It wasn’t hard to notice that no Republican “leader” came to the fore condemning the racist and sexist attacks against Nikki Haley by fellow Republicans during her primary season. Nor have any of them said anything about the sex-based ad hominem attacks against Sarah Palin, which continue to this day.

During the Conservatives4Palin meetup in San Diego this past weekend I warned that wonderful group that attacks on Palin would most certain all be based in the gutter, framed on mental state and sexuality. I also predicted, btw, that they would eventually go after Todd Palin in the same manner. I repeated that warning Monday on Tammy Radio, noting there as well that there would be no more free shots at Sarah Palin; we would answer and expose the rank sexism which we’ve already seen emerge in both parties against women who dare to knock on the door of power. Here’s a relevant clip from that Monday show, addressing direct attacks on Palin and the silence of so-called Republican “leadership” when Republican women are smeared:

Today, four days after my warning and right on cue, the Mitt Romney campaign launched a depraved sexist, personal attack on Sarah Palin. In a Time Magazine article with a title also meant to dismiss: “Beyond Palin: Assessing the Rest of the GOP Presidential Field,” Romney advisers and a Republican operative flail about like Alfalfa and the Our Gang kids panicking that Darla might come knocking on their clubhouse door:

One adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and, by traditional standards, the putative 2012 frontrunner, says of Palin, “She’s not a serious human being.” Another Romney intimate warns, “If she’s standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

And a nationally experienced Republican operative had this gem to add:

One of the most experienced Republican national political operatives in the country suggests that while Palin might be envied and sleek, she lacks the endurance required for a protracted nomination fight. “She’s like a cheetah. She can run really fast, but not really long.”

Perhaps the Romney camp would prefer to just stuff Palin in a kennel and deposit her on the car roof for a long roadtrip. It would make things so much easier!

Keep in mind, everything being said this close to the presidential race is an approved campaign or party line. The Romney advisers were not speaking out of turn; they were speaking their candidate’s mind.

So, let’s interpret this–the Decent Man-of-Faith Mitt Romney is so decent, so trustworthy, that his first plan of action, his first choice of attack is to call into question not Palin’s ideas, or strategy, or approach, but her very humanity; an attack which blatantly attempts to dismiss her as a silly girl, someone not with whom he disagrees, but beneath complete human status. Normally, your first plan of attack is your best, most thoughtful plan. This says volumes about Romney’s nature and character and it will not be forgotten.

Romney’s flip-flopping and hypocrisy on most every important issue during the last campaign is chronicled by Conservatives4Palin. Perhaps Romney knows his lack of character and political opportunism make it impossible to confront Palin on the issues. But if he’s hoping for the traditional conservative ‘turning of the other cheek ‘ this time around, he’s got another thing coming,

And the Republican operative? Attempts to reduce her to an animal, literally, and a cat, no less. Sleek (attractive) and fast (dangerous), but also, essentially, not serious. An interesting conjunction and indicative of established Romney and frightened Republican party line.

Here’s a word of warning to all the establishment politicians who think dismissing or denigrating Sarah Palin will pay off. The tact has been tried and has already failed. The same smear was tried by Nikki Haley’s opponents, and it helped propel her to victory. Why? Because the American people are sick and tired of gutter-tripe tossed at women who dare to pursue their American dream.

We already know of the rank and obscene sexism rife in the Democrat Party. Men in the Republican Party were supposed to be more decent, have more character, and be more understanding of the diversity and strength of the American people. So here’s a suggestion to you more decent, more Godly, more in-touch Republican Elitists, contemplating the gutter from which to smear Palin, or Haley or any other conservative woman–instead of working out your issues about women while campaigning or in public office, work them out in a psychiatrist’s office and let the women who are striving to right this nation get to work.

Related Links:

Reagan to Palin: Romney Campaign Staffers Attack Sarah Palin

Hot Air: Romney advisor on Palin: “She’s not a serious human being”

SondraK: Just Say No

Time: Mitt Romney’s Top 10 Gaffes

Chauncey Romney?

UPDATE: Mittens and the Anonymous Numbskull Team Respond!

And now I will translate his decidedly ridiculous, certainly Not-Presidential, Obama-like passing-of-the-buck shoulder-shrug: “Who? Me? I have no idea what’s going on here. What? Who? Not me! I have no clue what’s happening. Time says they’re anonymous, so OMG, we’ll never know! But sure wasn’t me! What a shame. They=numbskulls. Sarah=Smart. Okay?”

Uh, no, not okay. We have two options here–either Romney has such a lack of control of his staff that they feel free to personally disparage a major conservative leader to Time magazine, without any regard to what Romney or the campaign wants, or…Romney knows exactly what happened and why, and by whom.

After all, what sort of “advisers” is Time going to be willing to talk to for a major story about presidential hopefuls? And when Time calls and asks for comment, which advisers will a camp offer? But let’s pretend Mittens really has no clue and is the Massachusetts version of Chauncey Gardiner–there’s a thing called “demanding answers from your staff” and then firing those responsible especially because they supposedly went behind your back causing, as the Irish might note, “the troubles.”

Instead, we get this pathetic, immature response from Romney where he claims ignorance about the national scene, even from his own campaign. Whether he’s clueless or thinks we are, he has “the troubles.”

I’m now gonna do the entire Romney camp a favor by providing a Newsflash for them, and I will preface this with the fact that there was one person I gave money to during the 2008 presidential primary season–and that was, tah dah! Mitt Romney.

Newsflash: the game has changed. We know the old rules and Romney and every other Republican who fancies himself ‘presidential’ will be held responsible for what his proxies say and do. If you’re not sure, Mittens, how to handle an influential political woman, first you can stop with the pandering and proceed with genuine respect. You and your proxies attack her on the issues, not personally. It’s that simple.

And one other piece of advice for Mittens and Anonymous Numbskull Team: Grow Up. You have seriously misjudged how to deal with The Girl in the Room.

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

    After Guiliani quit in in 2008, I gave Romney my vote in the California primary. Like McCain, he wasn’t a first choice then and this tactic of his now assures that he’ll never be a choice of mine in the future.

    You’re right, Tammy. These whiny little boys are scared of being beaten by a girl. Keep up these kinds of shenanigans, fellas, and you’ll be lucky if President Palin acknowledges your existence.

  2. viking says:

    Once again, Tammy, you nail the truth. In my opinion Romney is just the Al Gore of the Republican party, awaiting “his turn”, and being a cry baby, throwing a temper tandrum, when someone gets in front of him in line!

  3. naga5 says:

    nice work, tammy!
    ahead of the curve again!

  4. the_bat says:

    Tammy, I think you skinned Mitt Romney and nailed his hide to the side of the barn on this one.

  5. aliencats says:

    As a Mormon I was angry when he dd not stand up for Ms. Haley. I left several messages with his office asking him to explain his absense of support. Decent people do not allow such degradation to go unchallengd, even if one does not agree with views. It was disgusting enough when he did not stand up for his fellow Republicans, but to allow his people to speak in such a manner is reprehensible. I admit I am not a Mormon poster child, and I have my faults, but I will defend those I feel are being wronged. What a lousey example he has become for Mormons. He has put his politics, and his career ahead of his faith.

  6. thierry says:

    when the women all piled on board, once “bro” urkel was crowned democrat nominee through deceit( if not outright fraud at the caucuses) over the “‘ho” hillary, with savaging sarah palin in all the same way as the boys were- based in outright hysterical misogyny- i was sadly reminded that one of the few feminists that would have criticized this behavior , andrea dworkin, was no longer with us.

    dworkin was one of the only feminists who took hillary on and called her out while the rest were promising bill bjs if he would only keep abortion legal. hillary was a smart woman of dworkin’s generation and here she was selling herself and women down the river by aiding and abetting a predator, a user and abuser of women. for roe vs. wade ‘ feminist ‘ women were willing to service bill clinton like 5 dollar whores . even among liberal women the only place for women in politics is apparently prone or on their knees.

    somehow sarah palin does not strike me as the sort who would tolerate abusive, sexist males to advance her own aspirations to power. her relationship with her husband appears genuine, healthy and of equal partners, in other words not a complete sham. she has a personal value system. so, whom does that make the real feminist who cares about women and believes they belong in positions of power? hillary didn’t think enough of herself to even put up a valiant fight( and ironically the same can be said of juanita mccain.). any cursory look at die hard democrats who have been critical of urkel and his ‘ ‘win’ from the get go shows most are female-probably hillary supporters- done in not by republicans as they feared but by their own.

    dworkin’s” right- wing women” nailed the misogyny of the left for me, opening my eyes. while not excusing the usually religious based homophobia, anti-semitism and anti -feminism of some quarters of the right, she posits that the left are no different just more hypocritical and cynical. she was the first writer for me who so concisely explicated how the left were using minorities and furthering their oppression. these were lessons learned from the woman’s movement and forgotten almost solely over the issue of abortion, as if equality were only based on a few selective ‘ rights’ parceled out from above as the powers that be see fit- like only having a ‘ little’ slavery is an acceptable trade off for black people to see a few trifling rights come their way.

    ” These optimistic women who think the antifeminism of the Left or center is somehow more humane than the antifeminism of the Right will ally themselves as persons with whatever groups or ideologies best reflect their own social or human ideals. They will find without exception that the antifeminism they ignore is a trenchant political defense of the woman hating they are victimized by. Right- wing women, who are less queasy in facing the absolute nature of male power over women, will not be swayed by the politics of women who practice selective blindness with regard to male power. Right-wing women are sure that the selective blindness of liberals and leftists especially contributes to more violence, more humiliation, more exploitation for women often in the name of humanism and freedom.”- Andrea Dworkin, Right-Wing Women

    the boys and their woman hatred have got to go- and there is not one woman on the left who is capable of doing them in. i am not surprised that it will be conservative women who will bring sanity and the true values of our constitution back to this country and the office of the president. tie mittens to the roof and ship him to the dust heap of gop/liberal failure where he belongs. it’s an inadequate male indeed who is scared pooless of a woman being the most powerful man in the free world- and oh so telling.

    • Rightmindedmom says:

      Camille Paliga is a “left-wing” feminist who loves Sarah, nonetheless. There are a few people out there, willing to stick their necks out for Sarah.

      Just wait, though. After the Sarah army bowls over the “establishment” Republicans in the 2012 primaries, all of a sudden, the Mittbots, Huckabots, et al will be saying “me too”. “I had my doubts about Sarah’s _(Insert appropriate word)____, but now I think she can be a force for the Republican Party, to bring the country back from the brink of insolvency.” Just watch them “me too” all over the place, once Sarah has the nomination won. It will be vindication for us, who have been on Sarah’s side since 2008.

      Mom in Wisconsin

      • thierry says:

        in the 80s when camille started appearing all over the media i thought she was insane. her flow of speech was so rapid and disconcerting i could barely take in what she was actually saying. cluttered speech. but it is true that now she’s one of the only feminists that have dared question urkel and the media’s fawning over him.

        these boys are all the same- they will fall in line in order to get what they want for themselves. they are charged with representing the people but they have their near dead bodies dragged into legislative sessions because of their own never sated vanities. and a woman comes along with some principles she believes in and doesn’t adjust them to suit each situation and she’s the kooky insane frivolous one.

        yeah, right, mittens, keep telling yourself that-in a nanosecond or two they’re gonna start in on the kooky mormon ‘he’s not a christian’ cult thing on you, again. white worms. golden tablets. dogs tied to car roofs- sounds sane to me. and keep the romneycare noose on your neck- it looks real good on you.

  7. knightone says:

    I honestly don’t understand why so many people like Mitt Romney. Why is he always ahead on straw polls? I have never liked him. He seems like just another slimy politician. He always has, at least to me. I didn’t support him in the last primary and was very glad he didn’t get the nomination. I could never in a million years give my support to him. If he is the Republican candidate for 2012, we might as well re-elect Obama because they are both disingenuous liars (and that’s the most polite term I could use for either of them).

    • Mrs. Malcontent says:

      After watching one of the Repulbican debates, I was struck with the feeling that Mitt Romney was just the Republican version of John Edwards–slimy and phony. I guess I was proven correct. It is only a matter of time when we will hear about Romney cheating on his wife

  8. morecowbell says:

    I don’t get it. There was just an pro Palin ad comparing American Mom’s (and herself) to bears, didn’t she do the same thing, and that was “genius” ? She also contrasted hockey moms to pigs. I didn’t find those comments dehumanizing from either the Romney camp or the Palin camp.
    As for the “not a serious human being” (and I am not even sure what that means), but how I interpret the statement was Palin did not have a serious demeanor or serious the intellectual seriousness to be a viable candidate, but I did not see the statement as meaning she was not a “complete human being”.
    What I did get from the comments was a little different, it told me Romney’s early strategy.

    The Cheetah statement spoke to Palin’s money and party support to campaign effectively against her opponents within the GOP and ultimately the Democratic machine. Looking at the numbers, that is fairly accurate at this point in time, I am sure Romney has a huge war chest and being plugged in makes him a more viable candidate… that’s one message.

    The other message, the one about being serious, is just a lame attempt to capitalize on the perception conjured up in 2008 by the Leftist and has continued up until today. Nothing more than that.

    These guys do expose Romney’s messaging against Palin, and could those messages be more ‘out of touch’. Here is how I unpack the statements.

    The problem Romney has with the first message (about resources), is summarized in the article with the sentence If the traditional path to the nomination is still valid in 2012 ... This cycle is going to be far from traditional and Romney has no other option than to travel down the traditional road. He’s toast out of the gate. Money will make a difference, but the Palin message and persona transcends anything money can buy.

    The problem with the second message of seriousness is the message has no substance and therefore no legs. It has been played out. Voters are so plugged in today as never before, everyone knows the 2012 cycle will be crucial and a statement about seriousness will fall flat, backfire and hurt Romney … particularly within the GOP. Wecan only hope that during a debate he intimates Palin is not serious… how perfect would that be.

    Bottom line, Romney can’t beat Palin — nobody can, it’s self evident by the title of the article. I am certainly not going to cast Romney (or anyone else ) as a sexist or assess the man’s character over this interpretation of what a couple of flunkies on his team say to Time magazine (of all places) . Let’s wait until Romney actually put’s his own foot in his mouth before we assassinate his character. It’s a little early for that crap at this phase in the game. I am surprised that Tammy would elevate these statements (again, in Time magazine ) to the level of a multi-paragraph comment.

    • sandyl says:

      Morecowbell, you make some good points, but I think you are being a little naive if you think that these aides who work for Romney just go out and blather to a magazine like Time, without it being a planned strategy of the Romney campaign. When interviews are set up, with anyone from a wannabe Presidential campaign, nothing is left to chance. It is planned.

      I would have voted for Romney if he hadn’t dropped out by my primary, but I was never a huge fan, just best of the worst I thought. But remember Romney was the one who encouraged and motivated Scott Brown to run for Senate. When I heard that I was disgusted, and knew we conservatives had been set up. We were and it was planned!!

  9. makeshifty says:

    I already decided a while ago that I won’t be voting for Romney. RomneyCare in MA is not sustainable. It was a bad idea. It’s bankrupting their state. When the Democrats say that ObamaCare was based on RomneyCare, I don’t know if that’s truthful or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t want a “more cost-effective” version of ObamaCare. I want the health care system to be a little more exposed to market discipline so that it’s a little more affordable and accessible, thank you very much. That would be good for starters, and it mostly needs to happen at the state level (interstate insurance competition can be effected at the federal level).

    Secondly, find a way to limit the frivolous malpractice suits. We may need to implement “loser pays”. It’s rough and may seem draconian, but this is a significant contributor to the cost of health care. Tort reform was tried in Texas back in 2003 (perhaps just capping awards). The result was increased access to higher quality care, while reducing costs.

  10. youngimmig says:

    Tammy in all fairness to Weak Romney, he did release a statement that he “stand four square by nikki” (don’t know what the heck “four square” means but i think in regular people’s term, he simply meant he stand by Nikki) but i also need to point out that, as always, he did that weeks after the Cuda defended her via facebook!

    oh btw i heard if you punch romney in the face, he’ll bleed the next day. this guy is always late to react.

    • imacat says:

      I second that, TLG, and thought you and other TAMS might be interested in the following links that I sent to Tammy last week:
      1) “The Mormons”, PBS Frontline video
      2) “Leaving the Saints”, by Martha Beck
      3) “From Housewife to Heretic”, by Sonia Johnson
      As a conservative Christian, I wanted to learn more about Mormonism because I have a friend and colleague who is a Mormon from Utah, BYU graduate, wears the “sacred undergarments”, etc. She had shared her disappointment about the fact that 3 of her 4 grown children have left the church, and she said there were aspects of the faith that she “couldn’t get her arms around”, so I wanted to be able to understand where she was coming from. I found Mormon history and doctrines, as portrayed in the video and books above, to be bizarre and horrific, and I now have much compassion for my Mormon friend. I don’t know how or if I would discuss those things with her, but at least I know how to pray for her, and certainly my eyes are open to the Stepford-esque nature of the Mormon church. Finally, I would like to recommend the best book I’ve ever read on Christianity, other than the Bible, which is called “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism”, by Timothy Keller Cheers to Tammy and all of the Unruly Peasants!

  11. ffigtree says:

    I think the chains of status quo political machines and dinosaur media are about to break. The Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin are the signs that change is coming. The misogynistic dinosaur media and political parties are gasping their last breath. I’m sick and tired of the in fighting. I’m sick and tired of media tripe and political tripe. What attracts me to the grass roots Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin is that they talk about the issues facing us and our wallets followed up by actual solutions! No one else seems capable or willing to do that for this country. Why is it that the old school political machine always has to clarify statements? Sarah Palin has never had to do that! She says what she means and means what she says.

    • makeshifty says:

      There was one instance where Palin supporters felt it necessary to clarify one of her statements, and that was when she talked about “targeting” certain vulnerable Democrats and “reloading”. Liberals got in a tizzy about that, pointing out the “crosshairs” on her website and such. Of course we know she wasn’t advocating violence, but her political enemies found yet another excuse to not like her.

      • sandyl says:

        Perhaps clarify is the wrong word to use. Old school politicians will once in awhile grow a pair and say something that they really mean. Then when pushed or called names their pair disappears and they cave (or “clarify”) and back off their statements/deeds.

        Palin supporters were explaining (clarifying) what she meant, but she didn’t back off. In fact she uses those terms again and again. And she had to explain to the idiots that they weren’t crosshairs, they were surveyor symbols.

  12. PeteRFNY says:

    This is the same tact being used by liberal WOMEN to discount Palin. Unable to support her (because she isn’t with “the program”) they jump on any ewxcuse to belittle her. I recently saw how a Facebook group a friend of mine belongs to (yes, I have liberal friends…when they talk it’s like watching animals in their natural habitat on National Geographic) almost soil themselves over Palin’s “Regan gaffe” of a few weeks ago. They were positively giddy. Of course as we know the gaffe was taken completely out of context by such upstanding citizens as the dirtbags over at SnuffPo, et al. But who’s gonna let a few facts get in the way of a good character assassination?

  13. Slimfemme says:

    You’re exactly correct Tammy. Although I am not 100% behind Palin, I sick of the ad hominum attacks. This is what passes for discourse today. No one discusses issues or ideas. It’s all about smearing someone personally. I’ve seen for a long time the underhanded sexism of the Republican party. They dont’ like confident, self-assured women. This is one of the many reasons why Repbulicans can’t effectively challenge the Democratic Party. They’re so busy trying to keep their good ol boys network in place. Whole swaths of the population: women, minorities, homosexuals, (I count myself in these categories), who are concerned about statism and collectivism, are completely ignored. They are making themselves irrelevant. Hillbuzz is right, they’re like stale cucumber and mayonaisse sandwiches. They are devoid of depth. And it shows with their personal attacks on women.

    • makeshifty says:

      What you describe of the Democrats and Republicans reminds me of what someone said about them years ago (I can’t remember who), that they’re both just social clubs. When people change parties they’re really just changing the crowd they’re “in” with. There’s no difference in philosophy between them. That may have changed in the last ten years.

      I really sympathize with your desire to get at least one party back to discussing the role of government, and the relationship of the free individual to the state. What I’d really like to see is for Americans to be weened away from the idea that it’s sufficient to believe in a cause of one sort or another, and to latch onto certain policy prescriptions as the only answer, without requiring a philosophical/ethical argument, and looking at historical evidence of the effects of policies. Reform movements are fine, but we as Americans need to be careful that we’re not taking our eye off the ball: the fundamental value of individual freedom and responsibility. The inflexibility I see in thinking about solutions really troubles me. When bad things happen it seems we as a people are not so great at finding the cause, and considering whether the cause can be remedied or not (some can’t be, but that hasn’t stopped the elites from trying). What’s become apparent to me (Glenn Beck inviting on scholars has really helped with this) is rather than solving problems we’ve just compounded problems with “solutions” that really serve political dreams and constituencies. Predictions that these policy dreams will fail are always belittled and dismissed, and then when failures occur we forget about the debate, including the predictions that were correct, and the dialectical process repeats the cycle. With rare exceptions our political class has not been interested in looking at reality, and this has been true for at least 100 years. Perception of reality has long been assumed to be “just subjective”. That’s not a great POV, but it at least allowed debate to occur. We’re now at a stage which progressivism promotes (and this has happened in the past) where one side wishes so hard that their dream is real that they believe it totally represents reality, and any disagreement is just evidence of stupidity. I think “delusion” is a good word for this. While the Republicans are ideological, they at least have some traits that support individual freedom, and they’re more willing to look at the reality of what government does best (which is a limited set of responsibilities), and where it’s destructive. So this provides some fertile soil for increasing the predominance of those traits in the party so that someday individual liberty and constitutional government can be the important principle around which we discuss issues.

  14. […] The sliming of female politicians has got to stop. It isn’t going to work any more, explains Tammy Bruce. We’re […]

  15. […] — and that pols with glass houses shouldn’t busy themselves with throwing stones.  As Tammy Bruce’s response demonstrates, getting into debates a year early may not help Romney out much: So, let’s interpret […]

  16. Palin2012 says:

    Thank you for this great post Tammy. I believe there will be a need for much more “dressing down” of the good ole boys as time goes on, and you just took care of Romney: NEXT????

  17. franknitti says:

    I always wondered why Romney seemed to be so disliked by the other Republican candidates in 2008. It seemed then that all of them went out of their way to spit on him and his perfect haircut. Now, I guess I know why. He’s a myopic, mean-spirited little man who’s accomplished nothing in politics but thinks he should be the GOP nominee due to the size of his bank account.

  18. Tinker says:

    Besides Tammy’s great points, I think the Romney camp is doing this out of total necessity. His record as governor up against hers? Give me a break. There is no comparison. Palin did more in two years than most do in 4 or 8, and certainly more than Mittens. The toughest thing he had to do was to twist that arm far enough behind him to paint that yellow stripe down his back to get that socialized healthcare put together.

    To turn it around on them, if Romney has to talk about his Conservative accomplishments as governor for more than 15 seconds, he’s in trouble.

    This aggression will not stand! 😮

  19. […] like this by Tammy Bruce, and for me, she nails it.  I realize there are differing opinions even among good […]

  20. Kimj7157 says:

    I wanted to cheer outloud as I was reading this. I was an actual witness last Saturday to your prediction about the nature of the coming attacks. Talk about timely. Sarah couldn’t have a stronger–or more eloquent or effective–ally than you, Tammy. Man the torpedoes, baby… .

  21. […] Palin: Romney Campaign Staffers Attack Sarah Palin Tammy Bruce (radio talk-show host and blogger): When it Comes to Palin, Romney Decides the Gutter Suits Him Best Rebecca Mansour, founder our C4P, but is now official adviser to Palin, promotes Tammy […]

  22. ConservativePup says:

    “Sarah couldn’t have a stronger–or more eloquent or effective–ally than you, Tammy.”–Kimj7157

    Well said, Kim, and I think Sarah’s going to have an entire army of strong, smart, women and men willing and eager to stand beside her and stand up for our treasure trove of great conservative women.

    Great post, Tammy. Linked today at my place.

  23. Quietwolf says:

    You lead the rest of the talk shows, Radio and TV, with your concise and make no excuses comments and interviews. I hope Sarah Palin can spend more time on your radio show. I don’t get out much these days due to health but I have been getting the word out to family and friends about your site. The only one in the last election I thought had your take no prisoners attitude was Fred Thompson, but he lacked the drive. I was debating sitting the election out until McCain, chose Sarah Palin, which made me rethink my opinion about him, to my regret. For 2012 I would like to see a Palin/Bachmann ticket but if the Republican establishment has it’s way will likely have Romney leading the ticket. I hope and pray that I am wrong, he flip flops more then a fish out of water.

  24. bandit84 says:

    I have read all of the above responses to this whole issue, but I have to disagree with probably most of you regarding Sarah Palin.

    I agree with Palin on absolutely everything, but at this point in time, I would not vote for her for President. She is doing a terrific job with the task she is currently performing (i.e., supporting and helping get elected great Republicans and great Republican women), but she is no more ready to be President than Obama was in 2008 or is now.

    I know ALL of you will probably take offense to what I am discussing here, but this is the way I feel. Palin may surprise me over the next year or so, but right now I could NOT vote for her for President.

    • sandyl says:

      This site tolerates everyones right to their point of view. But expect to be challenged. You have every right to vote for whomever you feel best represents your values. The only thing I took offense to in your post was when you stated: “she is no more ready to be President than Obama was in 2008” What?

      Sarah and her husband have ran (and still run) a business, she was gas and oil regulator, mayor, and a governor. Obama was a community organizer, an Illinois senator for a short time, and in the U.S. Senate for 170 days. He has never ran anything in his life, or managed any kind of a budget. So I would hardly say their resumes are the same. I’m just saying….

    • ConservativePup says:

      I agree with sandyl and only wanted to add, that not only was Barack Obama not ready to be president in 2008, in my opinion he doesn’t have the leadership qualities the role requires, and no amount of ‘preparation’ can make up for that. Sarah Palin is a born leader, a true leader. Her ‘preparation’ for the role of president of the United States has so far been far and above Obama’s, just as Sandyl lists.

      • sandyl says:

        Conservative Pup- Thanks for mentioning what I forgot–the most important thing a President must be–A true Leader.

        There is a saying: Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way.

        She didn’t resign her job as Governor to get out of the way. In fact the opposite has happened.

        No one in the Republican party today has more influence than Sarah, so she isn’t following anyone.

        Sarah doesn’t need fake columns behind her when she speaks, because she is a natural born Leader.

        Thank you God!

  25. Minnesota says:

    Good article.

    Two humorous cartoons showing the true relationship between Sarah and Mitt.

    See “Mitt Accidentally Endorses Sarah” at

    “Follow the Leader” at

  26. jeaneeinabottle says:

    O MY GOODNESS girlfriend, I have to wipe the tears away to type this. This is awesome you have just uped the dialog and I’m sure it will be raised again. Tammy you are someone I admire and have the guts of no man I know 🙂 We have your back!!!

  27. Gengal says:

    Your column on the treatment of Sarah Palin and other women in politics was terrific. It described my sentiments exactly. There is a “good ol’ boys” network in both parties today that women have to fight against. As a conservative feminist, I try to always come to the defense of all women–no matter what their political beliefs–if they are not treated with fairness and respect. This is just common human decency to do so. As larger numbers of women enter the political arena, I believe that we will see more of this disrespect and plain stupidity on the part of some men. Thanks for all you do “to come to bat” for the women in our society.

  28. sheryl says:

    Tammy I admire you a great deal. I respectfully disagree how you are handling this “story”.
    “Mittens” really? “Chauncey Gardner” really again? This isn’t serious stuff and quite frankly any woman (you) who feels they have to defend another woman for this minor of minor description by Romney’s aide comes across as thin skinned at best.

    Buck up ladies, if Sarah runs, all the old crap along with new crap is going to be thrown at her. Just like all of Mitt’s old crap along with new crap is going to be thrown at him (as you’ve proven quite nicely already in defending Sarah here in this article).

    • sandyl says:

      Sheryl, I would never presume to speak for Tammy. She does great all by herself. However, I am going to take issue with your comment. Tammy was not defending Palin. She doesn’t need Tammy to fight her battles. Tammy was fighting the double standard that has too long been accepted in this country.

      Men in politics would never stoop to talking about their male opponents in sexual terms or in sexual stereotypes. Yet do so willingly when faced with a woman opponent. It is a sign of weakness when liberals can’t argue the issues and call us names. It is that same sign of weakness when so-called conservative men can’t debate the issues with a women and resort to the same tactics.

      Simply because women are used to this, take it in stride, and do not take it seriously, doesn’t make it right. Tammy simply wants to elevate the conversation to the serious issues that need to be addressed. She was putting Romney and the other men in the political machines on notice. The game has changed, we will not scamper away like scared mice if we are called rasicts, or are sexually belittled simply because we are women.

      Tammy probably has some of the thickest skin around. She was simply letting the boys know that our skin has gotten even tougher, and the mamma grizzlies are awake.

  29. lord-ruler says:

    I support Palin over Romney but I do not think he should be held entirely responsible for what some of his people say to time magazine. He does need to do more than just send out a tweet. He needs to write something on facebook that describes his honest opinion of Sarah Palin. I might be giving him a little more credit than I should but I will judge him by what actually comes out of his mouth rather than what “his people” say. I know that I entirely misjudged Bob Bennett the senator from Utah who turned out to be exactly what the tea party and Redstate said he was. Even though he wasn’t a true conservative I still thought he had integrity then I found out the stuff he did to try to stop Mike Lee from getting the nomination for Senate in Utah. Romney endorsed Bennett at the convention the two of them are very good freinds. Romney’s father was one of the more liberal republican governors back in the 60’s but he was on the right side of the civil rights issue. I don’t doubt that he would be 500 times better than Barack Obama regarding the economy but he is just out of touch with the electorate the same way Bob Bennett was. Tammy mentioned his faith and that certainly is fair game but really means nothing. Harry Reid is the same religion and so is Glenn Beck who was supporting Sarah Palin before John Mcain even chose her as vice president. Rather than having a personal vendetta against Palin I feel Romney views her as a rival. I don’t know how many millions of his own money he spent in the last election but it was a signifigant amount. Romney knows he can’t out conservative her so he hopes something else will help him over the top. Tammy may well have hit the nail on the head here she might have some things wrong though too. Doesnt really matter though. We will vote for Palin 2012.

  30. […] advice Mittens and Anonymous Numbskull Team: Grow Up. You have seriously misjudged how to deal with The Girl in the Room. […]

  31. […] When it Comes to Palin, Romney Decides the Gutter Suits Him Best 17 07 2010 When it Comes to Palin, Romney Decides the Gutter Suits Him Best. […]

  32. imacat says:

    In a 7/16 headline, the Daily Caller referred to Tammy as a “feminist shock jock”. Does anyone else think that’s a putdown? Tammy is intelligent, articulate, passionate, honest, hard-working, funny, caring, sincere, and many other things, I’m sure. Perhaps her combination of wit and insight is so rare as to be shocking in a world of bland and superficial personalities, but somehow I don’t think that’s what they meant.

  33. mmeusa says:

    Bravo on the “family dog on the car roof” reference! Too many people STILL don’t know about that incredible display of Romney’s lack of common sense, bad judgment, and depravity…now, from the family pet to our illustrious Palin. Someone needs to put Romney on the car roof and take him on a long ride. Thank you for this brilliant article, Tammy!

  34. DianeRoberts says:

    Sarah will be getting my vote! And, the stinking low-life boys club can disappear. America is being destroyed by the boys club and American Patriots see it. The boys who are taking America down are nothing but educated slime who should be incarcerated for Treasonous crimes against America!

    Mitt…YOU are an arrogant A@@.

  35. […] argue, because we don’t want to be hypocrites. When Mitt Romney’s aides attacked Sarah Palin, my reaction was that this is exactly the hypocrisy that the Left accuses us of having. How can we […]

  36. […] Not too long ago, Tammy Bruce declared that Palin supporters should ensure that there should be no more free shots on Governor Palin, meaning if the media or another politician misrepresents or attacks the Governor, we should call […]

You must be logged in to post a comment.