Cheney: Palin pick in ’08 “a mistake”

posted at 12:31 pm on July 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As we wait for Mitt Romney to pick his running mate in the next few weeks, the last successful GOP running mate has been privately advising the current GOP nominee and the head of his VP search committee, Beth Myers.  Cheney believes that the #2 slot has to be filled with someone ready to take over the top job on Day 1 — and that John McCain flunked that test in 2008.  In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Cheney called the selection of Sarah Palin “a mistake”:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Cheney would not comment on what he told Romney and Myers, but he was harsh in his assessment of McCain’s decision to pick Palin.

“That one,” Cheney said, “I don’t think was well handled.”

“The test to get on that small list has to be, ‘Is this person capable of being president of the United States?’”

Cheney believes Sarah Palin failed that test.

“I like Governor Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She – attractive candidate. But based on her background, she’d only been governor for, what, two years. I don’t think she passed that test…of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake.”

Whoo-ee!  Both Palin and Cheney are beloved by the conservative base, so I’m not sure which will get beat up more over this commentary. I’d guess that the Left is passing the popcorn this morning.

Rather than focus on that, what does this say about Cheney’s advice to Romney and Myers?  Using this framework, names like Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, Susana Marinez, Nikki Haley, and perhaps even Bob McDonnell (governor for two and a half years) have to come off of Cheney’s short list.  Names like Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Perry would remain on the list.  With Romney’s deep background as an executive, that quality was almost certainly his foremost consideration, too, so Cheney’s advice would only reinforce Romney’s instincts here.  Plus, it doesn’t look like Romney will need a game-changing VP pick to make up ground against a popular incumbent, so the need to roll the dice will be low.


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 10 11 12 13 14 15

That’s not official Catholic doctrine. Official Roman Catholic doctrine is that if you are not in the Roman Catholic church, you are anathema (damned to hell). Official RC doctrine does not even recognize salvation in other Christian churches, let alone outside of Christianity.

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Where in the world did you come up with that nonsense?

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Mitt ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. Kennedy was too conservative. Mitt ran as the better Democrat though on the Republican Ticket (common in Mass which is really only Democrat).

He voted for Tsongas in the Democratic Primary as a Democrat so never believe Mitt when he lies he was never a Democrat he was. Republicanc could not vote in a Democrat Primary in Mass only Democrats.

In 1999 Mitt took a leave of absence. Mitt moved to Utah starting then and finishing in 2000 when he built a home on property he owned in Utah and paid Utah State taxes as a resident. In 2002 Romney realized he could not win office in Utah. It was well past the primaries so he moved back to Mass. But he was not a resident or eligible to run but he did it anyway. He maxed out contributations to the man on the Republican ticket who dropped off and let Mitt replace him (his only connection to Republicans in Mass.) He was then running against a woman who had spent her coffers dry wining the primary all bloodied up. She contested his residency but Mitt filed amended returns and of course no one actually enforces residency requirements so Mitt was able to run. Mitt made it very clear he was a Democrat the better Democrat a Liberal Moderate Progressive. He courted and got LGBT, Planned Parenthood and Gun Control support. He promised the Gays he would get Civil Unions but thought Gay Marriage impossible but would work on it.

Mitt in 2002 could have not made it more clear that he was NOT a Republican. No Republicans officially endorsed him that I found.

Mitt made it clear he would get low cost abortions on demand and Romney Care into law Planned Parenthood would have a place on the Health Care Board. He would appoint very liberal Judges that would help Planned Parenthood and LGBT. Mitt did veto a lot of bills but most because they did not get enough federal funding. Like forcing Catholics out of Adoption he vetoed it the first time because he thought they could get federal money to pay for the replacement agencies that would be needed. They got the money and he signed the bill.

In 2005 Mitt decided to run for President so he vetoed bills that could be overridden to claim some sort of Republican credentials. But he signed bills that might not get enough votes anyway. Then he really had nothing conservative upon inspection.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Really? It’s not? So you’ll feel better if I crow about how Romney is our savior, and then don’t go out and vote for him? REALLY?! Not a rombot. Harumph. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much, Butch.

Romney gets my vote. He will get my praise, as he has on occasion, when I think he deserves it. But I refuse to acknowledge him as any kind of “conservative” against my better judgement. If that bothers any of my fellow commenters here, kindly feel free to GFY.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

You’re not that bright are you?

So if someone in Ca, NY, NH, RI, NH, MA…etc votes for ROmney what good does that do? Does their vote really matter?

It’s very simple. We need as many good patriots as possible doing everything they can to defeat Maobama. Doens’t mean you have to worship Romney, doesn’t even mean you have to like him.

What it means is you to have some sense of patriotism to get off your a$$ and get to work to defeat Maobama. We were handed the best nation on earth, it’s time to fight to save it.

The truth hurts and if that bothers you.. then right back at ya tough guy: kindly GFY!

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

So if someone in Ca, NY, NH, RI, NH, MA…etc votes for ROmney what good does that do? Does their vote really matter?

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

And before someone points it out:

I didn’t mean to type NH.. that was a mistake… I meant anyone for a deep blue state.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:47 PM

BTW, the only reason Cheney supports gay marriage is because one
of his daughters is gay, got married (?) I believe and may also
have children.

Amjean on July 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

So?

Go RBNY on July 29, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I know where the subject of this thread was in 2009-10. Mitt was off gutlessly cringing in the corner as the “presumptive nominee.” As for Obama, I’ll criticize whomever I choose, whenever I feel like it. If you find that objectionable, I suggest that you find something else to concern yourself with.

ebrown2 on July 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

If you won’t try to stop Maobama — won’t even vote for Romney then you have NO ground to stand on in criticizing Maobama.

Sorry if the truth hurts. All it makes you is a phony who did nothing in the fight to try to save our Republic.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Selling Out Sarah Palin

“With her energy, she brought nearly 60M votes in for McCain on Election Day. This was about 46% of the popular vote.”

“…she’s been a forceful advocate and a leader of the grassroots movements. Using her power, she campaigned for (and carried to victory) many congressional candidates in 2010 for her party. This year, she’s continuing. So far in 2012, 100% of her endorsements have emerged victorious in their primaries for U.S. Senate.

“It’s difficult for Tea Party Americans to wrap their minds around this when Palin removed herself as a direct political threat to the establishment since she didn’t run for president. To sweeten the deal, she’s even working to make sure Congress is filled with good conservatives ready to get to work for Mitt Romney.”

“Apparently, none of this is good enough.”

“Since none of it makes good political sense, it’s hard not to conclude that the establishment folks’ behavior says a lot more about them and their apparent insecurities than it ever will about any alleged negativity Palin or the Tea Party are responsible for.”

“Let’s just hope that folks begin to realize this before history books someday reflect the party of freedom selling out one of its finest for the sake of salvaging a few political careers among the good old boys.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/selling_out_sarah_palin.html#ixzz222nHmRec

***

Governor Palin’s Executive Accomplishments

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/06/governor-palins-executive-accomplishments.html

Green eyed Lady on July 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young people
of all races involved in this scam.

Amjean on July 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM

yeah … not looking fwd to the screaming when that gets cut …..

conservative tarheel on July 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Yeah, elect Mitt Romney! That’ll show ‘em you mean bidness!

Sheer fantasy. If Romney’s elected, squishdom will be totally ascendant and “conservatives” will be dogshit on shoes.

You vastly overrate the status of conservatives in a putative Romney administration.

We can live with the status quo.

kim roy on July 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

No, we can’t.

ddrintn on July 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Truer words were never spoken.

ebrown2 on July 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM

You’re not that bright are you?

So if someone in Ca, NY, NH, RI, NH, MA…etc votes for ROmney what good does that do? Does their vote really matter?

Every vote counts equally, though some are cancelled out by others. It’s the price we pay for the electoral college that insulates our electoral results from the general will.

It’s very simple. We need as many good patriots as possible doing everything they can to defeat Maobama. Doens’t mean you have to worship Romney, doesn’t even mean you have to like him.

What it means is you to have some sense of patriotism to get off your a$$ and get to work to defeat Maobama. We were handed the best nation on earth, it’s time to fight to save it.

Right. Hence, why I am criticizing Mitt Romney. I am willing to fight hard enough to risk not only the wrath of the rombots for criticizing Romney, but also the wrath of the ABR’s for voting for him in spite of it. I’m something of a political paradox that way.

The truth hurts and if that bothers you.. then right back at ya tough guy: kindly GFY!

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

As I said before and will say over and over again, I fully reserve the right to criticize Mitt Romney in any time, manner, and place of my choosing. Your opinion of my patriotism (or lack thereof) is worth about the same to me as the used gum wad stuck to the sole of my shoe.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

/that’s all I’m going to say on this thread regarding this.

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

That’s a good thing. I remember my old high school Latin teacher always accusing people of “proudly proclaiming their ignorance to the world.”

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM

BTW, the only reason Cheney supports gay marriage is because one
of his daughters is gay, got married (?) I believe and may also
have children.

Third party next go around!!!!! Get rid of the rinos!

Amjean on July 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

You’re right, that is probably the only reason Cheney supports gay marriage.

I’ll ask you though, if you were in the same position would you change your stance? How would you feel about your daughter? Do you think she would have an immoral lifestyle and would be a sinner for doing so?

It’s a bit different when it’s your daugther isn’t?

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM

That’s not official Catholic doctrine. Official Roman Catholic doctrine is that if you are not in the Roman Catholic church, you are anathema (damned to hell). Official RC doctrine does not even recognize salvation in other Christian churches, let alone outside of Christianity.

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Where in the world did you come up with that nonsense?

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Tired of this. He is right.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM

AWRIGHT ! . . . . . . . We have an anomaly !

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

And to clarify I don’t think people dislike Palin due to her religious conviction.

I think it’s due to the fact she’s a real conservative who makes all the phone Rino’s look bad.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

As I said before and will say over and over again, I fully reserve the right to criticize Mitt Romney in any time, manner, and place of my choosing. Your opinion of my patriotism (or lack thereof) is worth about the same to me as the used gum wad stuck to the sole of my shoe.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Apparently my opinion is worth alot more than you say it is to you as you keep responding to me.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM

And to clarify I don’t think people dislike Palin due to her religious conviction.

I think it’s due to the fact she’s a real conservative who makes all the phone Rino’s look bad.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

That’s kind of curious to me. I’ll give you credit, LevinFan, it’s not so much you. But I’m gobsmacked when I list the reasons I don’t particularly care for Mitt Romney as a person or a politician, and it’s always the rombots who play the “You’re just a bitter Palin worshipper” card. This after I’ve spent many many keystrokes not even mentioning her at all. Again, LevinFan, I’m not directing this toward you personally. Just an observation.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Apparently my opinion is worth alot more than you say it is to you as you keep responding to me.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Isn’t it kind of incumbent on me to defend myself and argue my own opinions? That’s kind of what we do around here, right? ;-)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

That’s not official Catholic doctrine. Official Roman Catholic doctrine is that if you are not in the Roman Catholic church, you are anathema (damned to hell). Official RC doctrine does not even recognize salvation in other Christian churches, let alone outside of Christianity.
AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Where in the world did you come up with that nonsense?

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

So are you.

But now that you won in the end. How can you defend the Catholic Church who for 1500 years told parents their dead baby was condemned to purgatory. Well sorry we got that wrong.

Well they have no right to claim anything after that one.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

That’s kind of curious to me. I’ll give you credit, LevinFan, it’s not so much you. But I’m gobsmacked when I list the reasons I don’t particularly care for Mitt Romney as a person or a politician, and it’s always the rombots who play the “You’re just a bitter Palin worshipper” card. This after I’ve spent many many keystrokes not even mentioning her at all. Again, LevinFan, I’m not directing this toward you personally. Just an observation.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM

We should be critical of Romney and hold his feet to the fire.

I don’t think it really helps us in terms of winning in November to do so now. We should support him and get involved.

Then hold his feet to the fire after Jan 20, 2013.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM

I will say though it doesn’t bode well for your argument to toss out the term “homo”. It shows a blatant disregard for gay people of which there are alot of good people.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

“Homo” is a bad word? I truly thought it was short, or slang, for homosexual. Is “hetero” a bad word too? If not, why not?

If there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why would the term, “homo” be a slur? Who makes these rules, anyway?

Frankly, “gay” seems like somewhat of a silly label to me. Who came up[ with that one? If homosexual are so proud of their lifestyle, why would “homo” offend them? “Hetero” doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Neither does conservative. Neither does Christian.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Isn’t it kind of incumbent on me to defend myself and argue my own opinions? That’s kind of what we do around here, right? ;-)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Exactly it is.

Just don’t pretend that you don’t care what I think when you keep responding.

There are others like Steveanal who aren’t worth responding to since they are utter fools.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:03 PM

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

.
And to clarify I don’t think people dislike Palin due to her religious conviction.

I think it’s due to the fact she’s a real conservative who makes all the phone Rino’s look bad.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM

.
Well, we agree on that. : )

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM

“Homo” is a bad word? I truly thought it was short, or slang, for homosexual. Is “hetero” a bad word too? If not, why not?

If there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why would the term, “homo” be a slur? Who makes these rules, anyway?

Frankly, “gay” seems like somewhat of a silly label to me. Who came up[ with that one? If homosexual are so proud of their lifestyle, why would “homo” offend them? “Hetero” doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Neither does conservative. Neither does Christian.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:02 PM

I think you know what I mean.

Come on now. For years “homo” has been a derogatory slang for gays. Not really meant in a positive way.

And yes, gay is kind of a silly label. Interesting to find out how it came about.

Ever see the South Park where they redefine the term “gay” to refer to the annoying bikers who keep revving up their engines all the time to get attention?

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Sorry, LevinFan… scrolling up, I see you’re getting pounded on all sides. Didn’t mean to gang up.

We can have a discussion on “morality” and politically correct language another day.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Do you have a link to any of those revocations of the statements from the Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and other Councils? … and do those revocations carry the same weight as the pronouncements of those previous Councils?…

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Since you asked…

Technically, from the Catholic point of view, anathema is the same as excommunication (denial of Holy Communion); therefore, Protestant churches which do not hold the same doctrine about the Eucharist (communion) are not anathematized because members could never receive communion in any case. Anathema against the Orthodox from the Great Schism was actually revoked:

Here is the Catholic-Orthodox statement, from 1965, revoking the mutual excommunication of 1054.

Here is the Lutheran-Catholic Declaration on Salvation by Faith from 1999.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Well, we agree on that. : )

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Yes we do.

BTW, did you go to Restoring Love or watch it?

How was it?

Was it political at all, did it talk about supporting Romney or the need to defeat Maobama?

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Bush picking Cheney for VP was an even bigger mistake…

aposematic on July 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Exactly it is.

Just don’t pretend that you don’t care what I think when you keep responding.

There are others like Steveanal who aren’t worth responding to since they are utter fools.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Let me reclarify, then. I don’t care what you think of my patriotism in terms of my views on Mitt Romney or my insistence on airing them. You can cry “unpatriotic” all you want. I’m still not going to fall for that “we need to unite behind the candidate” bullshit. We’ve been doing that my entire life, and look where we are now!

We should be critical of Romney and hold his feet to the fire.

I don’t think it really helps us in terms of winning in November to do so now. We should support him and get involved.

Then hold his feet to the fire after Jan 20, 2013.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Then you and I will agree to disagree on that point. As long as I continue to hew to the TOS here at Hot Air, I will continue to air my grievances. Here I stand; I can do no other.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Sorry, LevinFan… scrolling up, I see you’re getting pounded on all sides. Didn’t mean to gang up.

We can have a discussion on “morality” and politically correct language another day.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Bring it on, I can handle it :)

I’m a tough guy….

I may disappear for a few minutes to put my daughter to bed but I’ll be back.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

If you won’t try to stop Maobama — won’t even vote for Romney then you have NO ground to stand on in criticizing Maobama.

Sorry if the truth hurts. All it makes you is a phony who did nothing in the fight to try to save our Republic.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Thank you for conceding my original point. If things are so bad that failing to elect Mitt Romney will destroy the U.S., then the ship of state is already doomed.

Romney is not a fighter for classical American values, he’s a self-admitted “progressive” and life-long Rockefeller Republican statist. Voting for him, by YOUR own implied admission, will only -potentially- stop the hemorrhaging that the country is currently experiencing. The experience of 2000-2006 points out that that is a forlorn hope.

ebrown2 on July 29, 2012 at 10:09 PM

what the H is a “Bot”Does it have meaning beyond shallow and clever? Jus askin cuz im jus a drunkn Mick

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I’ll ask you though, if you were in the same position would you change your stance? How would you feel about your daughter? Do you think she would have an immoral lifestyle and would be a sinner for doing so?

It’s a bit different when it’s your daugther isn’t?

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM

My daughter is six month pregnant with second child our of wedlock.

She is well on her way to hell.

I pray for her all the time and even watch her child while she is at work. But my love for her does not absolve her of her sins. I wish she was making better choices and really pray she will eventually so she can be forgiven. You see there is salvation for those who repent.

You see it is not only gays who will go to hell. It is all who break Gods laws and do not Repent. Repent and be saved it is not too late.

We are all tempted. Some to have sex out of marriage. Some to do so with same sex. Some other sins. Temptation is not the problem acting on it and dwelling on it is.

The Gay person is not much worse off than the adulterer. Both have broken Gods laws and will be damned. The murder is no better off than a gay person. Again gay is fine as long as you resist the temptation to act on or dwell on it.

But believe in Christ and repent and you will be saved.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM

If you won’t try to stop Maobama — won’t even vote for Romney then you have NO ground to stand on in criticizing Maobama.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Besides that, didn’t I already concede that I’m voting for Obama? And didn’t you tell me that’s not good enough? I can smell your fear of Obama through my screen. Cowardice doesn’t become you.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Well, I still don’t know why the word offends them, unless it’s the accuracy of the term. I think it’s probably the same reason abortionists prefer the word “choice” to “baby killing.” I get that.

He who controls the language, controls politics.

Big South Park fan here, too. They give Christians some well deserved shots. Had a man tell me once that church wasn’t designed as a country-cub for saints; it was designed as a hospital for sinners. Peace.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Besides that, didn’t I already concede that I’m voting for Obama for Romney against Obama? And didn’t you tell me that’s not good enough? I can smell your fear of Obama through my screen. Cowardice doesn’t become you.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Blah. I am NOT voting for Obama. I am voting against Obama, and Romney receives the benefit of that vote. I have to be able to sleep at night and look at myself in my shaving mirror.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM

.
Yes we do.

BTW, did you go to Restoring Love or watch it?

How was it?

Was it political at all, did it talk about supporting Romney or the need to defeat Maobama?

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

.
.
I haven’t watched it “straight thru”, yet. I recorded it into into an .flv file on my hardrive.
Earlier today, I was editing that for eventual conversion to .avi, and then DVD.
What I saw of it was GREAT !
As far as “politics” went, there was none. The leaders of the event went very much out of their way to avoid it. It was purely a Judeo-Christian event, as I saw it.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM

But now that you won in the end. How can you defend the Catholic Church who for 1500 years told parents their dead baby was condemned to purgatory. Well sorry we got that wrong.

Well they have no right to claim anything after that one.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 9:59 PM

You mean limbo, not purgatory. And limbo was never a matter of official Church teaching.

steebo77 on July 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM

when I see the way the GOP treats Palin
I think
That’s the way you treat a threat!

Isn’t Palin representing a counter force to this malaise of graft and cronyism. Isn’t she one of the few propaganda tools that we have to combat the lies of the MSM.
Who else does what she does?
Liz Cheney is right. Thank you ,Sarah, for all that you do for America
. DCHeney and all the Bushs are out of their league here. THey don’t represent anything current anymore. Their day is past. Thanks you for being strong after 911. You need to put down the mic now and spend some time with the grand kids.

BoxHead1 on July 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM

. I have to be able to sleep at night and look at myself in my shaving mirror.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That’s gotta be ugly

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Well, a bit late to this discussion.

From what I heard (so may be false) if the McCain campaign had bothered to take the time to get Sarah Palin up to speed (my understanding is that she was ignored and left her to her own devices – which were and still are considerable) she may have pulled him through. You can say I’m of base here but my observations of far too many in the R establishment (all the way down to the local level) have a difficult time with talented people who are outside whatever the local or state norm is. Outsiders get attacked – in other words, we spend too much time eating our own – result, we lose.

Sarah has not gone away – who was Gore’s VP candidate? Who was Dole’s VP candidate? Sarah is alive and well. Once the Republicans realize that marketing helps our side, maybe we’ll be more amenable to those who think differently and work differently. As for the Dems, too often they behave like lemmings – “do what they’re told” and they win.

SInce our style is a bit different from the group-think mindset of the left/socialists/Dems, we need to learn to accommodate different styles, put people where they can succeed (Sarah in charge of Energy??? – she knows this stuff) and then we all win (even the Dems).

MN J on July 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Let me reclarify, then. I don’t care what you think of my patriotism in terms of my views on Mitt Romney or my insistence on airing them. You can cry “unpatriotic” all you want. I’m still not going to fall for that “we need to unite behind the candidate” bullshit. We’ve been doing that my entire life, and look where we are now!

We should be critical of Romney and hold his feet to the fire.

I don’t think it really helps us in terms of winning in November to do so now. We should support him and get involved.

Then hold his feet to the fire after Jan 20, 2013.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Then you and I will agree to disagree on that point. As long as I continue to hew to the TOS here at Hot Air, I will continue to air my grievances. Here I stand; I can do no other.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Exactly, if Mitt’s feet weren’t held to the fire in the primary season or this upcoming general election season, why should he feel any desire to kowtow to people he cordially despises (small-government conservative Republicans) if he manages to get elected to office?

The “Obama stash” lady got roundly mocked here a few years ago, but she was only wrong about Obama’s readiness to help her personally, not about the fact that he agreed with her politically. Those who have the delusion that voting for Mitt will staunch the bleeding are wrong on both grounds.

ebrown2 on July 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

. I have to be able to sleep at night and look at myself in my shaving mirror.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That’s gotta be ugly

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Big words from a drunken mick. Come find me and we’ll have at it over a few warm pints.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Here is the Lutheran-Catholic Declaration on Salvation by Faith from 1999.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

That was the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Lutheran World Federation, not The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which AZfed is a member of…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM

BoxHead1 on July 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Maybe you should ask ABC and others to quit inviting them on!!..we haven’t heard the whole interview..I believe that it will be a good interview!..:)

Dire Straits on July 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Big words from a drunken mick. Come find me and we’ll have at it over a few warm pints.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

You are on! :)

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Had a man tell me once that church wasn’t designed as a country-cub for saints; it was designed as a hospital for sinners. Peace.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:12 PM

soooo stealing that … thanks ….

conservative tarheel on July 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Sorry, who’s being bashed now–Palin, Homosexuals, Mittbots, Catholics, Cheney, or Obama? I seemed to have lost track.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

ebrown2 on July 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

No problem..Don’t vote fo Romney!..:)

Dire Straits on July 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Maybe you should ask ABC and others to quit inviting them on!!..we haven’t heard the whole interview..I believe that it will be a good interview!..:)

Dire Straits on July 29, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Maybe but then I wouldn’t have much to write about huh? OK, fair enough, I’ll check for the whole thing tomorrow. But I’m a Palin TCon so don’t expect your mind tricks to work on me.

BoxHead1 on July 29, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Here is the Lutheran-Catholic Declaration on Salvation by Faith from 1999.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

That was the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Lutheran World Federation, not The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which AZfed is a member of…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Now you tell me.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

You know I was just joking around. Right

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM

ELCA and LWF are very liberal and ordain women and gays, LCMS & WELS do not…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Sorry, who’s being bashed now–Palin, Homosexuals, Mittbots, Catholics, Cheney, or Obama? I seemed to have lost track.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

RINO bashing is always in season at Hot Gas.

TitularHead on July 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

You know I was just joking around. Right

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM

From one mick to another…

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which AZfed is a member of…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM

The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is on record as being very anti-Catholic, which is why Michele Bachmann had to leave it during her ill-fated Presidential bid.

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You see it is not only gays who will go to hell. It is all who break Gods laws and do not Repent. Repent and be saved it is not too late.

But believe in Christ and repent and you will be saved.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM

.
Steve’, you know I’m not picking a fight with you; but I’d like to play “Devil’s advocate” with you. (just imagine that I’m using that button Glenn has, to make his voice sound like the Devil)

Now then . . . if I keep God’s laws, but don’t repent and/or accept Jesus as Lord, where does that leave me ?

If I do repent and accept Jesus as Lord, but still practice sodomy (or any other sin), where does that leave me ?
.
I gathered earlier that LevinFan was trying to ask a similar question, and was not quite wording it right.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Sorry, who’s being bashed now–Palin, Homosexuals, Mittbots, Catholics, Cheney, or Obama? I seemed to have lost track.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM

.
Well I’m not prejudiced; I hate everybody.

So take your pick.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM

No they aren’t. I spent the first half of my life in the WELS, educated in their parochial schools and the church never taught that…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM

BoxHead1 on July 29, 2012 at 10:23 PM

No problem and no jedi mind trick!..:)

Dire Straits on July 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I don’t think it really helps us in terms of winning in November to do so now. We should support him and get involved.

Then hold his feet to the fire after Jan 20, 2013.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM

What does wining mean?

What will a Mitt Presidency look like for real?

Will Mitt fight to bring to justice the Obama Administration which is now corrupt from top to bottom?

If not.

Wining is meaningless. It is worse than losing.

I would rather lose a skirmish than the war. Mitt has not at all convinced us that he will be a good commander. We are better off under the current King than under a new unknown King. Mitts record is totally full of negative indicators. He did everything so much like Obama in Mass it is hard to see how a Democrat would have done anything what so ever differently. Or Obama had he been Governor of Mass (well Obama would have gotten far less federal money).

I say Mitt wins we lose bad.

Obama wins. The Tea Party movement becomes much stronger and will make a real difference no later than 2016.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Of course.

I had a daughter like he was talking about. Was willing to talk about this personal tragedy. Plus been talking with him all night.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

.
A Mitt Presidency will most likely look less Conservative than I want it to, but still better than BHO.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

No they aren’t. I spent the first half of my life in the WELS, educated in their parochial schools and the church never taught that…

OmahaConservative on July 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the WELS state on its website, as recently as 2011, that “We identify the anti-Christ as the papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.”

steebo77 on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Hat tip commodore,

@ppppolls 2 mins
Cruz is up 55-40 with those who already voted so Dewhurst really needs a huge election day turnout to have any chance

commodore on July 29, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Bmore on July 29, 2012 at 10:39 PM

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM
</blockquote Watched the Video. Our Life Story put to music! Didn't think I would live long enough.

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

.
Of course.

I had a daughter like he was talking about. Was willing to talk about this personal tragedy. Plus been talking with him all night.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

.
I didn’t catch the beginning of your “running discussion” with LevinFan, but that was the impression I got from the last couple of his (her?) comments

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM

If I do repent and accept Jesus as Lord, but still practice sodomy (or any other sin), where does that leave me ?
.
I gathered earlier that LevinFan was trying to ask a similar question, and was not quite wording it right.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I think you would agree on that as well.

If we repent and truly accept Jesus we will do our very best to stop sinning. Then only Jesus can judge if we did enough. Only Jesus can look into our heart and know if we truly accept him. If so we are saved. I will not judge anyone.

However you judge yourself if you say something like I am going to sin and could care less about Jesus. Or worse I believe Christ will accept me as I continue to sin.

I then feel free to say Jesus will cast you into hell unless you wake up and repent.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Now then . . . if I keep God’s laws, but don’t repent and/or accept Jesus as Lord, where does that leave me ?

If I do repent and accept Jesus as Lord, but still practice sodomy (or any other sin), where does that leave me ?
.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM

May I take a crack at that? Really OT, but it is important. I will give you a Catholic answer.

1. This is a false hypothetical. One of God’s laws is that you love him with all your heart, mind, and strength. For a Christian that means that you accept Jesus as Lord. If not a Christian (a Jew meticulously following the Law, for example), that “leaves you” as a faithful member of whatever religious tradition you subscribe to.

2. If you become a Christian by accepting Christ and still (still!) sin, welcome to the club. You are a sinner like the rest of the human race with the exception of the Virgin Mary. Since you have accepted Jesus you must struggle to overcome temptation, etc.

If the thrust of your comment is Can I get into heaven if I willfully persist in my sin, then the answer is…Possibly. But take care–God will not be mocked. Selective observation of the commandments is not recommended. You must be sincere in repentance. If you are not sincere (“Hey, I observed 86% of the Law and intentionally violated the rest”) then you are a hypocrite, a group that, according to the gospels, Jesus Christ wasn’t very fond of.

Signing off for tonight. Buenas noches, bloviators.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM

.
A Mitt Presidency will most likely look less Conservative than I want it to, but still better than BHO.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Well the glass 1/20 full is not enough for me this time.

Time and time again. Six in all the candidate was not conservative and all five times that nominee/President did great harm to the Nation and the only chance to fix it the Republican Party.

Before I saw no possibility of getting enough Conservative Tea Party people in to make a real difference but right now I do. I really feel that we can make a real difference. But Mitt Romney is only 1/1000 conservative if that. He would fight the Tea Party tooth and nail as he already is. He would have power throughout government and be able to direct all blame on the innocent Tea Party. I see no upside what so ever with a Mitt Presidency.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Technically, from the Catholic point of view, anathema is the same as excommunication (denial of Holy Communion); therefore, Protestant churches which do not hold the same doctrine about the Eucharist (communion) are not anathematized because members could never receive communion in any case. Anathema against the Orthodox from the Great Schism was actually revoked:

Here is the Catholic-Orthodox statement, from 1965, revoking the mutual excommunication of 1054.

Here is the Lutheran-Catholic Declaration on Salvation by Faith from 1999.

spiritof61 on July 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM

In the sense of the Councils, the anathemas pronounced were more than denial of communion and consisted of both pronouncement of eternal condemnation upon those holding those Protestant beliefs and authorization for physical

Your first reference only revokes the mutual excommunication between the Eastern Orthodox Bishop and the Bishop of Rome over the Filioque controversy and does not address any revocation of any of the anathema’s on the Protestant churches.

In the second link, it seems somewhat ambiguous as to whether that withdrawal of condemnation applies to all Christian denominations or only to that one branch of Lutherans from the Church of Germany, who are ecumenical, and not Confessional Lutherans. I do not see a clear, unambiguous retraction of the statements made by the Council of Trent, nor the Vatican Councils, but rather see the words, “In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.”, that partner being an ecumenical body with historical Lutheran roots, but not necessarily holding to Lutheran doctrine. The latter is demonstrated by the numerous references to “ecumenical” and “By appropriating insights of recent biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of theology and dogma” statements. Therefore, it is not clear that this revocation of condemnation would be considered applicable to any other bodies other than those in ecumenical negotiations with the Church of Rome.

I do not see a clear revocation, applicable to all Christian bodies that hold to the Scripture, of the statement, “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

I do know that individual Catholics do not hold to that doctrine or statement. However, from what you have posted, I see no clear revocation of that and similar Council statements.

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I think you would agree on that as well.

If we repent and truly accept Jesus we will do our very best to stop sinning. Then only Jesus can judge if we did enough. Only Jesus can look into our heart and know if we truly accept him. If so we are saved. I will not judge anyone.

However you judge yourself if you say something like I am going to sin and could care less about Jesus. Or worse I believe Christ will accept me as I continue to sin.

I then feel free to say Jesus will cast you into hell unless you wake up and repent.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM

.
What about that young man living in sin with his apparent step mother, in the city of Corinth ?

Paul didn’t say that young man would go to hell unless he repented (he was already a Christian believer), but he did say something, and he said it sternly. [I Cor 1:1-5]

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Well done Mr. Vice President, you just scored a goal on your own team.

Even Liz Cheney acknowledges that what you said was wrong.

Now, if this attack on Sarah Palin by a Republican was just a one off, one could say oh well.

However, as Mark Levin notes in this post:

The continuing attacks on leaders of grassroot conservatives by the Republican establishment, especially former Bush administration officials, need to end now. They got their nominee and they need to focus on Obama.

Which begs the question Does Cheney and the Establishment Really Seek to Fire Obama?

Until people can see evidence of a meaningful effort by Romney and his campaign to unite the Republican party and focus on defeating Obama, including stopping the attacks on leaders of grassroots conservatives, giving Sarah Palin a prime time speaking spot at the convention, and selecting a VP nominee that conservatives and conservative leaning libertarians can embrace as one of their own, the answer to the question is No.

Oh, I can hear the wails, but we must unite to defeat Obama because …. Wrong.

ABO got Romney in the door. However, to win he needs to earn the conservative and conservative leaning libertarian vote.

With the continued attacks on grassroots conservative leaders like Sarah Palin, which started in early May his campaign has been doing a masterful job of keeping the Republican party divided.

The result? Obama will win. Is that what Romney wants? If he does not then he needs to change course PDQ.

john.frank on July 29, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM

You know what this country needs to defeat Obama?A socially maladjusted guy. Oh, I know Johnson would fill the bill. Otherwise, there still is the Obstetrics(sp) Oxygenerian(sp).

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 11:03 PM

A Mitt Presidency will most likely look less Conservative than I want it to, but still better than BHO.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

.
Well the glass 1/20 full is not enough for me this time.

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM

.
You can only follow your own conscience to the best of your ability, when everything looks ubiquitous, gray and murky, or obscure.

If the others here (and myself) can’t convince you otherwise, then so be it. Vote for a third party, or not at all.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 11:06 PM

You know what this country needs to defeat Obama?A socially maladjusted guy. Oh, I know Johnson would fill the bill. Otherwise, there still is the Obstetrics(sp) Oxygenerian(sp).

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I think you meant to say “Octogenarian Obstetrician,” mick. ;)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:06 PM

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Just this morning we burned a Luthern at the stake after the 11:30 mass. Fr. Brian made us do it in the parking lot because he didn’t want to mess up the church. lol.

bw222 on July 29, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Bottom line?

Cheney sold out to the Rombots and the Bushtards to make sure Liz got a Cabinet Post.

Period. That’s all this was about.

victor82 on July 29, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I think you meant to say “Octogenarian Obstetrician,” mick. ;)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Don’t try to interpret my use of language. It is a conundrum inside a sea shell.

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 11:10 PM

(*whisper to others*…sometimes it is good to just lurk!)

KOOLAID2 on July 29, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the WELS state on its website, as recently as 2011, that “We identify the anti-Christ as the papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.”

steebo77 on July 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM

No, you are correct. The office of the papacy, and the doctrines as expressed by that office, namely:
1) Placing the doctrine of tradition and papal authority over that of scripture
2) Emphasizing works over faith as necessary for salvation
3) Originating the doctrine of Mary worship and praying to saints
4) Affording works and indulgences as payment for sin, completely contrary to scripture
5) Placing a human being as the “vicar of Christ” on this earth

are consistent with the description of the anti-christ as described in Revelation. The anti-christ is said to come from within the church, install himself over the church, and demand the allegiance of the members of the church over their allegiance to God himself. Given the description and the duration of the reign of the anti-christ, it cannot be a single human. The office of the papacy meets the criteria stated in Revelation.

Again, this is not meant as a condemnation of all Catholics, nor the denial that there are Christians within the Catholic church. What it does say is that the RC doctrines can be destructive to saving faith by leading people to trust in their own works rather than in the work of Christ for their salvation.

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Bottom line?

Cheney sold out to the Rombots and the Bushtards to make sure Liz got a Cabinet Post.

Period. That’s all this was about.

Really? And how does scoring an own goal help Romney win?

If this was just a one off attack, sure. However, there have been a constant stream of attacks by Republicans against conservative leaders like Sarah Palin ever since early May.

Which begs the question, Does Cheney and the Establishment Really Seek to Fire Obama?

john.frank on July 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Out for this evening, have bills to pay and other real world stuff to do.

AZfederalist on July 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Don’t try to interpret my use of language. It is a conundrum inside a sea shell.

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Ohhh. Now with the big words. I think Frank Mackey’s dear ole Da’ would like to have a word with ye, mick. ;-)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Ohhh. Now with the big words. I think Frank Mackey’s dear ole Da’ would like to have a word with ye, mick. ;-)

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Glad tu shr a pnt wit im

kenny on July 29, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Palin’s Qualifications to Serve in White House Should Not Be Questioned

john.frank on July 29, 2012 at 11:16 PM

We can question Palin’s qualifications all day long and into the wee hours o’ the morning, but Christ forbid we should question Mitt Romney’s conservatism.

/rombot

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Take it over to Jerry Falwell’s blog and preach somewhere else.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 11:22 PM

We can question Palin’s qualifications all day long and into the wee hours o’ the morning, but Christ forbid we should question Mitt Romney’s conservatism.

/rombot

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Of course. Only those who aren’t running are allowed to be criticized. No reason to criticize Romney, after all. I mean, if he gets into office, he’s better than Obama, so shut up.

MadisonConservative on July 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Besides that, didn’t I already concede that I’m voting for Obama? And didn’t you tell me that’s not good enough? I can smell your fear of Obama through my screen. Cowardice doesn’t become you.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Yes it’s not enough. We all need to and can do more.

And yeah I’m scared as heck of Maobama getting reelected. Aren’t you?

That’s not being a coward (which is a ridiculous thing to say).. it’s just being realistic — Maobama very well could win and if he does we’re screwed.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Steveangell on July 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Thanks for the monologue, Fred Phelps.

MadisonConservative on July 29, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Liz Cheney splits with her dad on Palin

:)

Cindy Cooper on July 29, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Awesome. Thanks Cindy.

SparkPlug on July 29, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Ok a debate on Religion can get us 200 more easy.

Keep up the good work

SparkPlug on July 29, 2012 at 11:26 PM

I haven’t watched it “straight thru”, yet. I recorded it into into an .flv file on my hardrive.
Earlier today, I was editing that for eventual conversion to .avi, and then DVD.
What I saw of it was GREAT !
As far as “politics” went, there was none. The leaders of the event went very much out of their way to avoid it. It was purely a Judeo-Christian event, as I saw it.

listens2glenn on July 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM

I don’t know how you separate the two. You can’t have a good moral, religious people and then have tyranny reigning down from DC.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Well done Mr. Vice President. You just scored a goal on your own team. Not appreciated.

john.frank on July 29, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Yes it’s not enough. We all need to and can do more.

And yeah I’m scared as heck of Maobama getting reelected. Aren’t you?

That’s not being a coward (which is a ridiculous thing to say).. it’s just being realistic — Maobama very well could win and if he does we’re screwed.

LevinFan on July 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM

You absolutely are a coward. And if you care to try to stop my vocal criticism of Romney, you are welcome to. I don’t think you’ll meet with much success.

I don’t react out of fear. I act out of pragmatism, hence my willingness to vote for a progressive who doesn’t hate America (Romney) as opposed to a Marxist revolutionary who does hate America (Obama). We don’t have a conservative alternative. But I’m not going to gloss over or ignore Romney’s shortcomings simply because I got shafted clear up the bunghole in the primary process. The time to hold his feet to the fire is NOW. And I defy any “patriot” to try and stop me.

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:29 PM

1200 hits? Sheesh, you’d think the guy was a US presidential candidate who said what he really thought to a reporter in London.

M240H on July 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM

1200 hits? Sheesh, you’d think the guy was a US presidential candidate who said what he really thought to a reporter in London.

M240H on July 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM

A gaffe is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth.

cf. Mitt Romney’s insistence in 2002 that he’s really progressive

gryphon202 on July 29, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12 13 14 15