Sarah Palin and Christie’s underwear
Yes, there was a GOP presidential debate last night. Mitt Romney tried to go after Newt Gingrich. Gingrich brushed off the shots, calling them lies, and referred the national audience to his website for his rebuttals.
The entertainment value has been on the under-card; the battle among the front runners’ surrogates. Chris Christie called Newt Gingrich an “embarrassment to the party” and an “influence peddler.” Sarah Palin responded by calling Christie a “rookie” with his “panties in a wad.”
Palin went on during her appearance on Fox Business to call Christie an embarrassment, citing his use of a State Police helicopter to attend his son’s baseball game last June.
Christie doesn’t think much of Palin. He kept her out of his 2009 gubernatorial campaign and let it be known to 2010 Republican congressional candidates that she was not welcome in New Jersey if the GOP candidates wanted his help on the trail.
But Christie can’t restrict Palin on the national stage and he can’t respond to her in-kind. Gender sensibilities prohibit Christie from commenting on Palin’s underwear or taking another personal shot at her. A woman can get away with taking a shot like that against a man, but not the other way around. Palin, and Gingrich, know that.
For his own political future, and for his present role as a Romney surrogate, Christie needs to come up with a way to neutralise counter-punches coming from Palin. He needs to do so in a way that increases his standing with both women and men, while diminishing Palin’s.
More from my site
GQ: Dear Mitt: Please Pick Chris Christie
Whitman A Leader Of Third Party Effort
Rasmussen: Romney Opens A 16% Lead Over Santorum
Scott Sipprelle Is Not Running For President
NY Times Calls Romney Winner Of Florida Primary
The gloves are coming off- Super Tuesday: No knock outs
FDU Poll: Voters Don’t Like Obama, But He Still Wins
Rasmussen: Gingrich leads Romney in Florida, 41%-32%- Romney Sweeps 5 Primaries, Gingrich to Withdraw
As said earlier, Mark Levin chewed up the Governor yesterday. These are the mild comments:
“We now have Chris Christie running his mouth about Newt Gingrich, saying that Newt has embarrassed the Republican Party. Mark says that Christie can’t even backup his complaints about Newt regarding the ethics violations, and that he is just repeating false liberal talking points.”
For answers about the dishonest attacks:
http://www.newt.org/answers
Oh, and Romney looked desperate last night.
The SNL writers must be ecstatic. Tuning in Saturday night for sure.
If I were Christie, I would recite a few lines from Steve Schmidt’s (McCains campaign manager) about how dumb Palin is including:
“She knew nothing.” She had to be taken through World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and Palin was not aware there was a difference between North and South Korea. She continued to insist that Iraq was behind 9/11; and when her son was being sent off to Iraq, she couldn’t describe who we were fighting.
Don’t ask Palin to name just one newspaper or magazine she reads otherwise that will be the “lame stream” medias fault for asking a “gotcha” question.
She reads “all of them”
[…] the rest here: Sarah Palin and Christie's underwear – MoreMonmouthMusings < christie, debate-last, gop, national, palin, referred-the-national, Shots, the-shots, […]
Great, now we bash our Gov.
Gingrich and Palin perfect together
What a ticket to insure Four more years of Obama.
When are you going to learn. Any Republican candidate needs crossover votes from the other party and from Indies. This is the only way Reagan and Bush won. They got crossover votes. Remember the Reagan Dems. If you think that any Dem or Indy voter is going to cross over and vote for Newt or a ticket of Newt and Palin, I can’t understand where this thinking lies.
The polls during a Republican primary are not indicative of how the entire country will vote. They leave out the crossover votes that any Republican will need to get elected.
What is more important to you, Getting Obama out of the White House. Or having a conservative ticket that really does not have a shot of winning. Gingrich has no shot of winning. He has so much baggage. The Dems are loving that he may win the nomination. Add Palin and they are falling all over themselves. It will be a landslide for Obama with these two.
If you think the first four years of Obama were bad wait until his is unfedder with the need to run for re election. The results will be irreparable.
So Romney put out his tax return, good. He made 42 million over two years on interest/Div on money he earned with Bain and in other ventures. When he made this money he paid ordinary income on it and now pays capitial gains. Taxed on same money twice. So he paid 14 percent last year. He paid this based on the tax laws in place that congress passed. He still paid 7 million in 2 years and donated 7 million to charity. (so what 1/2 was to his church, Christian evangels donate to their church and take the deduction)
If you take away the deduction for charitable donations then less donations will be made and guess where the slack gets picked up? By Goverment.
Romney is a Capitalist. Why is our partly bashing Capitalism. This is the reason I joined the party in the eightys. I believe in the Capitalist system and individualism.
Forget it. My predictions you will get Newt and Four more years of Obama.
When the Republicans created this monster, they forgot it has to be fed. Much to their chagrin, it turns out it eats its own (and her appetite is insatiable).
Kind of hypocritical of Mitt isn’t it; to attack Newt on Fannie & Freddie, and then own a heck of a lot of their stock?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFkQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Feconomy%2F2012%2F01%2F23%2F409580%2Fromney-fannie-freddie-profit%2F&ei=5uQeT7joMKLf0QHz4owG&usg=AFQjCNGoeWJ-ZxNxzXmjCmIIUnKIaQ0mQQ&sig2=7gfUyH8suRcjQ0Z7HeH7EQ
to point to Reagan getting Indie votes, the point there was, he was a total CONTRAST to Carter, the lib, and not a vanilla moderate: who’s to say the much elevated and desired Independent voters won’t be so pissed by their own situation, (as so many others are), that they won’t, this time, look for a better and more visible opposite to Obama, and go for Newt?.. you are buying into the media hype and fallacy, to think that Ind’s. can’t/ won’t go MORE conservative, not less, this year- there’s a growing indication that we’d better go with a Newt or a Santorum, to offer that better contrast, or a Romney’s the one to sentence us to the dreaded 4 more years of terror and tyranny!!..
I’m not getting into an arguement. I already said you will get what you want. Newt and then 4 more years of obama
Romneys holdings in Freddie mac were in the form of holdings from a mutual fund. If you know anything about investments mutual funds are pooled investments that hold a portfolio of stocks and or bonds. The portfolio is managed by a portfolio manager (not Romney) that has total discretion over the investment choices. Romney had no control over the holdings in the portfolio. The investment manager did. If you have a 40lk you are invested in mutual funds and Im willing to bet that if you owned a growth fund prior to 08 you too owned shares in Freddie and Fannie in your fund. Also, to invest in the stock you take risk and if the fund continued to hold the stock in the fund they had hugh losses that Romney and all other shareholders had to absorb. Risking capital and taking losses is a lot different than taking a consulting fee where there is not risk of loss.
One guy took a risk with Capital he earned and was subject to losses. The other guy got paid a Fee to be an “historian” and never risked his own capital or took any risk whatsoever. Apples and Oranges.
This information is pure propaganda and anyone that knows anything about investments can see through this.
Also Romney owns a blind trust, which means he has no input in investment decisions since he has so much involvement in many companies this protects him from commiting insider trading or other conflicts since he does not make the investment decisions. In fact, Mutual funds and blind trusts should be required for all members of congress to aviod the insider trading that they get away with.
Like I said I’m not going to argue with you, but, please get an education about investments or anything else before you take a website as gospel.
I’m done now. I won’t be back since it looks like you can’t have a difference of opinion on this site. This is why good Republicans remain in the background and stay there.
FORMER Governor Sarah Palin has sour grapes because OUR Governor did NOT need her to win in NJ. He shot her ego down REAL QUICK and this was her way of getting back.
Let’s look at her record of endorsements in competitive states:
Sharon Angel in Nevada- LOSS
Christine O’Donnell in Delaware- LOSS
Anna Little in New Jersey- LOSS
Joe Miller in ALASKA- A BIG LOSS!!!
She is yesterdays news. If people are relying on her to run and fix the country, then we are worse off then we already are. And you can take that to the bank!
Fact of the matter is, Newt embarrassed himself, the party, and his family. He is a looser and a cry baby when things don’t go his way. John King and Juan Williams are the reason why he won South Carolina. And look at last night, he got so angry he actually had to take a pause to answer Romney because Romney exposed Newt as the lobbyist, Washington insider that he is. I love how he is trying to take credit for what Ronald Reagan did in the 80s. The fact of the matter is, he was a freshman congressman with a big attitude that nobody wanted anything to do with. He’s not even on the ballot of where he lives in Virginia?!?! I mean really? And this is the man we want to lead the most powerful country in the world? Give me a break! We will get 4 more years of Obama with him as our nominee. And, it maybe the first time that a President wins all 50 states plus DC with him as the head of the ticket.
[…] you think anyone will ask Christie about Sarah Palin’s comments on Fox Business? Posted: January 24th, 2012 | Author: ArtGallagher | Filed under: 2012 […]
Flawed: Just a couple of thoughts on the the 1980 election. I never thought that election was about a liberal (which Carter was not) versus a conservative. President Carter was very unpolular even within his own party although he did fight off a major challange from Ted Kennedy. Top issues were the economy and the hostage crisis. Up until the only debate between the two, which was held about a week before the election, the polls showed the race to be very close. What I always thought clinched the victory for Reagan was that people who where open to voting for someone besides Carter, acheived a good comfort level with Reagan when he basically came off in that debate as everyones favorite grandfather rather than the person who was going to start WW III.
I think the circumstances are very different now. Obama is nowhere near as unpolular as Carter (actually has good support among D’s) was and the two most likely R challangers (Newt and Romney) are seriously flawed.
CARTER NOT A LIBERAL…
Sorry Fella, You Just Lost ALL Credibility
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-refutes-ethics-fine/2012/01/25/id/425485
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-refutes-ethics-fine/2012/01/25/id/425485
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051
OMG BOB: Using the standards of the day, Carter was more of a moderate and also had some appeal to conservative Dem’s. If you are going to use todays standards, you could argue that Reagan was a liberal for raising taxes and almost tripling the national debt.
At any rate the main point I was trying to make was 1980 was a good example where the incumbent was very unpolpular and enough voters who were open to looking at an alternative (Reagan) achieved enough of a comfort level with him to cast their vote for him on election day.
I actually agree with you Bob, except I do think Mitt Romney has that “say anything necessary to sell the soap” quality that served Reagan so well. I could foresee alot of Independents getting comfortable with him if they don’t scrutinize the facts.
However, unlike Reagan, he gives no hint of understanding the working man’s plight and lacks the acting experience necessary to even fake it.