August 6, 2012

The GOP will highlight its women at the convention.

Condoleezza Rice, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez.
Polls through the spring showed President Barack Obama outpacing Romney among female voters, although strategists from both parties say that gender gap is narrowing. A strong play for female voters at the convention should be expected.

Haley, who backed Romney in her state's first-in-the-South primary, is the youngest sitting governor in the country and her husband will deploy to Afghanistan next year. So she will probably have a strong message for military families, as well as for younger voters.

Martinez, who made history in her state and nationally when she was elected, could appeal to Hispanic women, a sizable demographic that broke for Obama four years ago. She can also address voters who feel securing the nation's Southern border is a top concern....

82 comments:

BarryD said...

Will the transparent yellow ink make them look ill on TV, though?

Sorun said...

The Dems would be well-advised to highlight its men at their convention.

shiloh said...

If Reps can get away with not "highlighting" Romney, they may have a chance. Hey, maybe he won't show up like Bush43 lol.

Indeed, Reps have so many "political groups" they need to pander to, so why not start w/woman.

Weaving that tangled web ...

CJinPA said...

Interesting that with Haley and Jindal the GOP counts two of the most prominent Indian-Americans among its ranks, two VP possibilities, even.

Not sure 'highlighting' women at a convention matters much. The RNC managed to put every minority Republican in America on the stage in 2000 and it didn't budge the vote share.

CJinPA said...

Indeed, Reps have so many "political groups" they need to pander to, so why not start w/woman.

That's why people like Dems. They don't break down citizens into groups to pander to, everyone is just "An American." I know because I liar told me so.

traditionalguy said...

The Caribou Barbie is a woman with 5 kids and a wicked wit. When does she speak?

The Crack Emcee said...

No Sarah Palin?

Ooooh, these fools are BEGGING for it,...

Freeman Hunt said...

Gag. Not these women but the idea of highlighting women.

Leave us alone.

shiloh said...

CJinPA

Your bitter sarcasm aside, when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

Which begs the question: Have Reps ever not nominated a WASP as their nominee? hmm, Romney lol.

Must be the magic underwear ...

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

"fools are BEGGING for it,..."

Indeed as fools beg for mama grizzly all the time. :D

You bet'cha!

furious_a said...

I can just imagine the
commemorative t-shirts
.

Order now, Obama campaign workers, while supplies last!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And totally ignore one of the most prominent and powerful woman in the Republican arena. Palin.

The 'establishment' and RINO Republicans want to cut off their nose to spite their faces. They don't want to acknowledge the grass roots and think that they can take their votes for granted. Thinking...who else are they going to vote for...Obama? Ha ha ha.

They ignore Palin and the Tea Party at their own peril.

..and...I agree with Freeman. Stop with the pandering and divisions into groups.

Scott M said...

Your bitter sarcasm aside, when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

There was a very loud chorus in the GOP calling for Colin Powell to run in 2000, but he declined. In the end, we found out why, but that's another story.

Yet another aspect of the "if you don't put a x-racial member" in y-position, you must be a horde of racists.

furious_a said...

...when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

Yes, yes, we remember how warmly the Sensitive Left embraced one of ourCourt nominees.

TMink said...

Shiloh, when Dems pick an African-American as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

Trey

Thorley Winston said...

And totally ignore one of the most prominent and powerful woman in the Republican arena. Palin.

Her fifteen minutes was up a loooong time ago.

shiloh said...

Clarence Thomas lol who squeaked by ...

After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.

only because he was a ((( minority ))) ie if he had been a non-qualified WASP, he would have been toast er a non-starter!

Talk about Bush41 pandering! Too funny!

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

The lineup looks like a playbill for RINOpalooza.

On the plus side, maybe that means Rubio and Ryan are truly shortlisters.

The Crack Emcee said...

shiloh,

Your bitter sarcasm aside, when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

They did - long before Obama came along - it was Colin Powell.

But Powell's Democrat wife talked him out of it, saying he'd be killed. Considering the history of Democrats and assassins, I'd say that was probably a good call:

Why do you guys kill so many people?

I Callahan said...

Her fifteen minutes was up a loooong time ago.

Heh. Just keep believing that.

The Crack Emcee said...

Thorley Winston,

[Palin's] fifteen minutes was up a loooong time ago.

Yeah, that's why the Senate is full of her picks.

Man, you guys must enjoy throwing your ignorance out there, don't you?

CJinPA said...

Your bitter sarcasm aside, when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

Sure thing. Male or female? A person of color, or AA only? How tall? If you want racial pandering you have to be more specific.

Jay said...

shiloh said...
Clarence Thomas lol who squeaked by ...


Notice the incoherent imbecile goes from rambling about having a black presidential nominee to giggling that the Dems almost stopped a black Supreme Court nominee.

Why, it is almost as if the incoherent imbecile has a mental defect or something.

rhhardin said...

They should be explaining, not pandering.

They think this is a losing stragegy, however, because women are feeling-first idiots.

That's what happens if you let women vote.

They're not men. Explaining won't work.

Dust Bunny Queen said...


Her fifteen minutes was up a loooong time ago.


Really? Ask Ted Cruz about that. And the others that she has endorsed so far this year as well as in previous years.

After the McCain debacle and his pathetically inept campaign, I have always said that I see Palin the role of rainmaker. The Tea Party is firmly behind Palin and if you haven't noticed the Tea Party plan of electing its candidates at the grassroots and from the bottom up is working. As they fill the new seats at the County, City, State, House and Senate levels, the old guard will gradually be pushed out. Probably not fast enough however since I think we have only a couple of years left before we hit the wall, financially and begin to see a total collapse of government and society.

shiloh said...

"They did - long before Obama came along - it was Colin Powell."

Crack, by picking I meant winning the primary, so Reps haven't and didn't. Sorry for any confusion.

btw, Gen. Powell is pro choice and pro civil rights so he would be a con non-starter.

CJinPA said...

Palin?

I think they just did the math: She'll campaign for Mitt regardless, confined to red areas to get out the GOP vote. The convention is a national audience, and the possible downside (she makes a remark that dominates convention coverage) is just not worth it.

It's just a risk/benefits calculation.

wyo sis said...

If Palin gets left out of the convention it's probably because she hasn't been a big Romney supporter.

Whether people like her or not they can't deny that she has an effect on whatever room she's in. it's too bad to leave her out. She'd rock the convention again.

Bender said...

when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me

When Democrats repudiate and apologize for their party's support and advocacy for slavery, get back to us.

When Democrats repudiate and apologize for their party's support and advocacy for secession, get back to us.

When Democrats repudiate and apologize for their party's support and advocacy for segregation, get back to us.

furious_a said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

Bender's irrelevant deflection is duly noted!

CJinPA said...

shiloh,

The ranks of African American Republicans are quite small. It's silly to expect a presidential nominee to arise at this point. It will happen when more black Americans register Republican and a qualified African American runs. (Sorry, Herman.)

I always hoped/assumed the first black President would be a Republican. I knew that a black Democrat would likely be a big city activist type filled with left-wing ideology and racial grievances. I was right about that, I just figured voters wouldn't go for it. And they wouldn't have, had they known.

There will be a black Republican president some day, and it won't be because the party was "more open" to black voters, but because black voters were more open to the GOP. And it will do more for racial progress in America than anything the Left has done since 1965.

furious_a said...

...if he had been a non-qualified WASP, he would have been toast er a non-starter!


e.g., Timmy Turbotax Geithner...oh, wait...

...while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.

THAT many stone racists? Thanks for counting.

And mind your back moving those heavy goalposts, dude.

deborah said...

I think somebody needs a hug.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Palin?

I think they just did the math: She'll campaign for Mitt regardless,


No. She won't campaign FOR Romney. She won't campaign against him either. The focus is to load up Tea Party types in the areas where they can get something done. Senate, House, State, County, City levels. As well as taking back School Boards etc.

Since we live in California and our vote is a wasted effort anyway, my husband has told the RINOs, I mean Republicans who call for money that until Romney apologizes to Palin and includes the Tea Party platform in his campaign, they can kiss his ass and to stop calling.

Personally, I plan to write in a vote for Zaphod Beeblebrox.

MadisonMan said...

Men are unimportant.

The Crack Emcee said...

shiloh,

Crack, by picking I meant winning the primary, so Reps haven't and didn't. Sorry for any confusion.

You're full of shit - they picked him. Begged him. It was his Democrat wife who talked him out of it.

Blame yourselves,...and how's that 200 years of Democrat slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow participation done for the majority of blacks?

Oh - you picked a lousy president based on Oprah's endorsement after "The Secret."

Thanks,...

furious_a said...

Crack: Yeah, that's why the Senate is full of her picks

Maybe where the seats were already 'safe/leans R', but I keep thinking of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Bender said...

until Romney apologizes to Palin

Not going to happen. It is exactly the Romney camp that stoked and fed the anti-Palin fire after the 2008 election, when many of the super-geniuses of the McCain campaign went over to him.

What is somewhat amusing is to see so many of the Palin haters, who objected that she lacked experience, are now pushing so many people for VP who only have as much, or less, experience than she had.

CJinPA said...

Dust Bunny Queen,

The point is, she'll be getting out the GOP vote whether or not she's at the convention.

This election is bigger than Palin. Fair or not, she doesn't help the GOP with non-conservative voters, and will only be a distraction.

yashu said...

It is exactly the Romney camp that stoked and fed the anti-Palin fire after the 2008 election, when many of the super-geniuses of the McCain campaign went over to him.

Any cite, proof, evidence, source for this?

This is as much a "fact" as Reid's claim that "Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years).

Help me out here, what exactly does Romney have to apologize to Palin for? Please be specific.

The Crack Emcee said...

furious_a,

Maybe where the seats were already 'safe/leans R', but I keep thinking of Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

The bitch and the witch? Please.

Even Palin couldn't help those two - no matter where they ran.

Palin's senate record is now 7 wins and 2 losses. That number of wins could go as high as 12.

She is the woman who said, "you don't need a title to make a difference".

Try picking that apart,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Freeman Hunt,

Gag. Not these women but the idea of highlighting women.

Leave us alone.


Fuck that - you're so purty,...

TMink said...

Reminder, our current president is of mixed race and neither parent is an American descendant of slaves. His father's people may have sold slaves back in the day, but they were not sold as slaves.

So he is not African American.

Trey

Freeman Hunt said...

The idea that someone thinks trotting out a woman is going to make viewers clap like a bunch of seals annoys me. The fact that that someone might be right makes me want to spit.

"Look, a woman!"
"And it talks and everything!"
"I think it just said a number!"
"Woohoo, women rock!"

Of course then you'll have the hard left contigent:
"Oh, a girl Republican."
"Probably a Nazi."
"Yeah, Nazi Stepford Wife in a stupid dress."
"She said a word. What an idiot."
"I know!"

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm still bitter about Republicans taking a pass on Castle. He wasn't perfect, but he would have won you Delaware until he wanted to retire and cut off the Biden family for good. That's how you start turning a state red.

Long-term people.

yashu said...

If by "Romney camp" you mean "any and all 'establishment' Republicans who support Romney in the 2012 general election against Obama, including those RINOs I don't like" then your accusation is so general and vague as to be meaningless.

traditionalguy said...

Shiloh...Would you vote for old 999 Herman cain whose alleged fault was Clintonesque?

He is of genuine American of African heritage. And I can personally vouch for his intelligence and leadership skills.

Bender said...

The idea that someone thinks trotting out a woman . . .

You will notice that the "someone" who thinks that gimmicks like these are the insider establishment party types, i.e. the type who infest the Romney campaign. Meanwhile, the Palin faction promotes her and these people, not because they are women, but because they are right and strong and conservative.

edutcher said...

The fact is that even the gender gap, on which the Demos depend is shriveling.

Only about 5 points now.

Even Julia is wising up.

PS Let's not forget that Mr Justice Thomas has emerged as the eminence grise of the Court.

We'd have lost him if more people had listened to the racist Democrats.

Matthew Sablan said...

Just think if racism hadn't kept Estrada from his appointment.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The idea that someone thinks trotting out a woman is going to make viewers clap like a bunch of seals annoys me

Oooh oooh. I sure hope they have the traditional swimsuit contest and talent show.

AJ Lynch said...

Freeman, I hear you re ugly tactic of divide and conquer by targeting voter blocs but I don't think Romney has any other choice. The MSM and Obama ads have painted him as part of a war on women.

yashu said...

Freeman, I dislike pandering to women too, but I'm not convinced that this counts as "pandering."

The use of the word "highlight" is (as far as I can tell) Althouse's choice, not the RNC's. Condoleezza Rice, Nikki Haley, and Susan Martinez are among the first speakers to be announced-- among others, mostly men. As far as I can tell, the RNC has not said anything about a "women" theme for the convention.

"They are some of our party's brightest stars, who have governed and led effectively and admirably in their respective roles," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in prepared remarks. "These speakers — and those that will be announced later — will help make it a truly memorable and momentous event."

He's not talking about women specifically. The fact that those 3 women (great women, who surely are among the GOP's stars or rising stars, regardless of their gender) are included isn't surprising and doesn't count as "pandering" to me. Unless you actually believe the GOP is waging a "war on women."

NB people freaking out over Palin, not all the speakers have been announced yet.

But, question: have there ever been speakers at a convention who are neither in office, nor completed their term in office?

dreams said...

"Not sure 'highlighting' women at a convention matters much. The RNC managed to put every minority Republican in America on the stage in 2000 and it didn't budge the vote share"

The liberal media will refer to them as token Republican women and convince the low knowledge voters that this just proves that the Republicans really do have a war on women.

edutcher said...

AJ Lynch said...

Freeman, I hear you re ugly tactic of divide and conquer by targeting voter blocs but I don't think Romney has any other choice. The MSM and Obama ads have painted him as part of a war on women.

The War on Women seems to have blown up in their faces.

PS As Crack noted, Miss Sarah is on a roll backing candidates to take back the Senate. I have a feeling she knows this is where she's most useful.

Not to mention where she has the most chance to make the Lefties' lives miserable.

Speaking at the convention would put the spotlight on her and she seems to be more of a team player than to get in a snit over that.

furious_a said...

The bitch and the witch? Please Even Palin couldn't help those two - no matter where they ran.

Um, Palin endorsed both of them in the primaries, when those seats could have been pickups.

dreams said...

"The fact is that even the gender gap, on which the Demos depend is shriveling."

The Dems a have their own male gender gap and more married women vote for the Republicans than vote for the Dems.

yashu said...

The liberal media will refer to them as token Republican women and convince the low knowledge voters that this just proves that the Republicans really do have a war on women.

Exactly. The liberal media might frame this as "pandering," because "strong Republican woman" is like an oxymoron to them. There's no reason for us to validate that liberal spin, unless you actually think people of the caliber of Rice, Haley, and Martinez are undeserving of a spot at the convention.

If the RNC unfurls a sparkly banner that say "Grrrls Rule!" over their heads, then we'll talk about pandering.

MadisonMan said...

And is this supposed to make me want to watch the Convention somehow?

How much is being spent on this Dog and Pony show?

yashu said...

Palin is a powerful figure in politics, doing good things (e.g. contributing to Cruz's and other Tea Party candidates' victories, using her celebrity and social media to propagate the Tea Party platform. etc.). You might call her a "kingmaker."

You could call someone like Karl Rove a "kingmaker" too, on the 'establishment' side. As far as I know, someone like Karl Rove, as powerful as he is or was, doesn't speak at a convention.

The Palin family has been involved in at least 4 or 5 reality shows, and will now be involved in another (her husband is doing a "boot camp" competition). She's a significant public figure, in ways both substantive and (IMO) frivolous. But because she resigned her governorship, I don't think she is currently a "politician" in the way Haley and Martinez are politicians-- governors, governing.

It may not be her fault that she had to resign, but resign she did, and that marks Palin's role as politician (i.e. as a candidate/ governor as opposed to a powerbroker behind the scenes).

I wouldn't mind seeing Palin speak, because IMO she's a great and charismatic speaker and I'd doubtless enjoy hearing her (her speech at the 2008 convention remains a political highlight for me). But this wailing and gnashing of teeth over her, this attachment that people have to her personally, is baffling to me. Sarah Palin not Joan of Arc.

Unfortunately, to a lot of people, she is. They see her as an emblem of the Tea Party like the French see "Marianne" as an emblem of France. IMO, that kind of personalization is a disservice to and trivialization of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is bigger than Sarah Palin, IMO a deeper, more serious, and significant political force than Palin. Palin is not the Tea Party's incarnation, and insofar as she presents herself that way (e.g. as a Tea Party martyr crucified), she's doing more harm than good to the causes she claims to champion.

Bender said...

I keep thinking of Sharron Angle

The truth is that a LOT of establishment Republicans and squish Republicans and RINOs would rather snark and laugh at Sharron Angle than get rid of Harry Reid.

The Crack Emcee said...

AJ Lynch,

Freeman, I hear you re ugly tactic of divide and conquer by targeting voter blocs but I don't think Romney has any other choice. The MSM and Obama ads have painted him as part of a war on women.

God, I hate this mediated belief system you guys give into. Don't you get that this stuff only "works" - or even exists - because (deep breath) THERE ARE NO FRIGGIN' IDEAS BEING PRESENTED TO US?!?

I don't care if you support Romney or Obama, you're supporting an empty vessel. They, both, are consumed with winning - not leading. They offer us nothing, so resort to these cheap tactics - that you guys respond to - based on the cheap tactics already being used.

It's a circle jerk of nonsense - but only they get the "happy ending."

And "We The People" deserve it for falling for it - thinking they/we are being "practical" politically.

You should be demanding leaders - instead you settle for losers.

That's why Palin isn't in there:

She'd make them all look like what they are,...

The Crack Emcee said...

furious_a,

Um, Palin endorsed both of them in the primaries, when those seats could have been pickups.

I know she endorsed them - I said she couldn't help.

Are you missing something?

Thorley Winston said...

But, question: have there ever been speakers at a convention who are neither in office, nor completed their term in office?

Perhaps a more pertinent question – since when do the members of the losing ticket from the last convention get a featured spot at the next one?

gadfly said...

No Sarah but we get to listen to Nikki Haley who had to have Palin's help in winning her primary election.

Condi is speaking, so she obviously is not being nominated for veep and the same goes for Susana Martinez, who is a virtual unknown outside of the southwest anyway.

The Donald is sticking his two cents worth in, saying the GOP needs him (to speak I suppose).

Obviously, you have to be a big Mitt fan to get on the speakers dais. The GOP convention planners are stupid people.

Synova said...

The article reads like a gossip sheet. It's all guesses about how things might turn out and guesses about why people were invited. The "fact" content could have been relayed in two paragraphs.

Also, the comments below can only be misogynistic. Freeman has the gist of it spot on... ""Oh, a girl Republican."
"Probably a Nazi."
"Yeah, Nazi Stepford Wife in a stupid dress."
"She said a word. What an idiot."
"I know!"
"

My only actual contribution to this is... Martinez is only slightly less blond than I am. She's undoubtedly more Hispanic than whats-her-face is Cherokee, and she can certainly opine about matters relating to a border state, but speculation about a strategy to woo the Hispanic vote is just more noise to fill space on the part of the authors of the article.

Jay said...

In the last 2 months Romney/RNC has outraised Obama/DNC by $51 million.

shiloh said...

"You're full of shit"

Crack, have a nice day! :)

Thorley Winston said...

In the last 2 months Romney/RNC has outraised Obama/DNC by $51 million.

How much cash does each currently have on hand?

Penny said...

JOBS are the number one issue on the minds of Americans. Stack the venue, inside and out, with small business owners carrying signs that tell potential voters how many they employ.

"I employ 200 people." "I employ 50 people." "I employ 119 people." And on and on and on.

Pick one to represent them all, and to tell the American people precisely why it's so important to vote for Romney this year.

yashu said...

Penny, that's a great idea.

furious_a said...

Are you missing something?

Yes, Palin's endorsement value. Not much good if she's endorsing "bitches and witches" (your words) destined to lose potential pick-up races. That's the M.O. of a grifter like O'Donnell...

...and, yes, your Palin W/L endorsement count, more like 6-5 than 7-2...which six includes all-along likely winners Boozman (AR) and McCain (AZ). Woo-hoo.

The Crack Emcee said...

furious_a,

Are you missing something?



Yes, Palin's endorsement value. Not much good if she's endorsing "bitches and witches" (your words) destined to lose potential pick-up races. That's the M.O. of a grifter like O'Donnell…

Sigh. You really want to pursue this? (Really?) Fine - your funeral. From Hot Air:

Despite media claims that the Tea Party has gone dormant and that Sarah Palin’s influence has waned, the candidates she backs for office have an uncanny knack for winning their elections — even when they start far off the pace,…

This might be easy to dismiss if Palin made a habit of endorsing front-runners, but that’s not been the case.  Ted Cruz started off at a large disadvantage to Lt. Governor David Dewhurst in practically every metric imaginable.  Dewhurst had Rick Perry’s endorsement, a high profile office, tons of his own money to use in the primary fight, and at one time a huge lead in the polls.  In the first round of the primary in May, Cruz only narrowly forced a runoff, at 30% and Dewhurst just a shade under 48%.  The Tea Party engagement that Palin helped facilitate took Cruz from 18 points down in May to a 13-point victory this week — a remarkable 31-point turnaround in just two months.

Similarly, Palin backed Tea Party upstart Richard Mourdock against longtime incumbent Dick Lugar in Indiana’s GOP primary.  Palin endorsed Mourdock late in the cycle, just a couple of weeks before the primary.  Lugar had been up as much as 25 points in the polls in early 2012, but two weeks prior to her endorsement, Mourdock’s internal poll had him even with Lugar.  One week after Palin endorsed Mourdock, he was 10 points up on Lugar in what the local newspaper called “a dramatic slide” for the incumbent.  By the time the election rolled around one week later, Mourdock ended up with a 22-point victory over the entrenched incumbent.


Ta-dah! You're wrong. Not just wrong, but wrongy-wrong, wrong, wrong. And that's bad. But not as bad as this:



…and, yes, your Palin W/L endorsement count, more like 6-5 than 7-2...which six includes all-along likely winners Boozman (AR) and McCain (AZ). Woo-hoo.

Um, furious, look at the date of the article you linked to - it's from 2010, you moron.

You're not even in this election cycle!

Like I said, your funeral.

Now scurry away - without admitting you're an idiot - like all the other idiots.

Bye!

rhhardin said...

What's needed is some woman to say to women, look, girls, some of us have to upgrade our act. This feeling stuff has to stop. Our typical entertainment choice doesn't make an adult public policy.

Let Palin say that and you'd see some Palin-is-an-idiot people changing their opinion.

Until then, it's cat and pony shows.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

shiloh,

Your bitter sarcasm aside, when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

When Democrats pick an "African/America" [sic] who has one iota as much experience of the lot of descendents of slaves in this country as Clarence Thomas does, get back to us.

Which begs the question: Have Reps ever not nominated a WASP as their nominee? hmm, Romney lol.

You know what? Justice Thomas might have grown up speaking Gullah, but I bet he knows what it means to "beg the question." Only he'd be too polite to say "yr doin it wrng." I am not.

Must be the magic underwear ...

The day someone who routinely uses the "magic underwear" line dares to use "magic outerwear" for the niqab, or even "magic headwear" for the hijab, the yarmulke, or the Queen of England's hat, I will concede that s/he is not a bigot. Until then ...

wv: yrollon 10. y roll on, indeed?

KenK said...

They can "highlight" whatever they want but the fact is that nobody other than C-Span watching politics junkies watches that stuff.

furious_a said...

Crack: Um, furious, look at the date of the article you linked to - it's from 2010, you moron.

Uh, yeah, Crack, the Wednesday following the 2010 General election, you know, when Harry Reid retained his Majority Leadership. Nothing in what you cited about Palin's General Election track record. I can see why.

Sorry, Crack, primary record alone no vale mierda -- no matter how many kiddy-pool insults you hurl -- unless one is some kind of fundraising grifter like O'Donnell (who was endorsed by, you know, Gov. Palin).

Come back with your little Jumpin-Bad Act when Harry Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader.

shiloh said...

MDT

Your irrelevant deflections are also duly noted.

Re: Begging the question, yea "we" had a brief discussion at another political blog a couple years ago. My usage ie the true definition is unintelligible to most people, so congrats on your and Thomas' knowledge, which btw, still doesn't make Thomas qualified for the SC.

Next time I'll raise the question ...

take care

Unknown said...

===Come back with your little Jumpin-Bad Act when Harry Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader.

Come back with your little Jumpin-Bad Act when Lying, Pederast with mob-ties Harry Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader.

Fixed it!

damikesc said...

Re: Begging the question, yea "we" had a brief discussion at another political blog a couple years ago. My usage ie the true definition is unintelligible to most people, so congrats on your and Thomas' knowledge, which btw, still doesn't make Thomas qualified for the SC.

Yet he's the best wrtier and deepest thinker on the bench presently.

OT: Can anybody explain why NOBODY has had any criminal charges brought against them in regards to the financial meltdown?

When Enron was cooking the books, "their boy" Bush managed to bring charges against the President, CEO, CFO, and several other executives.

Obama just gave the banks money for nothing and didn't do shit to fix the problem.

Can shiloh or garage explain why? Hell, why has Corzine not been charged with swindling over a billion dollars? Is giving the President money enough to make ignoring the law a solid prospect?