Top Romney strategist: No regrets, baby

posted at 5:11 pm on November 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

People are already tearing this up on Twitter and in the comments to the Headlines item. A few points. One: In which alternate universe was Romney not supported by “D.C.’s green-room crowd”?

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class. Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the GOP primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

It was the “green-room crowd” that insisted Romney would be, and had to be, nominated because he was the only guy in the GOP field who was sufficiently well funded, well organized, and moderate to give Obama problems in a general election. And they may have been right; for all his faults, I’m still not convinced that anyone else who ran last year would have done better than Mitt on November 6. Why Stevens feels obliged to ignore that chief credential, his alleged electability, in favor of some bizarre narrative here about a grassroots “movement” of Romneymania slowly building around the candidate, I don’t know. There was nothing resembling a movement until October, after the game-changing debate in Denver and the final frenzy of the campaign gave Republicans new hope that Romney really might find a way to torpedo Hopenchange after all. Before then, people were making jokes like this. In fact, the very truth of what Stevens says about Romney trailing virtually every other candidate in the primary field at one time or another puts the lie to the idea of Romneymania. The reason everyone else, including Herman Cain, did a stint as a frontrunner is because so many grassroots Republicans were loath to nominate the architect of RomneyCare. Eventually he simply outspent and out-organized the competition, and that was that. But let’s not use his own base’s ambivalence towards him for most of the campaign as some sort of testament to his resilience.

Two: I’m not sure what his point is here.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

Here’s the data that I assume he’s using, from the national exit poll:

Would you consider a young adult making $40,000 a year “middle class”? If so then, per the data, the claim that Romney won a majority of the “middle class” becomes more complicated. Besides, to suggest that Romney was a hit with the middle class because he won a majority of the 50-99K crowd is misleading. He got utterly destroyed among black and Latino voters of all ages, which makes me think he almost certainly lost the black and Latino middle class by wide margins too. (There were no race/income crosstabs in the national exit poll.) Do these look like numbers you’d expect to see of a candidate who’d been a true winner among middle-class voters?

The split for Obama on that question was 10/44/31 by comparison. My strong suspicion is that Romney won the $50,000+ group because he won big with whites and whites comprise more of that group on balance than they do of the < $50,000 group. And even if I’m totally wrong about all this and Stevens is right, what’s his point? Should the GOP take comfort in having won the middle class if it continues to lose in perpetuity because poorer voters are turning out in higher numbers?

Three, this is awfully ironic: “In the debates and in sweeping rallies across the country, Romney captured the imagination of millions of Americans. He spoke for those who felt disconnected from the Obama vision of America. He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor that contrasted sharply with the angry bitterness of his critics.” Why is it ironic? Because it was Stevens, more than any other Romney advisor, who was blamed for being too slow to trumpet Mitt’s warmth and generosity early in the campaign, when Obama was busy defining him as a Gekko-esque ogre to ruinous effect. Remember this Politico piece in early October about Ann and Tagg Romney allegedly staging a “mutiny” over the campaign’s one-note anti-Obamanomics message? Quote:

Chief strategist Stuart Stevens — whom the family held responsible for allowing Romney’s personal side to be obscured by an anti-Obama economic message — has seen his once wide-ranging portfolio “fenced in” to mainly the debates, and the television advertising that is his primary expertise, according to campaign officials. Tagg Romney, channeling his mother’s wishes, is taking a much more active role in how the campaign is run…

In public and private, Ann Romney made no secret of her frustrations. Candidates’ spouses often think the husband or wife is getting a raw deal, and that they are better than the political caricature being drawn. But Ann Romney’s agitation was palpable: She felt the Obama campaign had dishonestly made her husband out to be something he is not, and was eager to see a more forceful response, especially one that played up his humanity. She wanted to humanize her husband; play up his charity; and showcase how in politics, business and life, he has tried to do the right thing, even when it was not popular.

She wanted, in other words, to show off his “natural grace and good humor.” Erick Erickson was hearing complaints about Stevens weeks before that along the same lines: “Frankly, he is the senior strategy guy and the strategy clearly is not working. All you need to know is that the GOP had three nights of prime time television coverage and the people whose kids Mitt Romney helped before they died got speaking slots outside of prime time in a convention designed to make people like Mitt Romney.” Stevens’s op-ed today is titled, “A good man. The right fight.” The real right fight would have emphasized much more heavily that Romney is, in fact, a good man.

Finally, I don’t know what to say about this:

When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

He carried the day at the first debate, yes. Not so clearly at the other two. But in the wake of Project ORCA turning into the fail whale, how can any campaign vet dismiss “whiz-bang turnout technologies” that blithely? Obama appears to have won because he figured out a way to identify and then deliver droves of “irregular voters” to the polls on election day. Sophisticated data-mining and GOTV techniques were certainly key to that; given all the election fundamentals lined up against him, the fact that he nearly duplicated his electoral-vote take from four years ago makes me wonder if they were, in fact, decisive. Maybe we shouldn’t fault Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist, for overlooking the tech gap, but when the campaign is built on the alleged managerial genius of its candidate, someone has to be faulted. The “green-room crowd” assured us Romney wouldn’t get beat on nuts-and-bolts stuff; that was one of the biggest reasons to nominate him. And yet here we are, with the consolation of Republican ideals to get us through four more years.


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 3 4 5 6

Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM

You’re a fool.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 4:42 AM

I believe that Rush summed it up, early last year, when he said, “Mitt Romney is a gentleman. But, he is no Conservative.”

And, that is why we lost. Poor communication of the Conservative message.

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 7:07 AM

Top Romney strategist: No regrets, baby

We’re #2! We’re #2! We’re #2!

Caper29 on November 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM

If he’d just promised more free stuff than Obama…

Ward Cleaver on November 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Exactly. He should have just made a whole bunch of promises and then not kept a single one, kind of like the 44th White President did but wasn’t called out on it.

Nutstuyu on November 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM

MItt Romney could have beaten Barack Obama in an election of ideas. Mitt Romney had better solutions to the problems facing this country. I know that, because I didn’t listen to the attack ads from Obama, the people who voted for Obama have no clue what Romney’s ideas are.

If the Republican Party doesn’t deal with the MSM quickly, they’re going to just be a minor cog in the big government machine. Look at the debate over the fiscal cliff, what is the Republican plan? If you’re watching the MSM you don’t know where the Republicans stand, all you know is they’re in favor of tax-cuts for the rich.

I still believe the Republicans should allow the fiscal cliff to take place. Let everyone start paying the taxes that Bush cut because there aren’t many middle class families around who know they got a tax cut from Bush because the Democrats refuse to tell them. The Republicans can show them, let them get a few pay checks and then, perhaps, the Democrats might think about actually dealing.

bflat879 on November 29, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Well, Romney might have captured some voter’s imaginations, but it is obvious he didn’t capture enough votes.

Hey all you moderates, have you gotten the message yet that your form of ‘moderation’ is not winning elections on the national level. But you moderates just keep on demonizing us conservatives and tea partiers and you will just keep losing elections — unless you are one of those moderate political consultants who are getting rich off of the big donors and PACs I guess it really doesn’t matter if we lose national elections so long as you all keep getting paid big bucks for losing.

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on November 29, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Top Romney strategist: No regrets, baby

We’re #2! We’re #2! We’re #2!

Caper29 on November 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM

I got paid triple top dollar, why would I have regrets baby.

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 8:38 AM

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on November 29, 2012 at 8:37 AM

They are progressives, they want to lose elections to give the Democrat party as much power as possible. That way, once they get elected, they can take control of that power for themselves.

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Please don’t make me go back to the primary and pull out all the nonsense people were saying about Romney.

Ditto all the nose-holding comments when he won.

Let’s not pretend that was fiction and feign outrage.

The fact of the matter is Romney lost because Republicans did not show up at the polls. Period.

We can and should argue all day long about why. But the lack of support amongst Republicans (or Republicans general indifference to voting) is unquestionable.

Obama motivated his voters and helped them see the stakes (fiction or not). Republicans sat home and are waiting for Jesus to resurrect Ronald Reagan or something.

Now we all these self made idiot savants telling us we should fold on immigration reform and start handing out free stuff or something as a cure.

Sure. Right.

Marcus Traianus on November 29, 2012 at 8:41 AM

Romney proved to be a far better warrior than McCain, but hogtied by the GOP’s fear of dealing with America’s cultural and moral weak underbelly. It wasn’t about the economy though folks, anyone who watched their convention where they openly booed God and celebrated lust, envy, sexual deviancy, free everything, deceit was cherished, and racial division and “white guilt” replaces responsibility games, instictively knew that.

You can’t win a navel battle with tanks, and the left has long ago understood that if you can break down society’s mortar -God and family values-the bricks will fall off, they will win, and they have.

Economics is just a side show to the cultural moral war they’ve waged. They have been dividing and agitating the nation for decades, moving their pawns into all the main institutions of the nation-from education, to the media, the churches, and now the military, while the right responds with intellectual argument about proper finance and tax etiquette, they have been capturing the hearts and minds of the populace with tainted and often filthy guilt free candy.

Shame on us–not Romney!

Don L on November 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Romney proved to be a far better warrior than McCain,
Shame on us–not Romney!

Don L on November 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM

romney was only marginally better than mccain. he still got less votes than W in 2004. as for shame on us, no, shame on romney. he couldnt convince enough voters to come out and vote for him. thats his fault. no one is under any obligation to give him their vote. if he cant connect and make them feel he deserves that his problem, not the voters. we arent gonna win any elections w/ the attitude that the voters arent smart enough for our candidates. in fact you expose yourself as being stupid for thinking that way.

chasdal on November 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Marcus Traianus on November 29, 2012 at 8:41 AM

I think the base of Republicans turned out. I think many, like me, did not bring anyone with us. I left my whole family sidelined for the post primary part of the election cycle. They would be your too busy to pay attention group of typical non voting people. Multiply me by just 150,000 other people and you account for about 3 to 5 million total votes.

The difference in policy positions between Romney and Obama just was not striking enough for me to want to waste time explaining it to my family. Particularly when Romney was as much Obama during the primaries as Obama was during the general.

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Shame on us–not Romney!

Don L on November 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM

You make an argument about how we did not get into the trenches and fight the right war. You blame everyone but Romney. Romney did not want to fight the culture war. Hell, he is on the other side when it comes to culture. His stance on abortion is what ever gets him elected, same Obama! His stance on gay marriage, opposes it, but took every opportunity to main stream it, until Obama embraced it, same as Obama to that point.

Shame on us? No, shame on Romney.

Romney should have primaried Obama!

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 9:06 AM

chasdal on November 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Marcus Traianus on November 29, 2012 at 8:41 AM

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 9:02 AM

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Wow, did you guys miss my point.Read the commnent again. It wasn’t at all about who led, or how well the war was fought- it was about why we fought the wrong war–and why we lost. If you think that half the nation buying sex and socialism, while rejecting the God that gives us our rights,can be changed by a few million more “informed” voters (read as economic smarts) then you fail to see how the American voter has become a Godless prostitute willing to sell freedom down the drain for gratification(which the GOP seldom mentions)
As de Toqueville once remarked, democracy would only last until (fallen) man could figure out how to obtain largesse from others (my paraphrasing)
You’ve merely proven my point.

Don L on November 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

To the “We have a deep bench” crowd:

How can you say conservatism lost when we didn’t run a conservative candidate? How can you look forward to 2016 when the Republicans haven’t run a conservative candidate since 1984?

gryphon202 on November 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

You need the the Self-immolation room, 2 doors down on the left.

FlaMurph on November 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Go there yourself, and take your party-imposed blindness with you. You are precisely the type of person Washington warned us about.

Dunedainn on November 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Go there yourself, and take your party-imposed blindness with you. You are precisely the type of person Washington warned us about.

Dunedainn on November 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Heck, take your party with you as well. Let it burn.

Dunedainn on November 29, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I keep saying this and I will say it till I am blue in the face: Next-in-line was the problem. After 2008, Romney became Next In Line, and be damned whatever happened between Romney’s leaving the 2008 race and the beginning of the 2012 race. Tea Party? Hadn’t happened as of spring 2008, became an obstacle for Romney, instead of a source for potential allies. Palin? Gotta crush her, became a focus of conservative resentment of the GOP. The fact that any fool could see Romney coming in ’12? Oh. the Democrats can’t figure anything out in four years, right?

Sekhmet on November 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Don L on November 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I have been making the same argument you did here for the last, um, well, since Reagan was in office at the least. So, I did not miss your argument. What I did do was look at the reality. Mitt Romney, as the standard bearer of the Republican party, failed to make the sale on this subject. He sidelined it. The reason the party and everyone else left it on the sidelines was because we were told by Romney supporters to leave it on the sidelines. Romney as the standard bearer, a volunteer position, is the core reason we abandoned God on the sidelines as a group.

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 10:29 AM

chasdal on November 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Sekhmet on November 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

You two have nailed it. It’s difficult to compete with Santa Claus. We all laughed at the stupid Julia campaign ads, the war on women ad nauseum that Obama put out. He cares. Yeah, right. We know he doesn’t and that Romney actually does have a better track record of caring. Why didn’t the low info voters know that? Because the Republicans do not have an effective propoganda machine. They are still letting Obama blame Bush for the economy. They just don’t think like Dems do. They need to figure out how to teach or at least get across a good message. Freedom is apparently a tough sell to the Santa Claus believers.

“Next in line, or It’s his turn” rules in the Republican Party have got to stop. Ken Cuccinelli in VA has begun to stomp that meme into the ground. As early as last year when he announced, he began his campaign on this premise. He didn’t make any deals with Bill Bolling or Bob McDonnell. That just limits his freedom along with the good folks in VA. Competition is the way to go. We know what he believes and we know that he is willing to fight for it. Bill Bolling? He caved. Making deals is a loosing proposition. Stay out of the fray if you aren’t willing to get into it and fight. No doubt he feels betrayed, but winning your office with ideas is beginning to take hold in peoples’ minds. Bill Bolling although the darling of SW VA wasn’t willing to fight. He thought if he made enough deals and worked hard that it would all be his. Sorry. It’s not working that way. Mitt Romney should have taken a lesson from that.

AS much as I did like Bob McDonnell, I have come to the conclusion that he is the reason we have Bronco Bamma winning VA. McDonnell forced Romney on us along with the Republican Party here in VA. Where does McDonnell go from here? Beats me. I won’t vote for him in a primary or convention situation. He dissed Sarah through Ed Gillespie back in ’09 and then Mitt Romney did the same through the very same Ed Gillepsie. Not good. Not good at all.

BetseyRoss on November 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Palin? Gotta crush her, became a focus of conservative resentment of the GOP.
Sekhmet on November 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Enough with the idiotic Sarah Palin martyrdom. No one “crushed” her. The woman didn’t run and then did all she could to foster conservative infighting throughout the primary season, and she even suggested that she would be willing to throw her hat in the ring at a brokered convention. Even though she didn’t run, she did all she could do to undercut support for the then-likely nominee. Basically she just influenced a lot of gullible buffoons to think that she was going to come riding in at the end. The truth is she could not have survived even one month during the primary season as a candidate, and she knows it.

And enough with the silly suggestions that people want to “silence” Palin because of her politics. What a joke. Let me make the following very clear for all of you Sarah Palin cultists:

Sarah Palin’s politics is not the reason why many conservatives do not support the idea of a Sarah Palin campaign for president. The reason many of us don’t support her is because she is an unelectable ditz. Clear enough?

This is not about moderate versus conservative. This is about qualified, serious candidate versus incompetent, unqualified, unprepared ditz.

We have many potential candidates to choose from, including Walker, Pence, McDonnell and others. Let’s focus more on the serious candidates, and quit making the jokey, gimmicky clowns like you-know-who the face of our party.

Thank you.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

AS much as I did like Bob McDonnell, I have come to the conclusion that he is the reason we have Bronco Bamma winning VA. McDonnell forced Romney on us along with the Republican Party here in VA. Where does McDonnell go from here? Beats me. I won’t vote for him in a primary or convention situation. He dissed Sarah through Ed Gillespie back in ’09 and then Mitt Romney did the same through the very same Ed Gillepsie. Not good. Not good at all.
BetseyRoss on November 29, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Are you for real? No one “forced” any candidate on anyone.

Oh, boy. Here we go again with more people who have supposedly “dissed” Sarah Palin. Is there anyone who has not dissed Sarah Palin? Man, oh, man. That poor Sarah Palin has been dissed by a whole bunch of meanies. St. Palin the Victimized can never catch a break with all these people supposedly out to get her.

Seriously, why is it that Sarah Palin has such an appeal to the dumbest 3% of voters in our party?

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Is this some pent up sexual frustration? I mean, does your husband make you wear Sarah Palin wig and glasses? Legitimate question. Because for the life of me, all your attacks on her seem to be personal, saying the same thing over and over and over again regardless.

No substantial criticism of her record or anything, no poring over her record as a councilwoman, mayor, oil & gas regulator, energy board chairwoman, governor, nothing, just personal insults. Why?

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

No substantial criticism of her record or anything, no poring over her record as a councilwoman, mayor, oil & gas regulator, energy board chairwoman, governor, nothing, just personal insults. Why?
HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

If you read my comments a little more carefully you’ll see that my criticism is mostly directed at the idiots who worship her and think she is the only one worth voting for.

Sarah Palin hurts the Republican brand, and there is a reason the Democrats would love to run against her.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Hey moron, Palin’s still standing, Romney not so much…LOL

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

If you read my comments a little more carefully you’ll see that my criticism is mostly directed at the idiots who worship her and think she is the only one worth voting for.

Sarah Palin hurts the Republican brand, and there is a reason the Democrats would love to run against her.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM

You just shot down your first sentence with your second sentence!

Congratulations! Well Done! [Golf Clap.]

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Again with the personal insults. How about a little intellectual honest? An honest criticism of her record as a Councilwoman? No? How about when she was a Mayor? No? OK, tell you what, how about when she was an oil & gas regulator for the state? Huh? Try this for size, what about her time as the Chair of the AOGCC? Moving forward, what about governor record.

How about you offer some legitimate criticism of her public record, instead insults? Ditz this. Unelectable this. 3% this. Dumb this.

Goes to all you haters and all, offer real honest criticism of her public record. You can’t touch that, can you? Because she is solid!

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Indeed, it’s like communicating with a fish (no pun intended).

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:08 AM

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I don’t care if she claims on her resume to have invented post-its. Whatever her record is (and maybe her resume has been exaggerated and fluffed up, I don’t know) is fine and dandy.

My comments are concerning her public actions since she was named John McCain’s running mate. She has shown herself to be unprepared and incompetent in a major national campaign. She has also failed to display the ability to articulate issues in anything other than a shallow and clichéd way. I see the woman every week on Fox News Channel. I have eyes, ears and a brain, and I have come to the same conclusion that many other conservatives have reached regarding her: Sarah Palin seems like a nice, patriotic woman who is right on many issues, but she is, frankly, and unelectable ditz. I hate to use that term, but I’m to the point where I just want to come out and be blunt about it. I am losing patience with the Sarah Palin cultists.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

sharrukin on November 29, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Pretty much nails it.
Romney was uniquely qualified to lose to the Lyin kING and his class warfare schtick. Even to the point of the Democrats voting for him in the primaries.
Rove and Gillespie and team Mitt took this to mean cross over Rats fleeing the Plantation when in fact it was cross over Rats quaranteeing the Lying Socialist another term.
I was project ORCA County Captain and it was a mess. The State Leadership was taken over by hard working, volunteering Ron Paul Supporters and only ONE person I know of reached out to the Ron Paul Libertarian wing. Sarah Palin warned to NOT marginalize them, the ONE who almost drug McCains stinking carcass across the finish Line.
The egop marginalizes the Ron Paul Libertarians, the Tea Party fiscal conservatives, the Socialists and wonders how their preferred RINOs lose elections.
Thats your smarter than us 3% dummies
I don’t know if she will ever run again or not but she has better instincts than the Roves, Gillespies, Romneys or McStupids when it comes to politics and saving this country from the communists.

ConcealedKerry on November 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

i get such a kick out of bluegill.

she can’t live with the fact that Sarah got more votes than mitt.

people who say otherwise are the same, who showed us irrefutable data that mitt was going to slaughter obama.

Thank heavens Sarah stayed away from the mittens clusterfark.

SP2016

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

i get such a kick out of bluegill.
she can’t live with the fact that Sarah got more votes than mitt.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Wrong again, Ritalin. Our 2012 ticket got more votes than McCain and Palin. Keep up with the latest vote totals. You need to start getting your news from other places besides Sarah Palin Central.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

You are a COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL! You are what Stalin termed a USEFUL IDIOT. My goodness, it is personal.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I blame Sarah Palin for Romney’s Loss. Romney couldn’t have won without the election by himself, as he has no natural base of support. Palin should have forced herself into the election and cheerleaded for Romney 24/7 in exchange for being dumped on by Romney’s surrogates and the GOP.

Why did you make Romney lose, Sarah? WHY???

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

…”(and maybe her resume has been exaggerated and fluffed up, I don’t know).”

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Why stop at there? Why not go further and say Trig is not her son but her grandson?

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

You are a COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL! You are what Stalin termed a USEFUL IDIOT. My goodness, it is personal.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Bluegill’s husband/manfriend thought Palin was Hot in 2008, thus the Bluegill petty/catty jealous/scorned lover style fatal attrationesque unhinged preoccupation with Palin.

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:25 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM

whatevs. Sarah had mccain sucking away at least a million votes, and she didn’t have mitts money to buy votes.

your boy is meeting behind closed doors to french kiss obama. what say you. will the meeting cool your ardor for mitt?

a humble Palinista waiting for your response.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM

..”(and maybe her resume has been exaggerated and fluffed up, I don’t know).”

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Why stop there? Why not go further and say that Trig is not her son but her grandson?

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Why did you make Romney lose, Sarah? WHY???
portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I simply must come to Sarah Palin’s defense here. Yes, she is a buffoon and does more harm than good to our party, but let’s not get carried away.

Sarah Palin, who got less votes than our 2012 ticket, is not who we needed out there. There is a reason that most of the country didn’t think she was qualified to be John McCain’s running mate. Her dwindling base of support is too busy posting Romney-bashing comments on blogs like this one, anyway.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Why stop there? Why not go further and say that Trig is not her son but her grandson?
HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Quit trying to paint people who recognize that Sarah Palin is a clown candidate as people who want to trash her family. I wish her the best, but I don’t want her as the face of the party or conservatives.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Take a gander at bluegill’s response to your sarcasm. Oh my daze, this one is f**king lost cause. LOL!

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:29 AM

No. Romney has no natural base of support. His home state of Michigan didn’t vote for him. The State he governed, Massachusetts didn’t vote for him, No Northeast state voted for him. Palin should have realized just how fragile the Romney campaign was and stepped up made sure Romney won. It’s Palins fault Romney didn’t win. I see that now. I am glad Romney cultists have put that theory forward. Because it makes sense.

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

You owe me for a monitor, ol’ buddy. :)

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Woman, next time your husband tells you to wear the Sarah Palin wig and glasses, so you can play sex games. JUST SAY NO.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Take a gander at bluegill’s response to your sarcasm. Oh my daze, this one is f**king lost cause. LOL!

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

LOL! BlueSwills is insane. Certifiable, just like Basilsbest,Sheryl,Petunia. All of Mitt’s cheerleader squad.

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

LOL.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

You owe me for a monitor, ol’ buddy. :)

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

The Mittbots sure are bailing out the computer monitor industry. Between us spitting coffee on them, and the Mittbots throwing them across the room it’ll be a spike in their sales quarter.

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM

No kidding! How that mind works is a beauty, my friend.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 11:39 AM

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 11:38 AM

What’s equally as funny is all of the “imported” “Mitt Supporters”, in reality, most of them, Mobys, have bailed from here, and the attitudes of the ones like gilled one, basilbeast etc., are burning the bridges they feverishly tried to build with Conservatives during the campaign.

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

viking01 on November 29, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I agree with most of your post. Slight disagreement on this one:

2012: GOP Beltway / Ivy League / Upper East candidate of substantial wealth selected to represent struggling middle class as do-nothings Boehner and McConnell reliably do nothing as Darryl “I’ve almost got ‘im” Issa’s investigation into Fast and Furious gets postponed and marginalized into oblivion. ABP crowd criticizes Palin’s wealth and success as though somehow unacceptable compared to Romney’s wealth and success thereby amplifying Zero’s Envy Card strategy for him

Pretty sure the Country Club did not prefer Romney. The primary was stacked to stop the socon/Palin choices. The Club had a hands off policy on Paul, who spent his time beating up everyone but Romney. The reason Perry took slow and careful aim at his remaining foot, to make sure both feet matched on amnesty is not clear. However, Newt quickly duplicated the Perry act, making his exit appear calculated. Did they pick up their own guns, or did someone else call it a day? Looks to me like the Club settled for Romney. Must have been difficult pill to swallow.

In the end, it was a mistake to marginalize Palin. Romney got back the Romneycare skeptics. He got back the Medicare crowd. But he did not get the apathetic rural blue collars. They knew Obama did not get them jobs. No reason to vote there. They had no guarantees Romney would produce jobs out of tax cuts. I remember Romney started out with a big promise to cut taxes on interest, to help the little people. He stopped that later, but the apathetic little people got no money in the bank.

This is where Palin could have helped. She can talk the language and she could bridge what Romney misunderstood.

Palin being excluded from the convention looked like they were culling the herd. Letting her stump later didn’t fix the impression that they didn’t need her kind. Kinda looked like they were using her to get the votes of the detestable underbelly. The convention did not approve.

The CLub was so afraid she was poison. She was the antidote. The disease: distrust

Snobs. No one hates Betty White. No one needed to hate Palin on the right

The rural blue collar broken voters became even more critical because Christie pumped Obama’s image, and brought back swing Obama voters who were wavering to not repeat their first vote.

entagor on November 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

remember joana? the mittbots were slobbering all over her during the campaign. a moby if there ever was one.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Yep.Don’t miss her at all. Where she spits, grass never grows again.

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I am losing patience with the Sarah Palin cultists.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Who’s the cultist? Where others ask for substantial criticism of her well-documented public career, you unstoppably call her an “unelectable ditz.” I think we can all agree that monomaniacal repetition is a defining characteristic of cultism.

Your smug boast is that Romney earned more votes? Good for you. He LOST. The Grand Poobah of Electability LOST. The man we were insistently and sneeringly instructed was the ONLY possible candidate who made sense LOST. The man we were told was the turnaround business wizard with the magical appeal to independents LOST. He LOST against the most wildly ruinous and inept and poisonous president in American history if not modern world history. He LOST.

You should be apologizing to all of us and to Palin.

As to your patience, too fuc*ing bad.

rrpjr on November 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Romney lost the election for several reasons, chief among them being overconfidence and misreading the electorate.

When I heard him say “self-deportation” in the primaries, I knew for sure the Etch-A-Sketch Man would have to spend the summer walking those comments back. It was the one essential evolution he needed to make, but he didn’t.

In the end, Romney did almost historically well among whites and better than any Republican nominee since 1988. He never had a shot with blacks, but his poor showings with Hispanics and Asians ultimately sunk him.

The Bringer on November 29, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Romney the Electable LOST to the worst incumbent in history. LOST He LOST Bluegill you stupid ass.

SurferDoc on November 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Who’s Sarah Palin?

Meow on November 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Meow on November 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM

are you perchance one of romneys sons? your ignorance would then be justified.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

That poor dead horse.

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 12:25 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Wow..That was all class//// (sarc)..:(

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Wow..That was all class//// (sarc)..:(

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Wow. I doesn’t take much to get you offended, but I guess it depends who we’re talking about..:)

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Steve Baldwin: Yes, Romney Was the Problem

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/11/steve-baldwin-yes-romney-was-the-problem.html

Posted on November 28 2012 – 7:07 PM – Posted by: Doug Brady | Follow Doug on Twitter!

This is a great piece. Baldwin makes many of the points those of us who actually studied Romney’s record have been making for years. It’s still a mystery to me why so many people who should have known better, such as Ann Coulter, ignored the mountain of evidence to the contrary and accepted Romney’s overnight transformation from “moderate with progressive views” to “severe conservative” … in his 60s. Baldwin also implies something that I’ve believed all along: Romney only wanted to be Governor of Massachusetts because he considered it a stepping stone to the presidency, and has in fact been running for president since at least 2004, likely earlier. Here are a few excerpts:

The GOP establishment and some conservative pundits, such as Ann Coulter, are in full defense mode, claiming that Romney is not responsible for losing to an incumbent responsible for perhaps the most damaging fiscal crises in our nation’s history. Don’t believe it. Romney IS responsible for wasting a billion dollars to carry out an issue-free campaign full of simple-minded platitudes. Indeed, Coulter is leading the charge with her recent column titled, Don’t Blame Romney. It’s sweet to watch Coulter defend her darling Romney, but let’s get real.

The reality is that Romney was one of the worst GOP presidential candidates in modern times. He was not the first choice of most conservative voters but he managed to rise through the ranks in the primary due to conservatives being split 4-5 ways, but also due to a slew of endorsements from conservative leaders and groups that had no business endorsing him – such as Ann Coulter. Repeatedly, Coulter assured conservatives that Romney was one of us and that he would be the “best possible candidate” to face Obama. But as any conservative from Massachusetts knew, Romney was a liberal at heart who, as Governor, led the nation in passing three of the left’s most sacred issues: Same sex marriage, Cap and Trade, and government control of health care.

But the Romney forces were clever. Beginning in 2004, they created a half dozen PACs to give money to conservative and GOP entities all over the country. I’ve reviewed these disclosures and hundreds of GOP and conservative entities benefitted from Romney’s largess. In other words, he bought the support of many “conservative leaders” and used that support to give himself “cred” among conservative voters. It was a phony image though and it’s shameful that so many conservative leaders went along with this ruse.

[...]

And why is that relevant? Well, Romney’s liberal record so compromised him that he was unable to attack Obama on a whole range of issues due to fear of Obama using his own positions from just a few years earlier to make him look like a hypocrite. Whether its Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, gun control, gays in the military, religious freedom or even illegal aliens, Romney took these issues off the table because his own record on these issues was not dissimilar to the Obama record.

[...]

Romney also ignored, for the most part, a whole pattern of Obama cronyism that permeated TARP, the stimulus program, and many government contracts. Similarly, Romney ignored the details of exactly how Obama was destroying the oil, gas and coal industries. He stuck to generalities instead of hammering on issues such as how Obama gave millions of tax dollars to Brazil to drill for oil while harassing our own oil companies to the point they ceased operations in the Gulf.

The Romney team also chose to ignore the lessons of 2010. Here we have a number of stunning congressional upsets inspired by issues such as ObamaCare and the deficit, but Romney’s campaign team acted like 2010 never occurred. The movement that drove the 2010 victories was, of course, the tea party movement, but Romney decided he wanted nothing to do with this powerful movement.

[...]

As someone who has networked with conservative activists for 35 years, I know for a fact that large segments of the tea party and Ron Paul movements did NOT vote for Romney and I also know that many evangelicals refused to support Romney as well. They knew that Romney was, deep down, a big government, socially liberal Republican and believed that electing Romney would set conservatives back decades. They believed that he would – under the mantle of “conservatism” – carry out a big government agenda instead of taking bold action to tame the deficit or get our economy growing again.

Those who’ve been reading my posts over the past three and a half years have heard most of this before, of course, but Baldwin does a great job of summarizing everything. Read his entire piece here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/27/yes_romney_was_the_problem_116245.html

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on November 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on November 29, 2012 at 12:42 PM
——-

If you think that running that dipshit in 2016 is the answer, then I look forward to handing you a mop for all your tears of sorrow.

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

http://www.examiner.com/article/sarah-palin-2016-presidential-race-is-no-laughing-matter

Sarah Palin in 2016 Presidential Race is no laughing matter

November 28, 2012
By: Kevin Fobbs

The presidential campaign of 2016 was launched as soon as the last light dimmed on the stage after Mitt Romney gave his concession speech, in losing his presidential bid to Barack Obama. With the new battle now warming up amongst the GOP hierarchy there are many Republican leaders who want to point the party leftward, away from Ronald Reagan and his heir apparent Sarah Palin.

That is correct. There is no stuttering here. Sarah Palin may appear to liberals, leftwing pundits as well as GOP Washington leaders as yesterday’s news. Yet Mitt Romney’s loss was not due to conservative steel in his campaign. What is clear is that nearly two million conservatives did not embrace Romney’s attempt to skedaddle to the middle road by running away from conservative positions and values. They simply stayed home.

Consider the results of Palin’s steadfast 2012 primary season effort as she crisscrossed the nation campaigning on behalf of conservative congressional, senatorial officials. The results of Palin’s efforts are notable, beginning with backing Texas U.S. Senator-elect Ted Cruz. Combine that with eight congressional candidates being elected to congress out of 14, due to Palin’s endorsement.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loss the Speaker’s gavel to Sarah Palin’s tireless effort to create a new conservative history which is still being made in America.
Sarah Steelman calls out Team Romney for shunning Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney Sarah Steelman calls out Team Romney for shunning Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney

Now examine Romney’s results. In a general election where Republicans were expected to be more competitive in U.S. Senate races. Republicans actually lost two U.S. Senate seats. There are many who have engaged in a lot of finger pointing in order to place blame for the loss. But the buck does stop at the top with Mitt Romney.

To refresh everyone’s memory, it was Romney and his Boston campaign brain-trust, who said to Palin back in July, “Thanks but no thanks.” They denied her a prime time speaking role before the GOP National Convention and the nation. Mitt was bound and determined to place both Palin and the Tea Party organization supporters on the sidelines and go it alone to seek more moderate political pastures.

Romney may have listened to comedians like Bill Maher and political pundits like Chris Matthew who found no end in skewering the non-candidate Palin during the campaign year. There is a lesson in Romney’s loss that reminds conservatives that Ronald Reagan was the 1976 version of Sarah Palin. He too had his many detractors as well as liberal and Republican pundits who scoffed at Reagan’s notion of a new conservative under current building in America.

Ronald Reagan was held at arm’s length by Washington GOP insiders and derided in liberal circles as a joke. Many in the mainstream media poked fun of his film character that played opposite a Chimpanzee in the 1951 “Bedtime for Bonzo” movie. While the democrats and the Washington insider pundits laughed, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter with nearly 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent in the 1980 presidential election.

Now no one is laughing, including President Barack Obama, who saddles up to Reagan-like comparisons when he’s feeling a little light in the accomplishment department.

It is far more important for Americans who are earnestly concerned about the direction of the nation and its drift away from conservative values. They want to support a true bona fide conservative leader like Reagan.

Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields. Conservative leadership is nourished in the farmlands of Iowa, Indiana and Illinois and in the kitchens of homes in Nevada and Colorado. Presidential elections are solidified with the commitment of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan and Tea Party patriot all over this nation!

It is the power and strength of conservative ideals that when fully embraced will see a repeat of the 2010 elections, where the Tea Party grass roots movement resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loss the Speaker’s gavel to Sarah Palin’s tireless effort to create a new conservative history which is still being made in America.

The keys to the White House Oval Office do not lie in the hands of the political power elite in Washington. They instead belong squarely in the firm grasp of Americans in the Heartland. There, with conservative families in states all over this nation the fate of America will be determined.

In 1980 America no longer wanted to be trapped in what President Carter called a “crisis of confidence” in his now famous July 1979 “Malaise Speech,” Instead, Reagan determined that America wanted to be freed up from government. He firmly gripped the reins away from moderation and liberalism. He grabbed the American microphone and said, “I paid for this microphone.”

America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!

We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.

Palin 2016

ChuckTX on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

If you think that running that dipshit in 2016 is the answer, then I look forward to handing you a mop for all your tears of sorrow.

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Says interested Canadian, your Canadian right Dave?

astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

i bet you put your auntie in a Sarah wig, to boost your libido. LOL.

vaseline bro. vaseline.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

are you perchance one of romneys sons? your ignorance would then be justified.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Romney’s sons don’t watch reality TV either? Can’t blame them.

Meow on November 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Another “class” comment//// (sarc)..:(

PS..Please point out a comment by me that reflects what you imply..I’ll be waiting..

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM

it occurs to me that if Hot Gas featured an ‘ignore’ button, panfish would become ‘unseen’.

Palin 2016. Let’s do this.

wolfsDad on November 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Because for the life of me, all your attacks on her seem to be personal, saying the same thing over and over and over again regardless.

No substantial criticism of her record or anything, no poring over her record as a councilwoman, mayor, oil & gas regulator, energy board chairwoman, governor, nothing, just personal insults. Why?

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 10:55 AM

There were never any real substantive arguments made against Palin and for Romney by the Romney crowd. The arguments that were made were always personal style attacks “ditz,” “bimbo,” “diva,” etc. To the extent that any substantive arguments WERE made, it was “Romney is electable and Palin isn’t” and “the polls show she’s unelectable.” Of course, those same people immediately did a 180 when the polls showed Romney cratering and were hard at work pushing the “pollster conspiracy” meme.

One of the most outstanding characteristics of the 2012 primaries was the panicked flight from substantive policy discussion by Romney’s big supporters.

Doomberg on November 29, 2012 at 1:08 PM

PS..Please point out a comment by me that reflects what you imply..I’ll be waiting..

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Your selective silence..:)

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Romney’s sons don’t watch reality TV either? Can’t blame them.

Meow on November 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM

No wonder Romney lost..:)

“Politics is down stream of popular culture…”

- Breitbart

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Your selective silence..:)

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:13 PM

LoLz..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Your selective silence..:)

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:13 PM

LoLz..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Sorry had to cut away..I just wanted to add this..If you want to stoop to that level be my guest..:(

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM

ChuckTX on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Right on.

rrpjr on November 29, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Sorry had to cut away..I just wanted to add this..If you want to stoop to that level be my guest..:(

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM

What are you rambling about?

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Utter hooey…

Many tried to tell you Romney was a loser, but Nooooooooooooooo

golfmann on November 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

What are you rambling about?

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Sorry..I underestimated your comprehension skills..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM

If you think that running that dipshit in 2016 is the answer, then I look forward to handing you a mop for all your tears of sorrow.

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Yer just mad because CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADER STEPHEN HARPER is running Canada and the NDP (socialists) are the new flavor of the day in Quebec and one of the maritime provinces and pretty much federally decimated.

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

It’s ridiculous how the Mittbots want to distract us from Romney’s election loss by ranting about how Palin would lose if she ran, because, you know, she’s pretty much Jar Jar Binks in red f*ck-me shoes and has never done anything in public office that was ever worthy of praise, and so therefore Palinistas need to STFU. Because Romney’s loss is a dead horse that has already been beaten into glue less than a month after it happened. But four years isn’t nearly enough time to get tired of ranting about somebody who told us over thirteen months ago that she wasn’t running for President.

Yeah. Add that to last night’s absurd comment about how Palin the reality-show clown cost the GOP the election by making the primary go on so long that Mr. Electable, the greatest, dreamiest, most epic, most accomplished, most awesomest candidate the GOP has ever fielded, simply didn’t have enough time to win the general election. So the fact that Romney lost should not be held against him.

Yup. The GOP should find another Romney in 2016. I’m sure he’ll get it right next time.

/sarc

Aitch748 on November 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Sorry..I underestimated your my comprehension skills..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM</

fify

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Brilliant move..*golf clap*///..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Utter hooey…

Many tried to tell you Romney was a loser, but Nooooooooooooooo

golfmann on November 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Compared to Obama? Most of us didn’t want him for the primary. Why is this is a forgotten fact?

It’s a pretty cheap and lazy argument to whine about “I told you so’s” when we DIDN’T WANT HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE, but wanted Obama even less.

No really? Is this is a difficult concept for some of you?? I’d love an answer.

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Why are you even bothering with that passive-aggressive twit anyway?

Aitch748 on November 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Why are you even bothering with that passive-aggressive twit anyway?

Aitch748 on November 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I swear, I was just thinking those exact thoughts..:)

idesign on November 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM

i bet you put your auntie in a Sarah wig, to boost your libido. LOL.

vaseline bro. vaseline.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I’ve noticed that a lot of our uglier “Mitt Supporters”, like Gunlock Bill, and, one whose name I’m not allowed to mention (Et tu?) are not around anymore. Courage.

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Aitch748 on November 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

LoLz..Considering the source..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Dave Rywall on November 29, 2012 at 2:02 PM

What was that all about? Do you stutter when you type?

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Quit trying to paint people who recognize that Sarah Palin is a clown candidate as people who want to trash her family. I wish her the best, but I don’t want her as the face of the party or conservatives.

bluegill on November 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Have you ever bothered to educate yourself about what she accomplished in Alaska?

No seriously. What is wrong with you? Are you mentally deficient? A feminist who hates Palin because she showed the lie that is feminism? Did you abort a T21 baby? Give up on a good man because your feminist indoctrination told you to? Do you see the life you could have had?

Or are you just stupid and believe everything the media tells you because if you had actually taken the time to find out what she’s done you wouldn’t feel that way. You might be indifferent, but this level of venom?

No. Either you are incredibly stupid or something Palin did or didn’t do hurts you.

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Aitch748 on November 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

LoLz..Considering the source..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

It is rather passive aggressive to put a smiley behind everything, especially the more “unfriendly” words.

Or performance art. I don’t think it’s this.

This is a written medium and we only have our words to go by – no tone of voice, no body language, only words so your putting a smiley behind *everything* is rather odd.

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Meow on November 29, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Don’t look now, but wasn’t that Ann Romney and family on Dancing With The Stars on Monday, sons in tow?

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

What was that all about? Do you stutter when you type?

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Watch out. Dave Drywall throws his poo.

portlandon on November 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

He/she thinks they are being very clever.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

500 posts or bust!!!!!

She’s the only politician with any cred.

honest from head to toe. white as the driven snow.

30K emails folks. NADA!!! absolutamente nada.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

He/she thinks they are being very clever.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Clever? That’s the last thing that comes to mind. I find it incredibly odd and in some ways disrespectful to the posters he/she replies to in that they are making an effort to discuss and everything has a smiley face and not everything is appropriate for a smiley face.

It makes no sense and I doubt I will ever be educated as to the rationale and purpose.

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The “smiley” is simply to let folks know I am happy with the comment..It has become my trademark..If it bothers you..Just use the ignore button..:)

Dire Straits on November 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM

kim roy on November 29, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I’m telling ya, it’s personal with her when it comes to Palin. Kinda like all the libtards who hate her for no reason other than they hate her.

Tell her to list any substantial criticism of her public records, and its the same broken record on fast replay; ditz, unelectable, dumb, yada, yada, yada. No substance.

HerneTheHunter on November 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

kingsjester on November 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

if you recall one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thin over and over. so its no surprise to me. either that or i’m over the target.

renalin on November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6