**Bumped up from TAM Wire, posted by Flaggman**

Nothing against Mia Love, she seems wonderful. But if she speaks and Palin is shut out, something is very wrong with the Romney campaign.

From 5/3 via ABC 4 Salt Lake City

Besides Mitt Romney, guess who else may be speaking at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida?

Well, ABC 4 News has learned that 4th District Congressional candidate Mia Love may also appear there before a national audience.

On a recent appearance on the Vanocur Political Group, former Utah Congresswoman Enid Greene Mickelsen said she suggested to the Republican National Committee that Love be chosen to speak at the convention…It’s now believed that the RNC also has strong interest in Love speaking before
its Republican gathering in late August…For Love, it would not only give Utahns a chance to watch her on national TV, it could also help her with internet fundraising.

And from today:

Mitt Romney snubs both Ron Paul AND Sarah Palin at GOP convention

Texas congressman Ron Paul isn’t the only prominent Republican to be denied a speaking role at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa. Here’s another high-profile snub from the Mitt Romney camp…

Nope, the woman who was the HIT of the 2008 Republican National Convention — not to mention the party’s VP nominee — Sarah Palin, has not yet received an invitation to speak at the 2012 shindig. Must be stuck in, ahem, e-mail.

But, as Palin told The Daily Beast, she wasn’t surprised. And not because she hasn’t endorsed her party’s nominee, Mitt Romney, other than to tout him someone who isn’t President Obama and has a pulse.

“What can I say?” Palin told The Beast.

“I’m sure I’m not the only one accepting consequences for calling out both sides of the aisle for spending too much money, putting us on the road to bankruptcy, and engaging in crony capitalism.”

“In accepting those consequences,” she added, “one must remember this isn’t Sadie Hawkins and you don’t invite yourself and a date to the Big Dance.”

Nevertheless, she told The Beast that she’s keeping her calendar open around convention

“No matter the Romney campaign strategy,” she says, “I intend to do all I can to join others in motivating the grassroots made up of independents and constitutional conservatives who can replace Barack Obama at the ballot box.”

Additional Coverage:

Daily Beast: Romney’s Palin Problem: Where’s Her Convention Invite?

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
47 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Chuck says:

    The wheels are coming off the bus … of the Romney campaign, at this stage? Who would have thought? (And I’m not being sarcastic!) First, last week’s debacle of letting Obama frame the Bain issue. Second, the refusal of Mittenz to release more of his tax returns. And now this?

    (I’m bracing for a massive shock on the VP selection — a shock for the worse.)

    After a very solid start, Romney’s campaign is disappointing.

    If his campaign keeps this up, and insists on Obama to control the narrative, we are in deep trouble.

  2. gkin31 says:

    Romney really needs to rethink this move, he’s gonna loose alot of voters.

  3. dennisl59 says:

    OK, I can understand why Romney wants no part of Palin speaking. Why? Because she would upstage him. But to leave out Ron Paul(who in my opinion is an old crackpot) but none the less stood on all the Republican debate stages is pathetic and gives no respect to all the people that actually voted for him during the primary elections.

    posted 7/17 430pm Texas[Game On!]Time

    • ancientwrrior says:

      I agree,Palin would upstage him and show him up to be a pale cardboard cutout of a candidate. Better than that pot of sewage on the democrat side to be sure, but still just a cardboard candidate. The GOP is scared spit-less of Palin because she isn’t afraid to show them up for the Rino’s that they are. She is the real thing, a giant road flare compared to a match flame. They can’t stand to be shown to be the pitiable PC losers they are.

  4. MaryVal says:

    Palin isn’t even an “also ran” in this campaign, why would she be invited to speak. She’s not a party official at any level, she’s not an office holder anywhere in the country; she’s a TV talking head. If anybody from the last campaign were invited to speak, I would expect it to be John McCain, the former presidential candidate, not his running mate. I haven’t heard the speaker roster, hope that disgusting old RINO doesn’t open his mouth anywhere near a microphone. Ron Paul *is* a crackpot, who didn’t win a single primary. And he has more than a few unbalanced followers: potential trouble there. Paul is not the face the Repubics want associated with their party. Mia Love, don’t know her, but she’s a woman – which is doubtless the main reason she was asked to speak – and an active candidate for office. This is the Party deal, and Palin is not one of the in-crowd with the Republican party. No one should be surprised by this.

    • dennisl59 says:

      After further thought, agreed, MV. I wouldn’t have ‘flailing arms and uneven eyebrows’ Paul within 50′ of microphone. All the cats and dogs would run for cover…

      posted 7/17 640pm Texas[Cheap Suit] Time

    • otlset says:

      “You don’t have to hold a title to make a difference in politics” or something to that effect said by the most charismatic and biggest draw in politics today. And consider the 2010 election results showing her handiwork written all over many of the successes, and her consistent ability to attract capacity and above crowds wherever she goes and speaks, and her powerful ability to steer entire policy narratives from her speeches and Facebook page (death panels, crony capitalism, alarm on ‘quantitative easing’ and so on).

      But otherwise yeah, why would she be invited to speak.

      • MaryVal says:

        She’s not Repubic Party insider though, Otlset. They don’t want powerful outsiders talking at their conventions. It’s a slap at Palin as well, telling her she doesn’t run with the Big Dogs with the R after their name. They’re right, she doesn’t. I don’t think she wants to.

        • fortress112 says:

          I agree, she is not a Republican Party insider, and that is the point the “boy’s” are missing, I am not an insider or a republican, and there are millions out there like me.

          I have always been a Palin supporter, and would still follow her through the fires of Hell, but that aside, this is not just a snub of her but of those of us who believe in the ideals she holds that the Republican’s do not.

          Mr. Romney has never inspired me although I am sure he is a decent human being; but he needs to be more than that, such as a man of courage and vision. This decision shows he is not that man, but rather a running scarred candidate; that candidate will lose.

          My vote for Mr. Romney would only be a vote against Mr. Obama, not him. That said, he has still not secured my vote.

    • persecutor says:

      If Mitt thinks he has the Tea Party wing all sewed up, he doesn’t need Palin to give a red meat speech. I don’t think he has us and he’s in serious danger of overplaying his popularity.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If he wants my enthusiasm, he needs to show me he values my vote and he does that by kissing Sarah’s ring. She brings a constituency to the table that is only lukewarm for him at this point. Enthusiasm means door knocking, phone bank effort and maybe a contribution.

    • jnnoma8 says:

      MV, Romney is merely the Nonobama – Palin is the Antiobama. Agreed, Palin is definitely NOT one of the “in-crowd” with the Republican Party. Which is one of the reasons that she is loved and respected, by millions. You’re correct, I am not surprised that the Karl Rove GOP detests her. The Brahmin GOP looked down their noses at Ronald Reagan, too. The establishment Republican Party is one of the factors that lead to The Usurper’s election. The establishment Republican Party is a very large part of the nation’s problems, today. That being said,first, the country’s hemorrhaging has to be stopped. Forced to choose between a Marxist and a RINO, I will take the RINO. H.L. Mencken observed, “The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines that he knows to be untrue, to men (I would add ‘and women’)he knows to be idiots”. This strategy served the DB and the 111th Congress well, in 2008. It may well, again, in 2012. I fear that Sarah Palin looked at the electoral landscape and realized that the Bread and Circuses Confederacy of Fools, simply could not be overcome. I pray that that is not what “The most electable” Republican, Mitt Romney, finds to be the case.

    • Maynard says:

      McCain and Palin had their turn at bat and lost. You may say it’s not fair and not right, and you’d have a point, but the bottom line is still there. Romney won’t put the losers of the previous contest into a highly visible position, because the Democrats would use that imagery to push the voters back into the mindset of the 2008 election in which Obama was a promise and a dream. It worked for him once, and he’d like to do it again. So Obama is still running against Bush; Romney’s going to make the point that this is a new ballgame with new players. He’ll stay focused on Obama’s record of failure and deception. And Mia Love is a black female. As ridiculous as it is, it seems we need to push back against the endless charges by racialists that people of pigment had better vote for Obama or else. Is Love a good speaker?

      • flaggman says:

        Maynard, haven’t we learned by now that the left will mock and belittle whoever the Republicans put up there? The convention is a TV show to rally the base, not to impress the haters. The haters will be mocking the entire show, every moment of it, including Mia Love if she does indeed headline (they always save their ugliest scorn for black conservatives). And the one part of the 2008 campaign the Obamians DON’T want to relive, it was the Palin phenomenon. They destroyed her because she was an existential threat to them, not because she did anything wrong. Romney would be insane to not invite her to speak, which is why I predict a very public invitation will be made within the next 48 hours.

      • norm1111 says:

        I have to agree with you, Maynard…and I love Sarah. Her time is not now..she can contribute using her popularity and ablilty to get TV face time. I don’t care if Mitt is the Non-Obama or the Anti-Obama..the fact is, he is the candidate and that is that. All of us should get on the bus. By the way, there are a lot of misconceptions about Mitt and his family out there that any of us who have been around folks like Mitt and Ann all our lives know are simply not true. I am a native Utahn..people like the Romneys are all around us…maybe with not as much money…but frankly that doesn’t make a lot of difference in the Mormon crowd. Lots of rich folks in the church, however, a lot of poor folks also…and you will find them to often be friends…don’t find sort of thing in Hollywood or Manhatten. And yep, Mia is a fine speaker…I can’t vote for her, my address is a couple blocks over the district lines…but I believe that young lady is going places…win or lose this Nov.

        • Kimj7157 says:

          Agree, norm. Romney IS the candidate and everyone needs to deal with it. We can continue to let him know what we want and whip him into shape if/when needed, but I’m not going to continue to tear him down because he isn’t our “perfect” candidate. I love Sarah. She WAS the best choice for the Country, but…she left us at the altar. I still have a problem with the way she handled it, but still support her. At any rate, Maynard makes a good point, as usual… . :) And Mia Love will be a terrific addition. Glad to see her get national exposure.

    • _CarrieP says:

      Say what you will about Palin, her decision not to run (which crushed me), her cheerleader status, whatever terminology you choose to use, there is something that we all need to remember here:

      Palin was the last GOP Vice Presidential nominee *AND* the first ever female GOP Vice Presidential nominee, lest we forget.

      Maybe I’m just a sucker for tradition….and maybe in want of some respect, couth, manners, etc. from Team Romney in this regard to the role she held. (Or maybe I’m just a plain ol’ sucker, ’cause I don’t know that Team Romney is capable of showing such deference?)

      So sorry, but even if the woman didn’t do a darn thing but sit on the couch since 2008, she’s due the same respect every other prior VP nominee would receive during a convention.

      I guess the problem is that she has done a lot more than sitting on her couch or being a TV personality since 2008. Her record of endorsements during the 2010 election speaks for itself and she seems to be well on her way to another stellar set of endorsements this election cycle. She can energize the conservative base like no other (which is proven over & over again by many a metric) and could potentially steal the Mitt$er’s thunder by giving a speech at the convention, a la Reagan 1976. So there’s that for them to consider.

      So I guess we will just have to wait & see how it all shakes out.

      • PopArt says:

        CarrieP – I’m a sucker for tradition too. At least when it comes to Palin. The only way this decision will be palatable to me would be if Juan McTreason is also persona non grata. Since his loss in 2008 he has run headlong into traitorous territory with most of his stances and remarks to the point that he is almost as alien to me as an American as the Dumb Bastard is.

        I am glad they are giving Mia Love a spot.

        As for Ron Paul, his traveling looney bin of PaulBots and their despicable behavior disqualifies their champion from being awarded a prime speaking spot and giving them a chance to make even more a mockery of conservatism. For one thing, when reading over the litany of craziness they unleashed on Rand Paul’s Facebook page when he endorsed Romney, a large number of them bragged about how they would now go and vote for the Dumb Bastard instead of Romney to allegedly drive home their point.

    • persecutor says:

      Sarah Palin would bring a lot of momentum to the dance in the form of exciting those of us who are lukewarm on Romney. Palin was the only bright spot of 2008-it certainly wasn’t the magnetic personality of Juan McRINO.

  5. Shifra says:

    Maynard, you make very good points. Yes, it’s a new ballgame. And I do believe that having Palin speak at the convention would play into the hands of the Dems — “Look! Shiny object! She can see Russia from her house!” Yes, I know, Palin did not really say that. But the Dems would have a field day, mocking and belittling her. *We* need to focus on mocking belittling the DB, who is turning out, every day, to be more and more of a DB.

    • Maynard says:

      Thanks, Shifra. Yeah, shiny object, shiny! We’d like to energize our base without energizing the other guy’s base at least as much. Too many people “know” Palin is an evil lunatic moron. It’s not fair, but there it is. John Ziegler (who is something of a loose cannon, but interesting) documented this in his “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted” documentary. (Now streaming on NetFlix and Amazon.)

      (I seem to be everyone’s enemy on this point. When someone tells me what a jerk Palin is, I point out that she was the only one of four on the national ticket with any executive experience. And that she cleaned up the finances in Alaska and left them with a surplus and an upgrade, while the lunatics in Washington spent us into bankruptcy and earned us a downgrade. But when I’m told by her supporters that she should have run for president, I have to say that she doesn’t seem quite ripe for the job. I would have liked to see her as vice president, and we all could have watched where that went. But it was not to be. I think Palin was savvy enough to know she couldn’t run for president; it would have been a complete riot. Never mind the facts; everyone would be screaming, nobody would be listening. I mean even more so than we’ve already got. Oh, well, I know I’m not pleasing anyone with what I’m saying here, but that’s the way I see it.)

      • yayii says:

        “Quite ripe for the job”?????? Gov Palin is totally ready to be POTUS, but this just may not have been “her time”. This woman has a date with destiny…

        If Mitt Romney does not have her speak at the Convention, all I could say is good luck to him. Let’s hope he does the right thing.

      • Pat_S says:

        Zieglar has since cooled off on Palin accusing her of selling out. His opinion on the question of Palin speaking at the convention:

        Sarah Palin Does Not Deserve to Speak at the Republican Convention (Huffington Post).

        As for the substance of the convention “snub,” why in the world should Sarah Palin be invited to speak at the convention? She is not an elected official. She is not even really a political figure, but rather a celebrity opinion giver.

        Ziegler believes her supporters overestimate their numbers and Palin’s influence outside the die-hard cohort.

        • MaryVal says:

          I tend to agree on the question of Palin’s influence being exaggerated in the media and by a cadre of devotees. I live in Nebraska, Palin was widely given credit for the election of Deb Fischer in the last election as Republican nominee for Senate. *Nonsense*. And insulting nonsense as well: we don’t need Sarah Palin’s help to decide who to vote for. And Fischer didn’t need Palin’s help to win. Fischer’s election had nothing to do with Palin. Fischer’s 2 opponents had been running negative campaigns for weeks, firing off ridiculous accusations against each other, and shooting themselves in the foot in the process. Negative campaigns backfire. Fischer was a common sense conservative alternative not engaged in the bickering. By the time Palin had made an endorsement – which was a very short time prior to the election – voters had already long decided who they were going to vote for. Palin got a lot of airtime and attention when she was considered a potential nominee for the Republican candidate for president. The more time passes, the less we’ll see and hear of Sarah Palin in the news media. We’ve moved on; the focus will be on the people who are actually running for office.

          • jnnoma8 says:

            The vast majority of those running for office, are precisely the kind that we DON’T need in office – the kind that we have too many of, already. True, we need to elect Romney, to halt the Democrat’s current blitzkrieg, but I do not believe that he will do what is necessary, to turn the country around. Sarah Palin was right about the Death Panels, she was right about Crony Capitalism. The establishment GOP would like nothing better than to have her and the Tea Party, quietly fade away. Then they can return to being Socialist Lite, without fear of retribution. If that happens that is our loss, the nation’s loss. I am grateful for everthing that she has done, and will continue to support her.

        • Maynard says:

          When the documentary about Palin, “The Undefeated”, was released (now streaming on NetFlix), I was curious what impact it would have. The Palinistas predicted a big reaction, and that hearts and minds would be changed. But it was pretty much a non-event. I’d guess that this factor weighed heavily in Palin’s thinking. A sort of straw in the wind. If the movie had gone over with a bang, it might have encouraged her. But, yeah, support for Palin has been deep but not wide. As I keep saying, regardless of what might be fair or good or objective, Palin has been put in the position of having to overcome what I see as an impossible hurdle when she steps into the national spotlight. Ears are closed and minds are closed. That’s the way humans, including us, tend to become if we don’t watch ourselves. I think we’ll be struggling with that one until the Messiah comes and takes charge.

      • Mark America says:

        John Ziegler isn’t a loose cannon. The term “publicity-seeking, name-dropping, drooling lunatic” comes to mind, however.

        As for your thesis that Palin couldn’t have run, I am not so sure. I think there might have been a riot, but I don’t think it would have looked quite as though you might expect.

  6. Patricia says:

    Formerly known as TAM Palin2012: I agree with MaryVal, Maynard, and Pat S, with great sadness and regret.

  7. otlset says:

    The GOP “Big Tent” is no more apparently, now replaced with elitist cowards worried about possible appearances and how the media and the Dems will react.

    “Sit down and shut up now Sarah, and your supporters too! Your time is past and the party’s moved on, your efforts were overblown and exaggerated, and we want you out of sight so Romney won’t have to worry about being associated with such a ‘toxic’ influence as you and your supporters — as the media has amply warned us. And we must bend to and work within the narrative the media gives us, or we’ll surely lose.”

    And I’m one of her supporters, and my life and my vote means something, and I don’t like being taken for granted and marginalized by the Romney ‘team’ thinking that because of the alternative they’ve got me over a barrel.

  8. jnnoma8 says:

    Well said, otlset – how soon they forget. As Sarah Palin said, “This nation requires sudden and relentless reform”. Sorry, MaryVal, Maynard, and Pat S. – you are NOT going to get that, from Romney.

  9. flaggman says:

    We’re missing the forest for the trees here. If Mitt puts Sarah up in prime time, lets her say what she wants, and gives her a big hug amidst the applause, he will do more to close the enthusiasm gap in 20 minutes than he could do with 200 stump speeches. And who exactly would it turn off? Do we actually think there are a significant number of voters who would say to themselves, “gee, Obama is a disaster, we must get rid of him, I’m happy with moderate Mitt…but no way I’ll vote for him now, because the Republican party had a Republican VP candidate on stage.”? Love you Maynard, you always think outside the box, but in this case I don’t get it, I don’t see the downside. I see significant downside on the flipside, though. I think it will be a moot point, though: I predict, in the end, that Mitt will have her speak in primetime.

  10. Mark America says:

    You’ll forgive me if I disagree a bit with some of the sentiments expressed here. Failing to invite Sarah Palin to speak at the convention will be a confirmation to many that this is Mitt’s Party, and that since we’re not invited, we will stay home, not merely in August, but also in November. You can pout about that, and say those who make that stand are being “immature” or whatever adjective you might choose to attach to it, but it’s going to happen.

    Part of what people frequently forget in this discussion is that votes for any candidate are not automatic. Being an independent conservative, and having recently abandoned the Republican Party, I’m already dis-inclined to vote for Mitt. I know I am not nearly the only person who has undergone this sort of genesis over the course of this year. I hear from them daily on my own website. They “tweet” me said sentiment.

    What portion of the independent-minded conservative vote do you expect that Mitt Romney can afford to lose?

    As for this notion, frankly farcical in my view, that “Palin is yesterday’s news,” I must say that I disagree entirely. Considering carefully the substance of the speech Romney delivered in Irwin PA on Tuesday, apart from the embarrassingly breathless reaction to it in some circles, it was mostly a repeat of a much more energizing speech delivered only this past Saturday in Michigan.

    At the 2012 CPAC convention, lest you’ve forgotten, Mitt’s speech met with approval, mostly, but it was not a barn-burner, and it wasn’t all that captivating, but the keynote speaker at the event out-shown all of them.

    It is not coincidental that the speaker in Michigan on Saturday, nor the speaker keynoting at CPAC 2012 was precisely the same woman.

    As to tradition, a defeated(in 92) Dan Quayle spoke at the convention. In 1980, Bob Dole spoke to the convention. That didn’t seem to hurt Reagan. It is not unusual for past Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to address the Convention, and in fact, it could be argued that it would be somewhat abnormal if they did not. In 1984, 1964′s defeated Presidential candidate addressed the convention, and that didn’t seem to hurt Reagan either. In 2000, Bob Dole, and George HW Bush, both most recently losing candidates for the Presidency. My point to you is that it’s not unusual, and yes, it comes across as a bit of a snub.

    Of course, that’s fine with some Republicans who like the idea of snubbing Palin, but I think it’s dangerously self-defeating for Mitt Romney. It was mentioned that Romney doesn’t want to be overshadowed by Palin, and I suspect that, as much as anything, is the reason she’ll not be invited. We need go back in time no further than CPAC 2012 to see an example of this phenomenon.

    Be that as it may, I think Romney is making an error, and it could cost him the election. Feel free to describe me as “goofy,” “immature,” or “extreme,” whatever those might mean in this context.

  11. shellym says:

    I looked at past convention speakers and there’s been a wide spectrum of those holding office and not, so it wouldn’t be out of the question for Gov. Palin to be invited.

    At the 2000 GOP convention, Bob Dole, despite heading the losing ticket in 1996, spoke on the 2nd day. Haven’t found anything on Jack Kemp’s attendance yet.

    The GOP Establishment was happy to be the beneficiary of the 2010 Tea Party wave and Palin’s influence — unfortunately they haven’t been good stewards of that gift over the past two years. Couple that with next-in-line Romney as the nominee and you have an enthusiasm gap to overcome.

    Romney will need not only votes from the grassroots, but continued cash and *motivated* feet on the street.

    This is not to say that Gov. Palin is the only person who can bring in Tea Party support. Since he already endorsed Romney, would they line up Rand Paul instead? Or, Allen West? I like the addition of Mia Love, but she doesn’t have the name recognition or influence that Palin, Paul or West has w/ Tea Party, at least not yet.

    I think Romney will extend an invite to Palin if circumstances dictate, for example, if his eventual VP choice fails to impress or generate excitement. We’ll have to wait and see.
    -sm

  12. midget says:

    I don’t think a Palin speech would remind voters of the 2008 losers, instead it could remind voters that everything Sarah told the voters in 2008 was right and that they made the wrong decision. She alone warned about his anarchist friends and his promise to change America into Socialism. I agree that 2008 and 2012 wasn’t her time. Good things are ahead for her and she doesn’t need a spot on the Repub stage to prove it. I just hope Romney is smart enough ( or courageous enough) to use her in some administrational fashion.

  13. Samster1 says:

    I can’t believe that some would not vote for Romney and allow the DB back in. Sounds like the one-issue voters or “ex-whoevers” will cut off their nose to spite their face. Being in what now looks like more of a blue state than the light pink that NM was last week, I know that’s coming from deflections from the conservatives. Be careful people. Oh, and up to 80 percent of people on other sites would like to see Sarah Palin speak at the convention. We need to remember that there are a lot of good regular people who are not political but care about their country and will in fact be involved in the fall. It’s very disheartening to hear the republican pundits beating up on their own, Romney, for not doing this or that. It kinda gets hard for the regular people to tell the difference between the two parties and that may be the “republicans’” downfall.

    • Mark America says:

      Samster, I hear you, but I can’t reach you. I honestly can’t understand why, given the state of the union, any person who claims to love the country isn’t also “political.” I cannot square the two, but perhaps I’m missing your meaning when you use the term. I have always believed that we will get the government a majority of our people deserve. Not necessarily what you deserve, or I deserve, but what the great uninvolved body of the American electorate deserves, and that answers itself in a frightening way, doesn’t it? People like Obama can only rise to power when a large number of people who ordinarily watch reality tv and such(abstaining from the political sphere until 6-8 weeks before a general election) decide to throw their support behind the next new thing. If more of our citizenry was more politically involved, and not less, a DB like Obama couldn’t be elected. We do love our diversions, don’t we?

      There are plenty of people who view Romney as less-than-conservative, and are already dis-inclined to support him. My point to you is that he can’t afford to turn his nose up at any potential support if he hopes to win. The whole point of a “presumptive nominee” is to begin to shore up the base of his support and unify his party, and being perceived as snubbing somebody who many feel is their voice(whether that perception is right or wrong) is not going to get that done. I don’t know what Romney will do. I don’t think he’s getting the best advice in all cases.

      • Samster1 says:

        Actually I agree with you, I’m totally worried about this country. but I know a lot of people out there who are “head in the sand” people and no matter what will not get involved until the last minute. However, as Tammy says, we who are “tea party political” are going to have to work harder to keep Romney aligned with conservatism when and if he is elected.

        My daughter joined the military because of 911 (now a veteran working on a computer science degree) and she loves the ountry (or used to), but isn’t political like we are. In my personal situation, neither my democrat extended family nor my republican immediate family and friends ever want to talk politics because it pisses them off.

        We need to remember that the democrats divide and conquer and will use anything to distract and destroy us and Romney (and Sarah). The Sarah invitation (or lack thereof) sounds like one of these distractions. We must remain united and get sub-standard Romney elected and the DB out.

  14. jnnoma8 says:

    I never thought that I would ever paraphrase James “Iguana” Carville, but if Palin gave Romney one of her gonads, they’d each have one. If and when, the country ever has an electorate that deserves her, Palin will be President. If not, then, as I have heard it put, “We’re on the long slide”.

  15. GiMiller says:

    First off on election day i will vote for Mittens. I will have to call in sick that day to do it. Second after i watched her CPAC Speech in February my outlook on Palin had changed.She does not talk at us,or to us,but for us.Never before had i seen anyone like her.To me it is a shame if she does not have a speaking role. But that is okay. Her message always gets out despite the GOP Establishment. The only person i will watch is Mia Love. VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!!

  16. [...] Mia Love To Speak at GOP Convention, But Not Sarah Palin or Ron Paul? (tammybruce.com) [...]

  17. larrygeary says:

    Seven million conservatives stayed home in 2008, unwilling to vote for the RINO McCain, and gave the election to Obama. It could happen again. Humans are emotional, not logical, creatures. We follow our hearts, not our heads. In spite of knowing that Obama MUST be defeated, an unenthused GOP base may just sit it out.

    Even though I am an ex-Palinista, this snub hurts me. And hasn’t Team Romney been active in the “trash Sarah” movement since November 2008? Romney has changed positions on immigration already, talking about “Comprehensive Reform” – aka Amnesty. Rumors that Condi Rice or Marco Rubio may be selected as VP turn me off. Romney seems to lack the intestinal fortitude to take the radical steps necessary to save this ship. This all pushes me toward the “sit home” camp. I don’t know what I’m going to do. A rousing speech by Palin – or a good ass whooping from Tammy – could get me to the polls. There could be enough people like me to change the outcome of the election. Does Romney really want to toss us away? He does so at his peril.

  18. jnnoma8 says:

    As much as I love and respect Sarah Palin (“Ronald Reagan, in a skirt”- Michael Reagan) and as p.o.’d as I am at the establishment Republican,the defeat of Barack Obama, The Usurper, The American Mussolini, the most hideous error in the history of the republic, needs to be the main objective, of every reasoning, cognizant citizen, this this November. If it is not, then we, as a nation, are finished and our children, grand-children, and all future generations, will be denied living in the same nation that we knew. The inescapable reality is that a vote for anyone but Mitt Romney, is a vote for Barack Obama. Anyone, on the Right, who does not vote at all, is casting a vote for Barack Obama. I do not believe that Romney is our deliverance, but he is most certainly not Barack Obama. For this round, at least, that’s going to have to do.

  19. Kimj7157 says:

    Again, Sarah Palin left us all at the altar. She could have been the center of it all, but decided differently. HER choice. I say–give Romney HIS choice. I still love and support Palin, but don’t have a problem with her NOT speaking at the convention. She wanted/wants to continue her framing/driving of the political dialogue to remain outside the establishment. Well, not being asked to speak at the national convention would go along with that. The focus shouldn’t be on Palin and “what might have been.” I don’t need that right now, and neither does Romney. Doesn’t help further the cause.

You must be logged in to post a comment.