry’s campaign? Hahahaha. That was a quick fall of grace! I mean, the reason I have the donation pages linked here is because this Tea Party candidate who served on three wars, running against a candidate who was hand-picked by 12 establishment types after McCotter’s signatures debacle, hadn’t raised any money at all. I’m only associated to the campaign as a donor and a good friend of some volunteers with the campaign – who will work completely unpaid, they’ll be lucky to get enough money to pay for some signs and fliers. Any advice I might provide won’t certainly be paid either.

So, you guys can keep fantasizing on who I am, but you need to come up with more coherent narratives.

In the meanwhile, read about Bentivolio and Nancy Cassis and chip in some money:
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2012/6/10/135459/901
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120612/METRO/206120375

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM

The primaries are over. We didn’t need your virtual whip cracking then and it’s even more offensive now.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Amen!

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Darlin’, ddrintn used the term, I objected and you threw yourself in the middle of the conversation with what I have to assume was the reaction of a guilty consciousness. Now you have determined to proudly stand by the use of pop psychiatry as a tactic for “winning” a political argument, knock yourself out. I am sure the hosts appreciate the comment count.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Here’s what I asked you:

Again, who are those insufferable people who demand “full blown devotion”? Do you have quotes for that or not?

Let me guess: you reply will be another personal attack – sure, I take myself far too seriously, whatever you say – wrapped on a holier-than-thou tone?

joana on June 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You’re very predictable. :)

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Oh, you sound very upset. Let’s just agree to disagree, okay? Stop talking about me and I’ll stop defending myself. Does that work out for you? Let’s hope so.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I thought I worked for Romney. Besides being a Muslim and an illegal immigrant. And Hispanic. Because I support Senator Rubio’s position

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM

:)…you forgot lesbian :)… though mot sure where did that one come from, it was an immigration thread, no?

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Palin hasen’t endorsed Romney, she must be a liberal plant…

idesign on June 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

For some reason I don’t believe Romney is holding his breath in anticipation.

jan3 on June 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So you want me to take commenters who are not involved with this thread to task for things they have said in the past? Why would I do that? I don’t have to prove anything to you and need no further example than the one noted here. You just whined that people have called you all sorts of things, should I bore the multitudes by asking you to prove it? I believe you probably have been called things that you aren’t, that happens all the time on blogs during heated discussions. You are far to worked up over this.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I love the Democrat stance.

If a Republican is President than the economy is completely his fault and it’s a Bush recession.

If a Democrat is President than the economy is completely the fault of Congress but not when they control BOTH HOUSES, just when they control HALF.

It makes no sense.

Wagthatdog on June 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Oh, you sound very upset.

Project much. You really are a prise.

Let’s just agree to disagree, okay? Stop talking about me and I’ll stop defending myself. Does that work out for you? Let’s hope so.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I’ll offer a more permanent solution since I never refer to your comments anyway. Don’t address mine and don’t inject yourself into a conversation and I’ll go back to ignoring everything you post. Until this thread, I normally pass them over anyway. How’s that for a deal?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

prize

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM

My God, they really are pushing the idea Republicans, not Democrats controlled Congress the last 2 years of Bush and first 2 years of Obama.

That’s the only way their entire narrative could even work.

Wagthatdog on June 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

A short unpleasant history that combined with a link in her nic to a politicians donation pages reeks of professional paid political operative.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I thought I worked for Romney. Besides being a Muslim and an illegal immigrant. And Hispanic. Because I support Senator Rubio’s position on immigration reform.

Now I’m a political operative for Kerry’s campaign? Hahahaha. That was a quick fall of grace! I mean, the reason I have the donation pages linked here is because this Tea Party candidate who served on three wars, running against a candidate who was hand-picked by 12 establishment types after McCotter’s signatures debacle, hadn’t raised any money at all. I’m only associated to the campaign as a donor and a good friend of some volunteers with the campaign – who will work completely unpaid, they’ll be lucky to get enough money to pay for some signs and fliers. Any advice I might provide won’t certainly be paid either.

So, you guys can keep fantasizing on who I am, but you need to come up with more coherent narratives.

In the meanwhile, read about Bentivolio and Nancy Cassis and chip in some money:
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2012/6/10/135459/901
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120612/METRO/206120375

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM

So, let’s see if I have this rather irrational response correct.

A) Your history here is short.
B) Your history here is unpleasant
C) You like to attribute things said by party a, to party b.
D) You are indisputably shilling for Kerry Bentivolio
E) Any time anyone challenges you, you assert that it is a personal attack

These joana are indisputable facts, not fantasies. Given the way you play rather fast and loose with the facts, it is not difficult to see why many would be asking if you are a paid professional political operative, and why they might find it difficult to accept the veracity of an assertion by you that you are not. An assertion, I might add, that you have not actually made, you have only alluded to not being a paid political activist.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I can’t find a post where anyone said Romney would be worse than Obama.

You have a link for that?

idesign on June 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Look up Steveangells posts.

There’s another one who has said he would vote for Obama, though his name escapes me atm.

Alberta_Patriot on June 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM

There is a way t remedy this problem. Do not respond. When this difficult technique is tried it works. The commenter will leave.

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM

t=to

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I’ll offer a more permanent solution since I never refer to your comments anyway.

See? That will solve your problem.

Don’t address mine and don’t inject yourself into a conversation and I’ll go back to ignoring everything you post. Until this thread, I normally pass them over anyway. How’s that for a deal?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I’ll just do whatever I want and you’ll deal with it. And for now this conversation is over.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

These joana are indisputable facts, not fantasies. Given the way you play rather fast and loose with the facts, it is not difficult to see why many would be asking if you are a paid professional political operative, and why they might find it difficult to accept the veracity of an assertion by you that you are not. An assertion, I might add, that you have not actually made, you have only alluded to not being a paid political activist.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

i think she has the facts and numbers on her side most of the time, to the extent that even facts and numbers are subject to interpretation, no? she might have am unpleasant manner (to some at least) of delivering her comments and she definitely doesn’t care much for ingratiating herself with the rest of the commenters here which is legit…she was called every name in the book on the immigration thread two days ago, but for most art she ‘took it like a man” :) meaning she carried on with her argument ignoring the personal attacks…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I’ll just do whatever I want and you’ll deal with it. And for now this conversation is over.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No, it’s over for good.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Look, with all due respect, I don’t really care and you’re losing your time with all that fuss about who I am, what I do, your feelings about me or my style or whatever.

Check what Burke or jimver posted about that.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Moby

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

i think she has the facts and numbers on her side most of the time, to the extent that even facts and numbers are subject to interpretation, no? she might have am unpleasant manner (to some at least) of delivering her comments and she definitely doesn’t care much for ingratiating herself with the rest of the commenters here which is legit…she was called every name in the book on the immigration thread two days ago, but for most art she ‘took it like a man” :) meaning she carried on with her argument ignoring the personal attacks…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Sorry, I and many others disagree. Fact’s are not exclusively names date and times. They are also representative of patterns of behavior.

Follow the dialog between her and Cindy Mumford, if you wish to see the facts. You yourself are forced to admit that her demeanor is less than pleasant, That is a “fact”.

That she attempted to attribute to me, things said by other posters is a “Fact”.

You suggesting that you think that “she has the facts and numbers on her side most of the time” is a subjective assertion, where as my pointing out very specific actions taken by her is not.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Given the way you play rather fast and loose with the facts, it is not difficult to see why many would be asking if you are a paid professional political operative, and why they might find it difficult to accept the veracity of an assertion by you that you are not. An assertion, I might add, that you have not actually made, you have only alluded to not being a paid political activist.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

If she is a professional hack, someone is over-paying. I can’t imagine anyone more in need of a Dale Carnegie course and less likely to influence anyone in a positive way. If anything, she is generating animosity towards anyone she touts.

I’ll just do whatever I want and you’ll deal with it. And for now this conversation is over.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:27 PM

The real reason for all the obnoxious behavior: a power trip. I’m not as polite as Cindy, so I’ll call it what it is: Contemptible and rude behavior, gratifying some inner need to be noticed and feel important.

No, it’s over for good.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I’m with B’more. The best way to deal with it is to simply ignore its pitiful existence.

novaculus on June 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Look, with all due respect, I don’t really care and you’re losing your time with all that fuss about who I am, what I do, your feelings about me or my style or whatever.

Check what Burke or jimver posted about that.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM

In other words, you cannot refute a single thing I have said. I understand that you don’t care. It’s obvious that you do not care to everyone who reads anything you write.

Oh, and it’s also just as obvious, that your “with all due respect” is a empty rhetorical bloviation. Because after all, you really don’t care.

As to Burke or jimver, personal opinions don’t change reality, they are just personal opinions.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

John McCain and “Miss Lucy” sure love to appear on Sunday morning talk shows, don’t they? And, the liberal MSM is all too happy to have them appear.

bw222 on June 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

i think she has the facts and numbers on her side most of the time, to the extent that even facts and numbers are subject to interpretation, no? she might have am unpleasant manner (to some at least) of delivering her comments and she definitely doesn’t care much for ingratiating herself with the rest of the commenters here which is legit…she was called every name in the book on the immigration thread two days ago, but for most art she ‘took it like a man” :) meaning she carried on with her argument ignoring the personal attacks…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Sorry, I and many others disagree. Fact’s are not exclusively names date and times. They are also representative of patterns of behavior.

Follow the dialog between her and Cindy Mumford, if you wish to see the facts. You yourself are forced to admit that her demeanor is less than pleasant, That is a “fact”.

That she attempted to attribute to me, things said by other posters is a “Fact”.

You suggesting that you think that “she has the facts and numbers on her side most of the time” is a subjective assertion, where as my pointing out very specific actions taken by her is not.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 12:38

Of course it it is subjective, reason why I carefully I used phrases such as ‘for most part’ and ‘I think.’..I believe you and I are talking about two different things, I didn’t follow the cindy/joanna exchange since i guess that’s between the two of them…and that was not what I meant when I said ‘she has facts and numbers on her side’, I meant her comments/arguments on the topic du jour are usually backed up by facts and numbers…the rest is indeed entirely from the subjective realm…whether people like her personally or not…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Did Romney speak at all to the point of Obama’s usurping of power and circumvention of Constitutional limits by enacting de facto law by decree?

INC on June 17, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I hope its okay on this Fathers Day to not only wish all Fathers a happy Day. But for me to wish a Happy Birthday to one of our commenters, rarely seen but always appreciated.

Happy Birthday g kaz! At least she tells me it is your birthday. ; )

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I meant her comments/arguments on the topic du jour are usually backed up by facts and numbers…the rest is indeed entirely from the subjective realm…whether people like her personally or not…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Having the factual numerical data correct really means very little when the rest of your argument revolves around intentional distortions and dishonest representations of other individuals statements.

When, for example you imply or allude that an entire set of individuals have asserted a particular position only articulated by a small subset of that group, that is an intentional distortion of the facts.

When you intentionally attribute to party a) the assertions of party b) that is intention dishonesty.

That is “Playing fast and loose” with the facts.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Cindy and Chief, although you’re both above the crap some of the trolls and remaining shills dish out and I wish you’d just ignore them. I really do have to say, CLEAN UP ON AISLE NINE!

Killing them with kindness. ROTFL

smoothsailing on June 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Makes me wonder if the White House didn’t accelerate the timing of yesterday’s policy shift because they knew Romney had nowhere to hide this weekend.

Exactly.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Oh and g kaz. Enjoy!

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM

smoothsailing on June 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Excellent advice.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Please let me join you in wishing g kaz an awesome birthday. And Happy Fathers Day to all of our resident Dads here at Hot Air.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Yeps. Kudos to the liberals who are honest about who they are, unlike those “I’m too pure to vote for the GOP” concern trolls.

joana on June 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Yeah, right. We object to the guy who signed the blueprint for ObamaCare into law, but yet WE’RE the ones who are dishonest libs.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Aren’t u that Alan Keyes nutjob who drove FreeRepublic into the ground?

rickyricardo on June 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I meant her comments/arguments on the topic du jour are usually backed up by facts and numbers…the rest is indeed entirely from the subjective realm…whether people like her personally or not…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Having the factual numerical data correct really means very little when the rest of your argument revolves around intentional distortions and dishonest representations of other individuals statements.

When, for example you imply or allude that an entire set of individuals have asserted a particular position only articulated by a small subset of that group, that is an intentional distortion of the facts.

When you intentionally attribute to party a) the assertions of party b) that is intention dishonesty.

That is “Playing fast and loose” with the facts.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM

i guess she attributed to you something that you didn’t say, as in a sweeping generalization..She is not singular in that though..people do that all the time here, and it is merely a reflection of their emotional over reaction to certain comments by certain people which then they go on and project on everybody else…I do know what you mean, ddrintn does this constantly and while he keeps whining that ‘everybody’ call him an obamabot for not being a romney supporter (which is. Not true), he keeps calling a lot of people who are mild or reluctant rommey supporters ‘mittbots’…the irony of that…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

i guess she attributed to you something that you didn’t say, as in a sweeping generalization..She is not singular in that though..people do that all the time here, and it is merely a reflection of their emotional over reaction to certain comments by certain people which then they go on and project on everybody else…I do know what you mean, ddrintn does this constantly and while he keeps whining that ‘everybody’ call him an obamabot for not being a romney supporter (which is. Not true), he keeps calling a lot of people who are mild or reluctant rommey supporters ‘mittbots’…the irony of that…

jimver on June 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I called ddrintn on it earlier in this thread as well. I’m not anti ddrintn or joana, but I do find their tactics to be offensive.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM

There’s another one who has said he would vote for Obama, though his name escapes me atm.

Alberta_Patriot on June 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM

angryed.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Please let me join you in wishing g kaz an awesome birthday. And Happy Fathers Day to all of our resident Dads here at Hot Air.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Absolutely he/they would appreciate that. ; )

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I’m concerned about:

1. Why is Romney tap dancing and what does he really think?

Romney: A Conservative on Immigration?

IMHO Romney’s verbal tap dancing indicates his future actions would match his past record.

2. What exactly did Romney say about the constitutionality of Obama’s actions?

As we all know Obama has a pattern of usurping power and circumventing the Constitution. This needs to be stated straightforwardly and calmly because it is the truth, and because many in this country really need to be educated about our system of government.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM

There’s another one who has said he would vote for Obama, though his name escapes me atm.

Alberta_Patriot on June 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM

angryed.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Their are a couple others whose vitriol towards Romney suggests that they intend to vote for Obama purely out of spite as well. Who is it that keeps posting NOMITTOBAMA???

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM

BTW, I’d also like to say Happy Father’s Day to all the dads. I don’t know if I missed a post from earlier today, but thank you for all you do and all you are to your families.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM

.
Sorry, opinions no longer allowed.

But we won’t ban you for it . . . . . . this time.

listens2glenn on June 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Thanks for the reprieve:-)

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM

“I find it hard to believe the Won isn’t pissing off more people than he’s making happy”

Be wary of the polling on this issue. Many people don’t want to be accused of racism.

RADIOONE on June 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Another question: did Romney address the impact this imperial directive would have on the economy and unemployed U.S. citizens?

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Pragmatic

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM

As much as I hate to say it, verbal tap dancing is a required talent when you are a candidate for president. The only bright spot I find in that is that at least this year The Won will be required to put his tap shoes on as well. You know what? I bet that’s racist.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Pragmatic

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/15/romney-on-obamas-new-dream-rule-id-like-to-see-legislation-that-deals-with-this-issue/comment-page-6/

Pragmatic on June 16, 2012 at 5:24 PM

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

:) It probably is racist.

I think the key to being able to avoid tap dancing is being able to made your case winsomely with facts.

This issue can be tackled by:

-Speaking of attitude toward the law.

-Speaking of the hard word and cost of those who are legal immigrants.

-Speaking of the impact on the economy and unemployed U.S. citizens.

-Speaking of the importance of the U. S. Constitution and checks on power.

-Speaking of the role and purpose of government. I would personally throw in some anecdotes and quotes from Sowell on Conflict of Visions.

Facts + Political vision & philsosophy + some pointed Humor

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Another question: did Romney address the impact this imperial directive would have on the economy and unemployed U.S. citizens?

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I’m not sure if the questions were phrased like that, but some of the CBS interview is here:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57454771/mitt-romney-stands-by-anti-tax-pledge/

A video also and some transcript.

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Thanks!

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I mentioned in the headlines that I thought that Gov. Romney should focus on the executive order aspect to this and AZCoyote says that he did and talked about tackling the problem through Congress. I think that’s about the best you can say in a general election. I’m going to have to find the video and see if that is my impression. Gov. Romney isn’t as conservative as I would like but I do appreciate that the general election is a whole new ballgame.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I clicked on the link at the bottom to the immigration section. That made me feel worse—not just for his words about immigration, but that at the end he’s still touting RomneyCare was a state solution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57454773/romney-immigration-needs-long-term-fix-not-stop-gap/

This doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57454775/romney-i-dont-care-about-re-elections/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

“Heck, I was in a state where my legislature was 87-percent Democrat, and we faced some tough times. We worked together. I didn’t get everything I wanted; they didn’t get everything they wanted. They got most of what they wanted,” he said.

Say what?

I guess I’ll have to wait for the entire transcript.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:58 PM

There is a way t remedy this problem. Do not respond. When this difficult technique is tried it works. The commenter will leave.

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I saw it work recently on one of the QOTD threads. Don’t know if it worked all night:-)

Starve a Moby/Troll/Obot Many get paid per reply they receive.

bluefox on June 17, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM

I agree the general election is different, but I think a lot more could be said. This is important to me because Romney has never indicated he had any understanding of conservative philosophy of government nor any understanding of the importance of it (you have to have the first to go to the second) and the importance of winning people to it.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The sad fact is that Gov. Romney doesn’t have any understanding of conservative philosophy. As I have said before and I will say again, conservatives are the Republican’s welfare queens. We have no place else to go. At this point the best we can do is load up local races and Congress to make it hard to continue D.C.’s wicked ways. One day we will get the opportunity to make a principled stand but I don’t want to chance another Obama term.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Romney is scary but Obama is much scarier. It appears we have another lesser of two evils election. A lot of us were hoping it wouldn’t be that way.

Rose on June 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Palin hasen’t endorsed Romney, she must be a liberal plant…

idesign on June 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

For some reason I don’t believe Romney is holding his breath in anticipation.

jan3 on June 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Of course he isn’t, but he should be. That’s where Romney’s big blind spot is. If Palin came out tomorrow and said that she couldn’t in good conscience vote for Romney but would vote third party or something instead, he’d have trouble cracking 40% in November. And you know it.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Rose on June 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I know. I’m going to try not to get upset about the stupid things that are going to be said in the general. After we get rid of The Won, I am going to keep my pitch fork sharp, as in Tea Party participation, to see if we can’t have some teachable moments for all in Washington. I wonder what they will substitute for the term racists when we protest spending and mandatory healthcare under a Pres. Romney administration?

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Rose on June 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I agree with you both.

I’m convinced that Romney & his aides factored that into his campaign: there would be absolute minimum appeal to the conservative base—only as much as was necessary to win a primary in an individual state. I think he was dragged further to the right than he wanted to be because there were enough people who were clued into him to stop his cake walk. Votes scattered among the other candidates and voters who mistook rhetoric for record handed him the nomination, and we’re stuck.

Once before I said that Romney has little to no experience of dealing with conservatives in a constituency because they are few and far between in MA. I don’t think he realizes the extent to which his feet will be held to the fire if he’s elected (which I do expect because Obama is so horrible). Not only the base, but those who voted for Romney in the primaries based on the premise that he was in fact a conservative are not going to be happy if he reverts to his MA past.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Ah, then we’ll be rubes, TruCons, the crazies or whatever new pejorative labels they can think of.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I dislike The Won so much that I am proud as punch that Gov. Romeny is at least making him eat his words. That’s not to say that I will be happy with the status quo in D.C. if he gets elected by at least the man is willing to fight. Unlike last election.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Ah, then we’ll be rubes, TruCons, the crazies or whatever new pejorative labels they can think of.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Only “racists” because the vote won’t even be close and all will be blamed on “racism”.

MLK turns in his grave, with indignation at how dumb the media and leftists consider the blacks and the masses to be.

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Of course he isn’t, but he should be. That’s where Romney’s big blind spot is. If Palin came out tomorrow and said that she couldn’t in good conscience vote for Romney but would vote third party or something instead, he’d have trouble cracking 40% in November. And you know it.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Except that that isn’t going to happen and you even implying it could is just plain dishonest. Sarah has made it 100 percent crystal clear she is supporting whomever the Republican Nominee is.

But if you want to continue to deceive yourself, fine, you do that, just don’t think you wont be called on it when you post it here.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Romney is scary but Obama is much scarier. It appears we have another lesser of two evils election. A lot of us were hoping it wouldn’t be that way.

Rose on June 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Faute de mieux, indeed. Thank the elites, the establishment and foremost Brit Hume, whom I despise for it.

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The much hated racist Mr. Limbaugh calls it “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and it’s not good for anyone.

Cindy Munford on June 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Yeah, and the thing is that when I look at Obama I don’t even think of him in terms of his skin color except as something he cynically traded on to get votes.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Except that that isn’t going to happen and you even implying it could is just plain dishonest. Sarah has made it 100 percent crystal clear she is supporting whomever the Republican Nominee is.

But if you want to continue to deceive yourself, fine, you do that, just don’t think you wont be called on it when you post it here.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM

“Dishonest”? It’s no such thing. She’s “supporting” Romney in pretty much the same way that Romney dissenters here are “supporting” him: trying to force ourselves to swallow yet another shit sandwich. And for you to think otherwise is complete delusion.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Schadenfreude on June 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Yeah, and the thing is that when I look at Obama I don’t even think of him in terms of his skin color except as something he cynically traded on to get votes.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Obama would claim to be a Martin if he believed it would guarantee him reelection, yea, he’s like that.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

The Left specializes in Elizabeth Warrenization!

INC on June 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I thought Mitt gave a great interview this morning after stumbling a bit with his initial response to Obama’s ILLEGAL EO the other day. of course, what do I know, I’m just a brainwashed member of the “Mittler Youth”…

1984 in real life on June 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Obama would claim to be a Martin if he believed it would guarantee him reelection, yea, he’s like that.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Great! Here come the “Earthers.”

Happy Nomad on June 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I thought Mitt gave a great interview this morning after stumbling a bit with his initial response to Obama’s ILLEGAL EO the other day. of course, what do I know, I’m just a brainwashed member of the “Mittler Youth”…
1984 in real life on June 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I didn’t watch it. Why did you think that? Seriously.

HB3 on June 17, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Obama would claim to be a Martin if he believed it would guarantee him reelection, yea, he’s like that.

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Great! Here come the “Earthers.”

Happy Nomad on June 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM

BWAHAHAH…… ;)

SWalker on June 17, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I thought Mitt gave a great interview this morning after stumbling a bit with his initial response to Obama’s ILLEGAL EO the other day. of course, what do I know, I’m just a brainwashed member of the “Mittler Youth”…

1984 in real life on June 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I thought he did a good job, too. He isn’t giving the Obama camp what they thought they’d get with this — an exploitable comment they could craftily edit and run on Spanish language radio and television — so this has been a fail for Barack. And when the dust settles, the story will become “Why didn’t Barack do anything about immigration until his re-election was in jeopardy?” Even people on the left are feeling a little oily at the crass politicalization of his announcement.

Rational Thought on June 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Of course he isn’t, but he should be. That’s where Romney’s big blind spot is. If Palin came out tomorrow and said that she couldn’t in good conscience vote for Romney but would vote third party or something instead, he’d have trouble cracking 40% in November. And you know it.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM

So if Palin would have been the candidate, and Romney would have declared that he is running as a 3′rd party candidate would Palin have trouble cracking 40%?

And if Hillary would announce tomorrow that she is running against Obama would Obama be able to crack 35% ?

The answer is is obvious on both questions, and you know it, so what the hell is your point?

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The answer is is obvious on both questions, and you know it, so what the hell is your point?

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM

lol good question!

Is the answer, Palin say, “Jump!”, people like ddrintn say, “How high, Mistress Sarah?”, and people like ddrintn believe that says something positive about those who would mindlessly obey her commands like they’re her dogs?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Try to get ddrintn to say anything remotely like a compliment to Sarah Palin other than repeating what she occasionally states that’s a criticism of the GOP, he can’t. Sarah was an excuse and way of claiming to be Conservative and still bash the whole field running. Try to get him to say one objectively critical thing about President Obama. He can’t. You’ll have to ask yourselves why although I have an idea.

Also pretty amazing that he manages to draw criticism of Palin so easily from folks here just by invoking her name. He doesn’t like Palin any more than he likes Mitt Romney. And in case you missed it, the only person he refuses to bush on is President Obama himself.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Say what?

I guess I’ll have to wait for the entire transcript.

INC on June 17, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I’m not a big Romney fan, but Romney focused more on the political aspect of it, saying that if it was really so important to Obama, why did he wait until 4 months before the election to do this? He tiptoed around what he would do about it, but here I have to give him the benefit of the doubt because I would be willing to bet Obama has no idea what to do about it now that he’s announced it, so how could Romney be expected to know all the details? The interviewer was actually pretty friendly and didn’t attempt too much of a “gotcha” kind of thing, and he let Romney finish most of his sentences, which was odd to watch. :)

The part of the transcript you didn’t like, you kind of have to see it to get the tone of the thing, because Romney was being asked what he would do about the deep divide in Washington. He said he was sure there are democrats who care more about this country than they do about the next election, blah, blah, blah, which we all hope is true but doubt.

As I said, I’m not a big fan, but I thought he did pretty well.

Night Owl on June 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Try to get ddrintn to say anything remotely like a compliment to Sarah Palin other than repeating what she occasionally states that’s a criticism of the GOP, he can’t. Sarah was an excuse and way of claiming to be Conservative and still bash the whole field running. Try to get him to say one objectively critical thing about President Obama. He can’t. You’ll have to ask yourselves why although I have an idea.

Also pretty amazing that he manages to draw criticism of Palin so easily from folks here just by invoking her name. He doesn’t like Palin any more than he likes Mitt Romney. And in case you missed it, the only person he refuses to bush on is President Obama himself.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I followed your exchange in the morning, and you’re right,

I remember in 2008 i liked reading his comments where he was a solid Romney fan, and didn’t like McCain too much, and he basically offered his opinion, and in most cases i agreed with him,

I have no idea what happened to him, Some people on this site have become way to emotionally attached with certain candidates, And as a result they started hating everybody other then their preferred candidate,

This is what happened with Angryed,etc..(a few Romney fanatics as well) and with some other commentators here,

Most people on HA are anything but Romneybots or Romney lovers, Most people here support Romney 1)He is the lesser of 2 evils 2) They believe that with a republican senate and congress he will have to be quite conservative 3) My opinion, that Romney isn’t any worse then Bush,

As i said the other day, even if you believe that Romney and Obama are both liberals, its obvious that Romney isn’t a radical liberal, And won’t have Holder, etc… and a bunch of radicals in the white house

I do remember how he criticized Perry on a daily basis, and i cannot remember when he criticized Obama in the last year, And so far he hasn’t provided any proof that you were wrong, So all i can say is What’s the point of commenting on HA if the only thing you want to accomplish is to say over and over that Romney is a weak candidate??????

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 4:15 PM

So if Palin would have been the candidate, and Romney would have declared that he is running as a 3′rd party candidate would Palin have trouble cracking 40%?

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I don’t think anything Romney would’ve said or done would’ve mattered any more than John Anderson did in 1980 as long as we had a conservative nominee.

Try to get ddrintn to say anything remotely like a compliment to Sarah Palin other than repeating what she occasionally states that’s a criticism of the GOP, he can’t. Sarah was an excuse and way of claiming to be Conservative and still bash the whole field running.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Oh, I only “claim” to be a conservative. Those who swallow the Romney shit sandwich and like it.,..those are the real deal! LOL Your definition of conservatism boils down solely to the litmus test of having a visceral hatred for Obama. That ain’t conservatism in itself, bud.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I followed your exchange in the morning, and you’re right,

I remember in 2008 i liked reading his comments where he was a solid Romney fan, and didn’t like McCain too much, and he basically offered his opinion, and in most cases i agreed with him,

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You were hallucinating. I didn’t register until just on the eve of the 2008 election. I wasn’t a huge Romney fan ever.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Can you even exchange anymore without angry vulgar language?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Can you even exchange anymore without angry vulgar language?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

What in that comment was “angry and vulgar”?

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM

^ You sit there and say that my “conservatism” extends only to my adoration for Sarah Palin, and then you’re startled at “anger” and “vulgarity”.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM

You were hallucinating. I didn’t register until just on the eve of the 2008 election. I wasn’t a huge Romney fan ever.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Okay, Maybe i am off a little there, But i do remember you rooting for Romney, so maybe it was for McCain’s VP or something,

My point is, that in the beginning of the Primary this year, i understood your goal of being against every candidate, because you wanted Palin, (and there is nothing wrong with that, i wanted her too) But why is it that since she announced her decision not to run, you haven’t moved on?

Basically when there is a good poll for Romney, you don’t comment, But when there is any bad news for Romney, you are all over the place, happy to tell everybody how you know that Romney will lose 53-44% against Obama?

Why is it that you can’t find anytime to comment on threads about Obama and add a few jibs on him? But you find all the time to make other people depressed about Romney etc..

I won’t accuse you of being a liberal because i know you are not , But i would accuse you of being obsessed with criticizing Romney, as if he is the one responsible for FF, for the stimulus,etc..

At least do like Palin does, Hammer away at Obama, and don’t mention Romney, that seems like a good idea

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Most people on HA are anything but Romneybots or Romney lovers, Most people here support Romney 1)He is the lesser of 2 evils 2) They believe that with a republican senate and congress he will have to be quite conservative 3) My opinion, that Romney isn’t any worse then Bush,

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Oh, give me a break. This site has pretty much degenerated into little squads of Mittbots running around trying to squelch any signs of dissent with shrieks of “MOBY!!!! O-BOT!!!!! TROLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!” It’s why the number of comments as well as the number of commenters is in decline.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Basically when there is a good poll for Romney, you don’t comment, But when there is any bad news for Romney, you are all over the place, happy to tell everybody how you know that Romney will lose 53-44% against Obama?

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I say the same thing about any poll. I’m not the one living and dying on the basis of friggin’ polls. The Mittbots are. And yeah, I do think that will be pretty much Romney’s numbers against Obama. Am I supposed to pull out the pom poms just because Romney’s a Republican? He’s always been a weak candidate, and he always will be.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM

What in that comment was “angry and vulgar”?

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM

What wasn’t.

And I never asked for a “visceral hatred” of anyone. As a matter of fact, I’m probably one of the more respectful commenters here of President Obama and the office itself. My point is that you never say a word about him, his administration, his mistakes, his misuse and outright disrespect for The Constitution. Only GOP candidates.

I don’t know if you ever were a Romney fan, but I know you used to make some convincing comments that might lead one to actually believe you started out Conservative. Are you ever going to get back there, or were you never really there?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM

^ You sit there and say that my “conservatism” extends only to my adoration for Sarah Palin, and then you’re startled at “anger” and “vulgarity”.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I didn’t say that either. I said I’m starting to wonder whether your following of Palin was actually a dodge. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else you exchange with?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM

^ You sit there and say that my “conservatism” extends only to my adoration for Sarah Palin, and then you’re startled at “anger” and “vulgarity”.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I didn’t say that either. I said I’m starting to wonder whether your following of Palin was actually a dodge. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else you exchange with?

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Actually, you’re right. What you insinuated was that my adoration of Palin is only a ruse to cover my attacking any of those fine conservatives or som,e such.

Enough of these games. All you do is sit there and throw out insinuations and then when you’re called on it you pull the “Who, me?” routine. It’s Buy Danish all over again.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM

What wasn’t.

And I never asked for a “visceral hatred” of anyone.

hawkdriver on June 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM

One last thing: yeah, you do. The dynamic has become as follows: if one does not hate Obama sufficiently to the extent that they’re willing to sing hosannas to any squish who comes out of the loaded and to a large extent media- and poll-driven Republican primary process, then that person is obviously lacking in “conservative” fortitude and conviction and is obviously working directly or indirectly for the “socialists” and “commies” etc etc. I’m tired of that sort of game as well. It’s why nothing ever changes, only the speed of the decline.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Am I supposed to pull out the pom poms just because Romney’s a Republican?

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Yes, actually. Here’s a reminder since you seem to have forgotten:

Buhs 43, alone, by himself tried to give us Harriet Miers.

Bush 43, plus a republican base that threatened revolt gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Two men who right now represent the last best hope of saving the United States of America.

Unless you want to stack SCOTUS with more racist-socialist Sotomayors, giving us thirty years of Roe v. Wade/Kelo scale judicial disasters, you will pick up those pom-poms, tattoo “I <3 Romney" and start doing jumping jacks.

Your definition of conservatism boils down solely to the litmus test of having a visceral hatred for Obama.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Your definition of conservatism boils down solely to the litmus test of having a visceral hatred for Romney.

Alberta_Patriot on June 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Am I supposed to pull out the pom poms just because Romney’s a Republican?

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

No, And i am not advocating, or insisting that you have to do that,

However what i do ask is, what is your solution to stop Obama from his madness march? How do we stop him from deciding to stop enforcing laws he doesn’t like in his second term? (a republican congress won’t do it, since they can’t stop him from ignoring laws)

So to me, and to most commentators on HA, the only way to stop him right now is by doing everything we can to help elect Romney, Not because we love him, or because he is something special, it is because he is the only one right now that if given the right support will be able to stop it,

If you have a better solution feel free to share it, but if you don’t than what’s the point of beating Romney everyday?

OrthodoxJew on June 17, 2012 at 5:03 PM

One last thing: yeah, you do. The dynamic has become as follows: if one does not hate Obama sufficiently to the extent that they’re willing to sing hosannas to any squish who comes out of the loaded and to a large extent media- and poll-driven Republican primary process, then that person is obviously lacking in “conservative” fortitude and conviction and is obviously working directly or indirectly for the “socialists” and “commies” etc etc. I’m tired of that sort of game as well. It’s why nothing ever changes, only the speed of the decline.

Well, look, the other GOP candidates in the primaries all sucked worse even than Romney, including on the issue of illegal immigration. Romney was the best available. Get him elected, then hold his feet to the fire. His election shouldn’t be considered the endpoint of conservative activism. That said, people calling him the “white Obama” are clearly insane.

HB3 on June 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Let’s score it:

NBC’s Meet the Press: RINO, Kook-fringe Lib, Lib, Lib, Lib, Lib, GOP-ish.

CBS’ Face the Nation: GOP, clownish Lib, RINO, RINO, GOP, Lib, Lib.

ABC’s This Week: Kook-fringe Lib, GOP, Conservative (1st one!), Lib, Lib, Kook-fringe Lib.

Fox News Sunday: Kook-fringe Lib, Lib, malleable sycophant, Conservative, Lib, GOP, Lib.

16 Libs
10 GOP-ish non-Libs
1 Unidentifiable mercenary

Typical.

Jaibones on June 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Let’s score it:

NBC’s Meet the Press: RINO, Kook-fringe Lib, Lib, Lib, Lib, Lib, GOP-ish.

CBS’ Face the Nation: GOP, clownish Lib, RINO, RINO, GOP, Lib, Lib.

ABC’s This Week: Kook-fringe Lib, GOP, Conservative (1st one!), Lib, Lib, Kook-fringe Lib.

Fox News Sunday: Kook-fringe Lib, Lib, malleable sycophant, Conservative, Lib, GOP, Lib.

16 Libs
10 GOP-ish non-Libs
1 Unidentifiable mercenary

Typical.

Jaibones on June 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Thank you, I appreciate the summary as I have no tv and cannot watch.

Bmore on June 17, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Your definition of conservatism boils down solely to the litmus test of having a visceral hatred for Obama.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Your definition of conservatism boils down solely to the litmus test of having a visceral hatred for Romney.

Alberta_Patriot on June 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Of course, only in Mittbot World does pointing out that Romney is a weak squishy candidate and likely to lose equal “visceral hatred of Romney”.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Unless you want to stack SCOTUS with more racist-socialist Sotomayors, giving us thirty years of Roe v. Wade/Kelo scale judicial disasters, you will pick up those pom-poms, tattoo “I <3 Romney" and start doing jumping jacks.

Alberta_Patriot on June 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Yeah. When no defense of Romney sounds convincing, trot out the old SCOTUS blackmail job. Must’ve read it more than a thousand times so far. I’ll tell ya what, if SCOTUS is so damned important, one of two things needs to happen: either the GOPe starts pimping better moderate mannequins or else GOP voters stop letting the GOPe, Gallup and the media pick their nominees.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Well, look, the other GOP candidates in the primaries all sucked worse even than Romney…

HB3 on June 17, 2012 at 5:20 PM

No, they didn’t. Romney and Huntsman were the suckiest of all of them, and that includes Johnson and Paul.

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

ddrintn on June 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

*facepalm*..

Dire Straits on June 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5