On Palin & her potential lack of an invitation to the GOP convention

posted at 10:01 am on July 17, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

Yesterday morning Ed tagged a Newsweek article that tried to make hay out of the fact that Palin may not receive an invitation to speak at the GOP convention. Ed pointed out that this may not actually be a big deal, both to Palin and the grassroots, and I agree with comments made below the post by RBJ and Skwor that it’s likely just Newsweek trying to create controversy out of nothing substantive.

However, this is where RBJ, Skwor and a great deal of the Hot Air viewership and I may split our views. While I am not a fan of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, and think he is far too moderate in almost every way, I am not disappointed that Palin may not speak at the convention. In fact, I’m quite pleased.

When Palin first came onto the national scene in 2008, I knew literally nothing about her. I actually thought that Romney should have been the VP pick that year, since back then he had the backing of many prominent conservatives and his Olympic, gubernatorial and business background would have been useful during the economic crash. Of course, back then, I also thought he was a conservative — clearly, I’ve learned better since.

But back to Palin. I decided to keep an open mind prior to her 2008 GOP Convention speech, but afterwards was the only person in a roomful of conservative interns who thought it was merely decent. Everyone else was ecstatic about what she had said. I also watched part of her much-maligned Couric interview, but heard from my friend Adam Brickley — who as a college student helped launch Palin to the national spotlight — that I should not put much weight into what I saw there. I then spent the next two years reading her op-eds, watching her speak, and discussing the excitement many other young conservatives had for Palin and her future within the GOP, and realized I just didn’t think Palin added much to the conservative movement. Yes, she has her positive attributes, both personally and with regards to public policy. But between her unpopularity with the general public (yes, partially created and exacerbated by utterly dishonest media portrayals of Palin and her family, as well as completely hateful attacks on her by Paul Krugman and others after the Giffords shooting) and her lack of knowledge on issues outside of anti-corruption and energy policy, I think inviting her to speak at the convention would be a poor decision for the GOP.

Of course, inviting Palin to speak would have its positive effects. Certainly, much of the conservative base would be excited to see and hear her, and it would give them hope that Romney and the GOP establishment isn’t trying to take conservative votes for granted. Additionally, she is certainly a more powerful speaker than Romney and most of the GOP leadership. However, I think the negatives of such an appearance outweigh the net positives for those whose sole electoral goal is to get Obama out of office — including potentially scaring off moderate voters who are open to voting for Romney and giving the liberal media the opportunity to attach Romney to the largely unpopular Palin.

This is not to say the GOP should continue its path to liberal and corrupt political stances. I think one can be a philosophical, small-government conservative and still not want Sarah Palin leading the party, but her legions of fans do have a point that often it is establishment Republicans who are focusing on getting Palin out of the party. However, inviting Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, or any of several dozen other prominent conservatives to speak at the convention would provide the needed conservative slant in the lineup of speakers as well as the policy-strong opinions needed to stand up against a biased media intent on getting Obama re-elected.

 

 

 


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 7 8 9 10 11

kim roy on July 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM

You paint with a “broad” brush (hahaha that was a pun)
Just curious who are the Conservative women you’ve identified as hostile towards other Conservative women?

Buttercup on July 17, 2012 at 5:32 PM

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Exactly. Also, most independents don’t hate Palin. They just think she is a bit stupid.

Also, how much money could she raise for Romney by simply saying please donate to the Romney campaign on Facebook and Twitter?

KMav on July 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Has Bush been elected to office since the White House? Has Condoleeza Rice ever been elected to anything? Should the convention exclude Bob Dole or any other former Senator on the grounds “well, they’re not currently in office”? I’d still say all of those people are “in politics”. You’re deliberately restricting the definition of “in politics” to suit your goal of excluding Palin.

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Former presidents deserve a certain level of deference on account of them winning national election twice, and in Bush’s case specifically, being retired by the Constitution. Dole served longer and won a lot more election than Palin did and hasn’t spoken in prime time since 1996.

Speaking of 1996 reminds me of Jack Kemp, another Republican vice presidential nominee who lost and then was neither holding nor seeking political office at the party’s next convention. Kemp didn’t speak in 2000 either.

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I find it so amusing, that those Sarah haters who spam all the Sarah threads, and rail against her for the past 4 years, need to attack her STILL.

I thnk I understand why. Because she is a threat to their liberal icons. Further, she is the best communicator of our times.

Ask yourself, why do the Sarah haters keep posting. If she is so irrevelant like they often say, why are these wankers still attacking her.

By the way, another Sarah thread heading toward 1,000 comments. Romneycare’s average is 50, while obumbler threads generally get around 75 comments at this site.

Keep pissing off those same miserable skanks, Sarah, I love it!

Danielvito on July 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM

At the same time, the Dems didn’t treat Ferraro like a leper in 1988. Only GOPers show that kind of cannibalistic idiocy.

ddrintn on July 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Did Ferraro go to Newsweek and make herself out to be a martyr by saying the reason she didn’t give a speech at the convention was because she was calling out Democrats for doing things she disagreed with?

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Ted Cruz, ahead in polls in GOP primary for US Senate race in Texas against the GOP establishment candidate, Lt. Gov. of Texas David Dewhurst

Viator on July 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Wishing Ted Cruz a great victory!!!

Thanks Sarah!!!

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Pork-Chop on July 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Thanks for the link. The more facts about Sarah Palin, the better.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM

One more thing. Palin strongly endorsed both Kelly Ayotte and Susana Martinez in the primaries in blushish-purple states. Neither was that well known and both were woman. Seems like the perfect place to use Palin to demonise these two Republicans. Yet, Martinez won by 7 and Ayotte won by 24. If these two couldn’t be Palinised by connection, how will Mitt “Mr. Moderate” Romney be?

KMav on July 17, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Sarah Palin just endorsed Sarah Steelman who is running for the US Senate in Missouri against Claire Macaskill.

technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

…provide the needed conservative slant in the lineup of speakers….

Well thank you, Dustin. As the country goes down the tubes at the hands of this lawless excuse of an administration, I’ll be looking for just that right injection of conservative nuance into the moderate Republican juggernaut to set things right. God forbid that a radical firebrand like Palin might stumble into the party and upset that oh-so-delicate formulation.

Barnestormer on July 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

One more thing. Palin strongly endorsed both Kelly Ayotte and Susana Martinez in the primaries in blushish-purple states. Neither was that well known and both were woman. Seems like the perfect place to use Palin to demonise these two Republicans. Yet, Martinez won by 7 and Ayotte won by 24. If these two couldn’t be Palinised by connection, how will Mitt “Mr. Moderate” Romney be?

KMav on July 17, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Good point. This resistance could be coming from those that selected and are backing Romney (Republicans/Bush/Rove etc) After all, it was Barbara Bush that said Palin should stay in Alaska.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So, who’s up for another 200 posts because of the Steelman endorsement?

You think if Romney had done that today, anyone would have noticed? Probably not. He made a great speech, but his campaign ended up getting off-message because of McCain’s statement of the Obvious about why Palin was picked in 2008.

victor82 on July 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

victor82 on July 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Brunner for Missouri Senate.

:)

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Sarah “Midas” Palin endorses Steelman.

Hay caramba! irrelevant my tush.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Wishing Ted Cruz a great victory!!!

Thanks Sarah!!!

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

BlueFox, you are OK in my book.

SparkPlug on July 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Sarah Palin just endorsed Sarah Steelman who is running for the US Senate in Missouri against Claire Macaskill.

technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Go Steelman. Way to Go Palin.

SparkPlug on July 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

victor82 on July 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

mccain and romney. they’re like the harlem globetrotters opponents who all inevitably lost. stiff stupid white dudes without a clue or a jump shot.

i’m on the sidelines waiting to see what Sarah does. As she goes, so do I. word.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Keep Palin in the background.
She is what scares normal people about the so-called conservatives and/or religious right.
She sounds like every educated person’s greatest fear, a religious zealot with little or no critical thinking ability.
I don’t know if that is true but that is my and many others impression of her and it’s scary.
I know she is very useful for energizing the base and I want Romney to win, or to be more honest, I want Obama and Pelosi and Reid to lose.
Palin can only hurt the cause.

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Sarah Palin just endorsed Sarah Steelman who is running for the US Senate in Missouri against Claire Macaskill.

technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

…and I still think she should have backed John Brunner for Senate. Steelman is running third, we’ll see if its enough. Cons out here don’t trust her.

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Conservatives comprise 40% of the nation, per Gallup. Christians comprise 78% of the nation, per Gallup. How is she not “normal people”?

kingsjester on July 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

i just had this vision of dustin siggins and his fellow rinos/romneybots locked up in Seamus’ cage on top of romneys car. and Sarah’s the driver. on her way to the White House. jejeje

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Are you an Athiest?

Not like there’s anything wrong with that…LOL

idesign on July 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM

if Sarah endorses someone (unlike romney) there is no money flowing under the table. the grass roots knows it. we just do. word gets out. she’s pure as the driven snow. white as a lily. it means something to us little folk.

If Sarah picked Steelman then she must have looked deep in her heart and liked what she saw.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

.
Conservatives comprise 40% of the nation, per Gallup. Christians comprise 78% of the nation, per Gallup. How is she not “normal people”?

kingsjester on July 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

.
Yeah, we seriously want to know what is your definition of “normal” (which is what ALL political debate is, anyway).

If, for example, you consider the Howard Stern fan-base to be “normal”, then I understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

listens2glenn on July 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Who is Dustin Siggins and why is he posting this crap?

idesign on July 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

There is no Dustin.

Right now, Allah is rolling around on his living room floor laughing so hard he probably scared his cat to the top of the refrigerator.

trigon on July 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

listens2glenn on July 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

you don’t still listen to that psychotic drunken gold hustler do you?

i would at least add a sarc tag. como no.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

trigon on July 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

He’s for real. His bio is out there.

kingsjester on July 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Keep Palin in the background.
She is what scares normal people about the so-called conservatives and/or religious right.
She sounds like every educated person’s greatest fear, a religious zealot with little or no critical thinking ability.
I don’t know if that is true but that is my and many others impression of her and it’s scary.
I know she is very useful for energizing the base and I want Romney to win, or to be more honest, I want Obama and Pelosi and Reid to lose.
Palin can only hurt the cause.

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

You certainly seem to have a callous disregard for the truth. Instead of accepting the lies about Palin, do yourself a favor and make an effort to learn the truth. Since Palin’s positions on the issues are supported by a majority of the American people, how is she not normal? What makes you think she’s a religious zealot? Name one instance when she inserted her religious beliefs into her governance. You think Palin’s not a critical thinker? Read this article and then come back and explain your thinking. Take note that the writer is a self-avowed Liberal. She wrote:

Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

NoNails on July 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM

There is no Dustin.

Right now, Allah is rolling around on his living room floor laughing so hard he probably scared his cat to the top of the refrigerator.

trigon on July 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Looks like the joke’s on you…:)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dustin-siggins

idesign on July 17, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Palin rules!

Palin sucks!

Palin rules!

Palin sucks!

Palin rules!

Brian1972 on July 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

victor82 on July 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM
renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM
technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Awesome!! Keep on truck’n Sarah Palin!! Always working for America!! Love it!!

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 6:54 PM

If Sarah picked Steelman then she must have looked deep in her heart and liked what she saw.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

okay. Doesn’t change her voting record or her absolutely dismal public speaking abilities. I love me some Palin, but I think this was an endorsement based more on personal relationships. I get that its hard not to back a friend.

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Did Ferraro go to Newsweek and make herself out to be a martyr by saying the reason she didn’t give a speech at the convention was because she was calling out Democrats for doing things she disagreed with?

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Lemme help you out with your talking points here:

- No one “went” to Newsweek, they went to her.

- She told the truth. Now I know this is a rarity in politics, but some of us like it with a politician is truthful. YMMV. And she said calling out both sides, not just Democrats. She’s getting crapped on because she had the b*lls to say that both sides have issues.

You’re welcome and have a nice day.

PS: Why is Palin’s short comment to Newsweek such a major issue, yet the bleating from the establishment republicans over Romney’s tax returns is not?

Which is more harmful – the irrelevant chillbilly and her short quote or the cacophony of stupidity from “the right” about the tax returns?

kim roy on July 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

BlueFox, you are OK in my book.

SparkPlug on July 17, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Thanks SparkPlug:-) I don’t post too much, just when the mood strikes me. However, I do read a lot. Enjoy the QOTD’s:-) I am totally Conservative tho, love God, Truth and Justice.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

I see another Hot Air writer has got it all figured out, just how conservatives should act.”Don’t upset the precious independents”! If you want huge T.V. ratings, put Sarah on just before Mitt, and then he can actually get MASS media.

SMACKRUNNER on July 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

bluefox, would you please point out where Dustin dissed conservatives in his post.

Mr. Arkadin on July 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

You first:-)

Palin is the TruCon’s Barbra Streisand.

Mr. Arkadin on July 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Before Sarah Palin came on the National scene, what person was promoting and speaking of Conservatism and practicing it?

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Reposting this in case Mr. Arkadin missed seeing it before.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

CPAC 2012: Sarah Palin, motivator-in-chief
By Melinda Henneberger, Washington Post

Sarah Palin strode out on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington carrying a red leather briefcase — and off to work she went, firing off a year’s worth of sarcastic one-liners at “Professor Obama.”

“He promised to transform America, and that’s one promise he’s kept; he transformed a shining city on a hill into a sinking ship.”

“This government isn’t too big to fail; it’s too big to succeed.”

“Hope and change? Yeah, you gotta hope things change.”

“After a year or two [in ‘Obama’s Washington,’ lawmakers] decide it’s not really a cesspool. More like a hot tub.”

“The last thing you need is a community organizer reorganizing the deck chairs [on the Titanic] while singing, ‘Let’s Stay Together.’ ”

My personal favorite had to have been her Scarlett O’Hara moment: “So help me God,” she said, a world in which Americans are overtaxed “is not a future we’ll ever accept.”

Or maybe it was when she said Washington is a city so Roman in its moral decay that “they even have a Lamborghini dealership, not that there’s anything wrong with hot wheels.” (I think she might mean the one in Sterling, not that I’ve ever been there.)

A few of these crowd pleasers were recycled from her ’08 vice presidential run; she repeatedly referred to Obama as a community organizer — the conservative equivalent of a hedge-fund manager — and got a big laugh with her old line referring to Obama’s plan for “winning the future” as “WTF.”

Still, by the time she rehashed Obama’s biggest unforced error in ’08, the crowd was cheering so hard it was impossible to hear what she said after this: “The president says small Americans — small-town Americans — we bitterly cling to our religion and our guns. . . . We say keep your change; we’ll keep our God, our guns, our Constitution!”

This time next year, she vowed in closing, “we will have a commander-in-chief worthy of our troops!”

Whoop-inducing as all this was, it flat-out depressed some in the crowd.

Why? Because “that was the speech that could unify the Republican Party,” said Iowan Craig Bergman. “If we picked our candidate with the applause-o-meter, we’d have our nominee” in the former Alaska governor. “I think the Republicans are not going to win because she’s not running.”

After Palin closed the annual event, Bergman and a few friends were discussing how Mitt Romney, the self-described “severely conservative” governor of Massachusetts — who didn’t sound like he thought that was a good thing — could possibly have won the straw poll. (“Mormon infiltrators,” posited one man, who seemed to be only half-kidding.)

Others at CPAC described Palin as a pivotal figure but implied that she belongs to history now, like Paul Revere:

“People still respect the groundwork she laid,” said Jackie Walorski, who in ’10 narrowly lost her Congressional race with Joe Donnelly in the Indiana swing district that includes South Bend. She is running for the seat again this year. “I respect her because she’s a woman who got out there on the national stage and took on the media — no offense — and made it easier for people like me to run.”

But no matter how many political obits are written for Sarah Palin, millionaire and motivator-in-chief, the most faithful of the faithful continue to say they’d follow her anywhere. “She sets the tone for the party,” said Erica Windham of Auburn, Ala., “and the others copy everything she does.”

Flora Duh on July 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Conservatives comprise 40% of the nation, per Gallup. Christians comprise 78% of the nation, per Gallup. How is she not “normal people”?

kingsjester on July 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM

In a liberal, demented world, she’s not. It was made clear by the poster.

riddick on July 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

bluefox, would you please point out where Dustin dissed conservatives in his post.

Mr. Arkadin on July 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM

You first:-)

Palin is the TruCon’s Barbra Streisand.

Mr. Arkadin on July 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Before Sarah Palin came on the National scene, what person was promoting and speaking of Conservatism and practicing it?

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Reposting this in case Mr. Arkadin missed seeing it before.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Romney’s researchers are still waiting for Google response, Arkadin will respond once they provide the talking point. You know, from GOP’s “conservative” candidate…

riddick on July 17, 2012 at 7:05 PM

… her absolutely dismal public speaking abilities…

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Try it with the sound ON next time.

riddick on July 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM

listens2glenn on July 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM

.
you don’t still listen to that psychotic drunken gold hustler do you?

i would at least add a sarc tag. como no.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM

.
Not by choice. But I’ve worked a couple of places where his show couldn’t be avoided, except by quitting.

listens2glenn on July 17, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Palin rules!

Palin sucks!

Palin rules!

Palin sucks!

Palin rules!

Brian1972 on July 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM

.
Isn’t a person supposed to pick the petals off a daisy while doing that?

listens2glenn on July 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Sarah Steelman seems to be well qualified for the U.S. Senate:
Sarah attended University of Missouri — Columbia and graduated with a Masters in Economics and a BA in History.
State Treasurer of Missouri from 2004 until 2008.
Steelman elected not to run again for State Treasurer and made an unsuccessful bid for Governor in 2008.

In 1998 and 2002, Steelman was elected to serve as the Senator for the 16th State Senatorial District.
Steelman served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce and the Environment. She served as a member of the Senate Committee on Aging, Families, Mental and Public Health; a member of the Senate Committee on Education; and a member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight.

She also served on the Missouri Consolidated Health Plan Board of Trustees; the Joint Task Force on Terrorism, Bio-Terrorism and Homeland Security; and the Joint Committee on Rules.

Previously, Steelman served as deputy director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Division of Geology and Land Survey. She also worked as an economist for the Department of Revenue and as an adjunct professor in economics at Lincoln University. She served as an investment broker and as the director of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters program in Rolla, a not-for-profit organization that matches children in need of attention with volunteer mentors.

For the last two years Sarah has been active in grassroots politics. She is a board member on the Missouri Club for Growth.

http://www.sarahsteelman.com/meet-sarah-steelman/about

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

why do you put down our intellect. we might not have gone to ivy league schools, but we have common sense. our fingernails may be dirty at the end of the day but that doesn’t mean ones mind is closed, that books aren’t read, articles reviewed.

i have met world renowned “authorities” who are as crazy as lindsey lohan. i have studied Sarah for these past 4 years. Her intellect far surpasses mine or anyone i have known.

She speaks like a regular person. which is with poor syntax and grammar. Its not important to her. Her mind is always working, always analyzing. those that have met Sarah contradict everything you say. yet you still say it.

we may be few, but we are strong because we are bound together. mitts dumb to kick sand in our face.

renalin on July 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Isn’t a person supposed to pick the petals off a daisy while doing that?

listens2glenn on July 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Ha, lol.

It’s more like watching a tennis match around here, back and forth, back and forth, OUT OF BOUNDS! NO IT WASN’T IT WAS IN! ACROSS THE LINE! Some people just go all John McEnroe and lose it.

Brian1972 on July 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM

…her lack of knowledge on issues outside of anti-corruption and energy policy…

[snip]

However, I think the negatives of such an appearance outweigh the net positives for those whose sole electoral goal is to get Obama out of office — including potentially scaring off moderate voters…

If this is what you think, you obviously didn’t do that much research into her record Dustin.

Sarah Palin for the Fed?
Editorial of The New York Sun | April 24, 2011

The big question as Chairman Bernanke gets set for his first quarterly press conference is how Sarah Palin was able to figure out sooner than everyone else that the Federal Reserve’s campaign of quantitative easing wouldn’t work. Disappointment in the Fed’s policies is being reported this morning at the top of page one of the New York Times. It reports that “most Americans are not feeling the difference” from the Fed’s “experimental effort to spur a recovery by purchasing vast quantities of federal debt.” It reports that “a broad range of economists say that the disappointing results show the limits of the central bank’s ability to lift the nation from its economic malaise.”

It’s a terrific story, and well-timed, given that on Wednesday Mr. Bernanke will break tradition and meet with the press. It is part of the Fed’s effort to get ahead of what is emerging as a public relations catastrophe, as gasoline is nearing six dollars a gallon at some pumps, the cost of groceries is skyrocketing, and the value of the dollars that Mr. Bernanke’s institution issues as Federal Reserve notes has collapsed to less than a 1,500th of an ounce of gold. Unemployment is still high. Shakespeare couldn’t come up with a better plot. But how in the world did Mrs. Palin, who is supposed to be so thick, manage to figure all this out so far ahead of the New York Times and all the economists it talked to?

She did this back in November in a speech at Phoenix, which the Wall Street Journal, in a laudatory editorial at the time, characterized as zeroing in on the connection between a weak dollar and rising prices for oil and food. Read More:

Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide
By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS, NY Times
Published: September 9, 2011

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

The next day, the “lamestream” media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.

There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick…

…But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

[snip]

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them. Read More:

Flora Duh on July 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM

…and I still think she should have backed John Brunner for Senate. Steelman is running third, we’ll see if its enough. Cons out here don’t trust her.

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I wonder why that is. Regarding John Brunner, as far as I can tell he’s not ever been elected to a public office. If you know otherwise, please correct me. I know he’s a businessman, etc. but I think running for a U.S. Senate seat without any elected office experience is too high a jump. Just my opinion. Start a little lower would be my advice to him.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

CUDA

Metro on July 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

In the interests of transparency, Palin offers far more to the conservative movement than does Siggins.

unclesmrgol on July 17, 2012 at 7:22 PM

If you guys don’t pick up the comments, Dennis Siggins isn’t going to reach the goal of 1000 posts, which means he won’t get his Official RNC Cushy Bean Bag, or his John Cornyn crystal Coaster set.

Come on!

portlandon on July 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Lemme help you out with your talking points here:

- No one “went” to Newsweek, they went to her.

She fed them a quote that any rational adult should have been able to discern would create controversy and friction on the right. She did not have to do that.

- She told the truth. Now I know this is a rarity in politics, but some of us like it with a politician is truthful. YMMV. And she said calling out both sides, not just Democrats. She’s getting crapped on because she had the b*lls to say that both sides have issues.

She assumed that she was being persecuted and that that was the reason for it. Or rather she wanted her sycophants to believe that was the reason for it. Just because it might be true in her head it does not mean it’s true in reality.

You’re welcome and have a nice day.

PS: Why is Palin’s short comment to Newsweek such a major issue, yet the bleating from the establishment republicans over Romney’s tax returns is not?

Which is more harmful – the irrelevant chillbilly and her short quote or the cacophony of stupidity from “the right” about the tax returns?

kim roy on July 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Someone else is behaving like a stupid, petulant child so that means I get to too? I have never before heard anyone over the age of ten use that as a reasonable justification for anything. So thanks for being memorable, I guess.

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Failure to extend an invitation to Palin will result in an Obama landslide,and the destruction of the GOP as we know it.Hate for the former to happen but will be overjoyed to see the latter.Death to the party of squish.

redware on July 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Suppertime must be over.

Say anyone know what happened to The Ed Morrissey Show. Its not been on since last Friday. The last one I watched he had taken down the set and made some pretty significant changes.

Bmore on July 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Sorry that was supposed to be in the form of a ?

Bmore on July 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Flora Duh on July 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

To appreciate that article, you have to remember it came from the Washington Post:-) CPAC was good tho!!

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:39 PM

She fed them a quote

AKA answered a direct question

She assumed that she was being persecuted and that that was the reason for it. Or rather she wanted her sycophants to believe that was the reason for it. Just because it might be true in her head it does not mean it’s true in reality.

It looks like what’s true in your head isn’t necessarily reality.

Lots of assumptions and guessing going on in your head.

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Brian1972 on July 17, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Although I predict Mitt Romney will win Florida (29), and NC (15). I also predict Romney will lose either Ohio (18) or Virginia (13)and that will mean Romney will have to thread the eye of a needle to reach the 270 EV threshold and win the election.

This is based on what Rasmussen is currently projecting:

Romney starts off with 191 EV.

Let’s say Romney wins Ohio, NC and Fla. That brings him an additional 62 EV and a total of 253 EV.

Obama would have started with 247 EV based on safe and leaning blue states. Add Virginia’s 13 EV that takes Obama to 260 EV.

The other swing states include:

Wisconsin (10)

Iowa (6)

Colorado (9)

Romney is forced to win both Wisconsin and Colorado to win the presidency. Obama needs to win 2 of these three states to win re-election.

NB: Wisconsin is considered a blue state.

In other words for Romney to win the election he almost has to win Florida, NC, Ohio and Virginia. And that is not in the cards because:

a) In Virginia 3rd party candidate Virgil Goode is polling between 5% and 9% of the vote

b)In Ohio, in the Purple Strategies poll Romney lost 6 points to Obama in a period of one month (from 48-45 to 45-48) and fell 3 points in his net favorables from 38/48 to 37/50.

Without a significant change in both Ohio and Virginia, Mitt Romney will probably lose the election. Of course if loses both states, he automatically loses.

It is sheer propanganda to believe President Obama is in trouble right now.

technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Regarding John Brunner, as far as I can tell he’s not ever been elected to a public office.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Our three best freshman Senators, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson, had no prior political experience. Brunner will be a senator in their mold, and will do well. Steelman voted against tort reform (her husband is a prominent trial lawyer in Mo) and votes pro-union. She’s the least conservative of the three main candidates.

Palin doesn’t always endorse the most conservative candidate in the race. Mo is another example, I guess.

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 7:42 PM

I’m a HUGE Palin fan.
I was from day one and probably always will be.
She is by far my favorite politician.
As strange as it may sound I always liked Romney too.

How can he not invite the first female Republican VP candidate to speak at the GOP convention?

Looks like the positives of having Palin speak would far outweigh the negatives—but I am just a tad biased.

Be bold Mitt.

bailey24 on July 17, 2012 at 7:42 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Romney’s researchers are still waiting for Google response, Arkadin will respond once they provide the talking point. You know, from GOP’s “conservative” candidate…

riddick on July 17, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I hope not. Rather have something original and logical:-)

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:45 PM

There just isn’t much there, there. You know?

SoCons see her as a reflection of themselves. Just as a gay or black politician is vaunted as a champion of its respective people, so too does SP represent the SoCon.

Just as any criticism of that black or gay pol is met with racism charges and anger, so too is any doubt/criticism of SP except they say elitist or egghead.

Both groups are desperate for their ways to be held legitimate and in admiration by all. That is why they get so upset. They CRAVE approval.

antisense on July 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Who the heck is this “Sarah Palin” anyways? Now Dennis Suggins, There’s a conservative leader we can all rally around.
//

Garym on July 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Holy crap.

Didn’t we just have another 1000+ post pissing contest yesterday?

BallisticBob on July 17, 2012 at 7:51 PM

If you guys don’t pick up the comments, Dennis Siggins isn’t going to reach the goal of 1000 posts, which means he won’t get his Official RNC Cushy Bean Bag, or his John Cornyn crystal Coaster set.

Come on!

portlandon on July 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Hey, we are trying out best:-)

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:52 PM

s/b “our” Used preview but didn’t read it:-)

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM

She’s so darn irrelevant, she triples the normal comment count.
Magnificent.

RovesChins on July 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Who the heck is this “Sarah Palin” anyways? Now Dennis Suggins, There’s a conservative leader we can all rally around.
//

Garym on July 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Yes, let’s all follow Dustin Suggins, a proven and thoughtful conservative leader.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder who I despise more, the spineless squishes on our side; or the honest to goodness corrupt liberals.

TitularHead on July 17, 2012 at 7:55 PM

If you guys don’t pick up the comments, Dennis Siggins isn’t going to reach the goal of 1000 posts, which means he won’t get his Official RNC Cushy Bean Bag, or his John Cornyn crystal Coaster set.

Come on!

portlandon on July 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Ok here is my post. BTW that was funny.

SparkPlug on July 17, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Keep up the good work Flora.

I appreciate it.

SparkPlug on July 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Our three best freshman Senators, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson, had no prior political experience. Brunner will be a senator in their mold, and will do well. Steelman voted against tort reform (her husband is a prominent trial lawyer in Mo) and votes pro-union. She’s the least conservative of the three main candidates.

Palin doesn’t always endorse the most conservative candidate in the race. Mo is another example, I guess.

alwaysfiredup on July 17, 2012 at 7:42 PM

I see your point on the freshman Senators. I was looking at Brunner’s lack to Steelman’s MO record, etc. So MO had tort reform being considered and she votes pro-union. Ok, I’ll check that out. Thanks for the add’l info. I’m surprised that Palin missed that. But then again, I’ll need to read some more before making my final decision.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 8:00 PM

For those who need ammunition to defend Sarah Palin here are four key polling stats and tidbits from the 2008 exit polls and regular polls:

1)60% of respondents claimed that the the choice of Sarah Palin by McCain influenced their vote. That vote went 56% for McCain and 43% to Obama.

But of the 33% of respondents who said the selection of Palin had no bearing whatsover on their vote Obama beat McCain by 65% to 33%.

2)60% of respondents claimed they made their decision who to vote for before the beginning of Sept (Palin was unveiled on Aug 29 and only began to be attacked in early Sept) and of those folks 52% chose Obama and McCain 47%.

In other words although nobody knew it at the time, the election result had already been determined.

3)For 10 days after the GOP convention until the word got out about Lehman Brothers on Sept 15, McCain led Obama narrowly in the polls. To blame Palin for McCain’s slide you have to also blame Palin for causing the financial meltdown.

4) Check the polls but after Palin’s debate performance on October 2, 2008 where many pundits had her fighting Biden to a draw and you will see that she basically stopped the bleeding of the ticket and for the last month of the contest Obama did not make much headway, but the election outcome was really finalized over the last two weeks of the meltdown.

Conclusion: Many people don’t like to admit it but McCain could not have won the election. Like Hoover in 1932 he was a victim of circumstances.

technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 8:07 PM

There just isn’t much there, there. You know?

SoCons see her as a reflection of themselves. Just as a gay or black politician is vaunted as a champion of its respective people, so too does SP represent the SoCon.

Just as any criticism of that black or gay pol is met with racism charges and anger, so too is any doubt/criticism of SP except they say elitist or egghead.

Both groups are desperate for their ways to be held legitimate and in admiration by all. That is why they get so upset. They CRAVE approval.

antisense on July 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

I think you may be making this too simple. Speaking for myself, I don’t vote that way at all. A person’s record, their character and whether they walk their talk is important. Also how that relates to what is needed in Government at a particular time. We are individuals, not sheep as you seem to indicate and that’s offensive.

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Who the heck is this “Sarah Palin” anyways? Now Dennis Suggins, There’s a conservative leader we can all rally around.
//

Garym on July 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM

LOL

BoxHead1 on July 17, 2012 at 8:11 PM

When Palin first came onto the national scene in 2008, I knew literally nothing about her.

It’s hard to believe you knew nothing about her. She was well-known for her work as governor in discussion on a conservative blog at which I commented, and when her candidacy was announced there was general rejoicing and surprise that McCain had the sense to pick her.

INC on July 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Keep up the good work Flora.

I appreciate it.

SparkPlug on July 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

+1000

Garym on July 17, 2012 at 8:21 PM

antisense on July 17, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Ha. MadCon and I both like her and we’re widely divergent on social issues.

INC on July 17, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I also predict Romney will lose either Ohio (18)…

technopeasant on July 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Hussein’s people, aka DoJ, are on this already. Filed a lawsuit today to fight OH’s refusal to open voting 3 days prior to General is “vote suppression”.

And they are correct, of course, how the hell OH dares to refuse liberals vote multiple times over the 4 day period?

OH better fight these crooks every step of the way.

riddick on July 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

This has been a staggering amount of angst over Palin, who isn’t running for anything, when the subject is Palin telling Newsweek that since she’s been outspoken about both parties being part of the problem and not part of the solution, she would not be surprised if she was refused an invitation to the GOP convention this August.

The newest excuse for the Palin hate is that all Palin has to do is SHOW UP as a speaker at the convention, and the independent and moderate voters will run screaming in terror from Romney, and his eight-point lead (or whatever it is) over Obama will disappear. Meanwhile all she’d be doing, if invited to speak, is SPEAKING.

Aitch748 on July 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Will a primetime Palin speech at the convention do anything to attract the support of moderates or swing-voters? I have a feeling it won’t. It will be a distraction and a reminder of a failed campaign four years ago.

There are times for conservatives to demand things of the party and it’s leaders. The convention isn’t one of them. This is about getting Obama outta there. PERIOD. It is during the first hour of a Romney Presidency that conservatives need to get extra strident. Not before. It is now about winning.

Reggie1971 on July 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

All right. Once pass through the troll ‘o’ whirl.

Lemme help you out with your talking points here:

– No one “went” to Newsweek, they went to her.

She fed them a quote that any rational adult should have been able to discern would create controversy and friction on the right. She did not have to do that.

That’s not what you initially said so here we see the goalposts move.

So she has to censor herself because some might have vapors from it? That didn’t seem to stop the echo chamber from opining about Romney’s tax returns. Why is she held to another standard?

– She told the truth. Now I know this is a rarity in politics, but some of us like it with a politician is truthful. YMMV. And she said calling out both sides, not just Democrats. She’s getting crapped on because she had the b*lls to say that both sides have issues.

She assumed that she was being persecuted and that that was the reason for it. Or rather she wanted her sycophants to believe that was the reason for it. Just because it might be true in her head it does not mean it’s true in reality.

She had a valid point and one that has been talked about quite extensively here previously. Just because you have issues with it does not make it invalid. Sorry.

Whether people like it or not, she is a prominent person in conservatism and people want to see her, as evidenced by her appearances at CPAC, etc. She gets crowds and motivates people. Do *you* have a better reason why she is being snubbed?

Personally, I disagree with her – I think it’s because she’ll remind everyone what a RINO Romney is and overshadow him.

She couldn’t very well say that, could she?

You’re welcome and have a nice day.

PS: Why is Palin’s short comment to Newsweek such a major issue, yet the bleating from the establishment republicans over Romney’s tax returns is not?

Which is more harmful – the irrelevant chillbilly and her short quote or the cacophony of stupidity from “the right” about the tax returns?

kim roy on July 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Someone else is behaving like a stupid, petulant child so that means I get to too? I have never before heard anyone over the age of ten use that as a reasonable justification for anything. So thanks for being memorable, I guess.

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Those are a LOT of petulant children, hey? Did you see the post on Hot Gas and all the names attached to it? There are seasoned political operatives and politicians. Shouldn’t they know better as well and be “coagulating” behind Romney as well, just as they are admonishing us to?

I’m just wondering why you are so concerned about Palin and not about the many. If you wish to mischaracterize that as “justification”, I can’t help you with that. I can only tell you what *I* meant with *my* words and if you can’t believe that then not much I can do.

kim roy on July 17, 2012 at 8:57 PM

The newest excuse for the Palin hate is that all Palin has to do is SHOW UP as a speaker at the convention, and the independent and moderate voters will run screaming in terror from Romney,

Aitch748 on July 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Will a primetime Palin speech at the convention do anything to attract the support of moderates or swing-voters? I have a feeling it won’t.

Reggie1971 on July 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Haha, like clockwork.

Brian1972 on July 17, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Ok, it’s been fun but I have a life outside of the internet to tend to. Guitars, friends and cold beers await!

I’ll raise a toast to getting the SCFOAMF out of the White House.

We can all agree on that one, right?

Later all.

Brian1972 on July 17, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Dennis Suggins writes:

But between her unpopularity with the general public (yes, partially created and exacerbated by utterly dishonest media portrayals of Palin and her family, as well as completely hateful attacks on her by Paul Krugman and others after the Giffords shooting) and her lack of knowledge on issues outside of anti-corruption and energy policy

You see kids, a couple of heavily edited interviews and far leftists like Krugman blaming Palin for Giffords is all it takes to rationalize your fear of a strong conservative lady. Sheeesh Dennis, grow a spine and take a stand.

Garym on July 17, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Why are we paying attention to a Huff Po contributor?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dustin-siggins

Seriously, the quality of HotAir contributors are going downhill fast.

Norwegian on July 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Why in the world did you contribute at Huff Po?

If your purpose was to win people to your opinion, then why didn’t you dive into the comments and try to persuade people and counter their arguments to your remarks on debt?

INC on July 17, 2012 at 9:09 PM

At the same time, the Dems didn’t treat Ferraro like a leper in 1988. Only GOPers show that kind of cannibalistic idiocy.

ddrintn on July 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Did Ferraro go to Newsweek and make herself out to be a martyr by saying the reason she didn’t give a speech at the convention was because she was calling out Democrats for doing things she disagreed with?

alchemist19 on July 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM

As was already pointed out, Palin didn’t “go to Newsweek”. But then, in a way Palin IS a “martyr” of sorts in a way that Ferraro wasn’t. Geraldine didn’t have a little army of ‘bot ankle-biters b1tching from the election onwards about how toxic she was just to prop up some charmless mannequin of a candidate.

ddrintn on July 17, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Reggie1971 on July 17, 2012 at 8:44 PM

+1

And it would be nice if our heroine wasn’t too busy selling books and movies and etc. this year to actually get down, go to work and stand for office for all these zombies who adore her so much.

IlikedAUH2O on July 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

+1

And it would be nice if our heroine wasn’t too busy selling books and movies and etc. this year to actually get down, go to work and stand for office for all these zombies who adore her so much.

IlikedAUH2O on July 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

John, John McCain? Is that you?

Garym on July 17, 2012 at 9:17 PM

And it would be nice if our heroine wasn’t too busy selling books and movies and etc. this year to actually get down, go to work and stand for office for all these zombies who adore her so much.

IlikedAUH2O on July 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Palin hasn’t written a book for over two years, so what book is she selling? Palin had nothing to do with The Undefeated. She wasn’t even consulted on it. The producers bought the rights to the audio book Going Rogue so they could use her voice in part of it. Oh, and your comments are either based on ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty. Which is it?

NoNails on July 17, 2012 at 9:22 PM

And it would be nice if our heroine wasn’t too busy selling books and movies and etc. this year to actually get down, go to work and stand for office for all these zombies who adore her so much.

IlikedAUH2O on July 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

It would be so much better if we stop with this Palin worship and instead delude ourselves into thinking that Romney is a good candidate. We know the drill.

ddrintn on July 17, 2012 at 9:29 PM

And it would be nice if our heroine wasn’t too busy selling books and movies and etc. this year to actually get down, go to work and stand for office for all these zombies who adore her so much.

IlikedAUH2O on July 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

you might want to be specific on what the hell you’re talking about. LOL

Clueless!

idesign on July 17, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I see idesign and ddrintn are taking the night shift for this thread.
Rock on prayer warriors.

Bradky on July 17, 2012 at 9:42 PM

This thread is now ended:-)

bluefox on July 17, 2012 at 9:46 PM

I see idesign and ddrintn are taking the night shift for this thread.
Rock on prayer warriors.

Bradky on July 17, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Sorry, not a “prayer warrior”…

I’m a Catholic..:)

idesign on July 17, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I have looked at photos and watched quite a number of videos of Governor Palin speaking and I have never seen a teleprompter. Here is a woman who can speak off the cuff to an audience of thousands on a wide range of topics, each time performing anywhere from competently to raising the audience to their feet applauding and cheering. She is characterized by some as the dumb one while their idols haul their teleprompters from event to event.

Viator on July 17, 2012 at 9:57 PM

As the last PPP poll showed, Palin is way more popular among the GOP than Romney no? If she is to be kept away from the convention because she is not popular enough,what does that mean for Romney?

And yes, if Palin should be kept away because Democrats charged she is responsible for Giffords shooting then shouldn’t Romney be kept away too because the Democrats called Romney a felon?

promachus on July 17, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Bradky on July 17, 2012 at 9:42 PM

And you?

Cindy Munford on July 17, 2012 at 10:26 PM

CallousDisregard on July 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Looks like you chose an appropriate nic for yourself…

Gohawgs on July 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM

alchemist,

Palin approached Newsweek?…

Gohawgs on July 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM

2 stories on consecutive days concerning an “irrelevant” person that garner 2000+ comments. Getting MKH to finally write for HA must’ve been expensive…

Gohawgs on July 17, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Gohawgs on July 17, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Naw, they were just worried about Bradky and knew that was the only way to flush him out.

Cindy Munford on July 17, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9 10 11