Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

SC Primary Tweets of Night

SC Primary Tweets of Night

A work in progress all night.

Post links in comments if you have suggestions.

Dr. Newtlove:

Newtolean BonaMuffin:

Hide the sharp objects:

We are all commies now:

Revenge is a dish best served in South Carolina:

Dumb rednecks don’t read The NY Daily News and didn’t know that Newt’s just a “woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown”:

Not a fan of Dido, so he will not to go down with that ship:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The cartoon I would like to see is obama flying over Newt on his unicorn with Newt dressed as a duck hunter

Donald Douglas | January 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm

Both ABC and Fox News project: ‘Newt Gingrich Wins South Carolina GOP Primary’.

And CNN projecting as I post this…

Dr. Newtlove. Sooo… Newt has a Howard Dean moment, and then he implodes.

I think not.

able was I ere I saw elba

I think we can add Nikki Haley to the Ann coulter, Jen rubin couch

    punfundit in reply to lukespapa. | January 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    And bcupp.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to lukespapa. | January 21, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Palin to Haley .

    Take that B….

    The Newt landslide shows that the people handily beat the Establishment, the media, and Mitt.

    The media are already hyperventilating about how Mitt and the Establishment will now have to totally destroy Newt.

    Mitt’s classless speech that attacked Newt without naming him and saying that anyone who attacks free enterprise isn’t fit to be the nominee of the party is pretty rich coming from the man who opposed Reagan, conservatism and the party all those times he ran for office. Conservatives believe in free enterprise, not crony capitalism.

    For Mitt Romney to attack conservatives for questioning his Bain business practices is chutzpah in the extreme. After all, Mitt’s the man who passed the socialized healthcare plan. He didn’t seem to be too concerned about free enterprise then.

      Norris in reply to JonB. | January 22, 2012 at 1:11 am

      To be fair to Romney, RomneyCare is not socialized (single-payer) insurance. The same insurance companies are in MA as before. They’re not government-owned, they’re just heavily regulated, so in economic terms, it’s closer to corporatism or fascism rather than socialism. That’s better for Romney, isn’t it?

        JonB in reply to Norris. | January 22, 2012 at 1:28 am

        No. An individual mandate is anti-liberty. It is antithetical to core Republican philosophy.

        ThomasD in reply to Norris. | January 22, 2012 at 8:56 am

        Neither is Obamacare a single payer system. The mandate contained withing each is functionally identical, and the costs borne by the States likewise. The two are cut from the same cloth.

Kirsten Powers: Getting ecstatic emails from my Dem operative friends re Newt.

‘Course, the Dems would be doing the same if Romney had won.

SC win: Newt-onian Physics Now Quantumized

What in God’s name has happened with Brit Hume? He was just on Fox trying to explain a certain exit poll. When South Carolina Republican voters cited electability as the most important quality in a candidate, Brit Hume said what they really mean is someone who can do well in a debate with Obama. Talk about an elitist attitude!

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Did Herman Cain get more votes than Buddy Roemer?

I don’t care who you are for that Slim Pickens pic is funny.

It would be even better if the bomb had a Ron Paul 2012 stencil on it.

Fox News-

Megan Keely starts interview with Palin-

She’s looking rather pleased, calls them out for feigning shock over the Gingrich win-

Kelly says- “Gotta go, Ron Paul at the microphone.”/cuts to Paul instantaniously


I’m still laughing-

So, if Newt is wins the nomination, we have the consummate “inside the beltway” power broker versus the “hopey – dopey” kid. Problem: No matter who wins, WE THE PEOPLE are screwed.

    Browndog in reply to Towson Lawyer. | January 21, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    This is one of those “speak for yourself” thingy’s.

      I guess that we will have to play the “wait ‘n’ see” game. But are you claiming that Newt is not an “inside the beltway” power broker? Do you truly believe that anything will change with Newt at the helm? Seriously?

        I guess it depends on how you define “inside the beltway power broker”.

        I certainly concede there is that element to Newt, but is that the sum total of who he is?

        I think not.

        Further, how can you be an “Inside the beltway power broker” when you are loathed by every faction of Washington establishment inside the beltway power brokers?

        Do I think things will change with Newt?

        Obama says “change”

        I say “change it back!”

        I think Newt is as capable, if not more, that anyone else not named Sarah Palin.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Towson Lawyer. | January 22, 2012 at 10:48 am

        “Do you truly believe that anything will change with Newt at the helm? Seriously?”

        Do you truly believe that Newt will govern exactly as has Obama? Seriously? If not, then something will have changed.

          Well, he was hired as a consultant for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, wasn’t he? And that was after he was no longer Speaker. It’s more of the same. That’s why I liked Herman Cain before I liked Romney.
          So, as I said before, “I guess that we will have to play the “wait ‘n’ see” game.”

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Towson Lawyer. | January 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm

        Yes, and published articles show Gingrich advised F & F not to do exactly what they did. This is hardly “more of the same”. If that constitutes more of the same that we’re getting from Obama, you are clueless as to what Obama’s been doing.

    valleyforge in reply to Towson Lawyer. | January 21, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    Exactly. Newt plays the part of crusader well but he is part of the problem.

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on the radio say something like, “Is Romney going to need Jeb Bush’s endorsement?”

Yeah. Bring in a Bush to defend Mitt, and he will be GUARANTEED to lose.

The cocktail Republicans cannot believe that the American people are choosing who THEY want instead of someone who they have been force fed to accept.
These dummies don’t think we didn’t learn something when McCain was shoved down our throats in 2008.
Pay attention cocktail Republicans: YOU DON’T DECIDE FOR US!

    “I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on the radio say something like, “Is Romney going to need Jeb Bush’s endorsement?”

    Testimony to the terminal tone-deafness of Team Romney.

    Justin in reply to Tamminator. | January 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    They are trying to play up like Jeb will endorse Romney. Unfortunately, sources close to Jeb say no. Poor Team Mittens!

    JEBurke in reply to Tamminator. | January 21, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    John McCain won the nomination by prevailing in dozens of bruising primaries and caucuses against several tough opponents with the votes of millions of grassroots Republican voters. He did not start the race with any significant advantages in money or endorsements from cocktail sippers ir anyone else.

    Get over it. No one was or can be “forced down your throat,”

      theduchessofkitty in reply to JEBurke. | January 21, 2012 at 9:52 pm

      A lot of people, including lots of Democrats, took advantage of “Same-day” or some such laws to vote for McCain in the primaries in 08. Rush’s “Operation Chaos” couldn’t hold a candle to the shenanigans going on during the Republican primaries then.

      Again: lots of Democrats sneaking in to make disaster then. I have no doubt in my mind they’re doing it now, too.

      Sanddog in reply to JEBurke. | January 21, 2012 at 10:46 pm

      Tough opponents? You’re kidding… right?

      Tamminator in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 3:05 am

      You are clueless.
      Most people do not read Legal Insurrection to get their information, they watch the propaganda TV with 3 main networks.
      Those networks talked endlessly about how McCain was a “maverick”.

      And even though I campaigned for McCain, because I knew how truly dangerous a Chicago thug Marxist would be as our president, I was pissed the we got “stuck” with McCain because the RNC “chose” him for us.

      Don’t kid yourself, JEBurke.
      If you don’t see the mechanics behind the politics, you are a fool.

Sorry, “These dummies think we didn’t learn something…”

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm

Congratulations Newt on a well deserved clear victory in SC.  Now on to win Florida, and the rest of the Primary States, and the Republican Party Nomination at the RNC Convention, in the footsteps and path of Ronald Reagan.

Henry Hawkins | January 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm

Dr. K did a bit of an aboutface on FOX once Newt’s victory became clear. Good to hear.

Bob McDonnell, Virginia governor, endorsed Mitt yesterday. What a stupid move for a man who is supposed to be a true conservative…

Henry Hawkins | January 21, 2012 at 8:58 pm

Prediction: In about 6-7 days, or a few days before the Florida primary, Newt’s opposition will use the media to bring forth one or more women who will claim to have had a one night stand with him in the last ten years. no proof, no evidence, just claims.

DINORightMarie | January 21, 2012 at 9:23 pm

Slightly off topic, especially since Ron Paul is in 4th place…..

Does anyone else see the resemblance of Ron Paul to Rabbit on the Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (at 5:46 in particular)? Voice and all.

Just wonderin’. 😉

Newt overtakes Romney in SC victory:

Pure adrenaline

Isn’t it great, though, how pressure draws out the contempt in the elites, re: SE Cupp’s stupendously contemptuous tweet.

    dacama in reply to raven. | January 21, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Well, she is correct.

      dacama in reply to dacama. | January 21, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      Newt went to Washington a relatively poor college professor. Decades later he is a multimilliionaire. He has sucked off the federal teat since the day he got there. I do not understand why there are people on this thread who think he is a conservative hero just because he blasted the press in a debate.

        StrangernFiction in reply to dacama. | January 21, 2012 at 10:33 pm

        I suspect I speak for a good many of us Newt supporters when i say that I don’t support him because he’s a conservative hero, but because he’s not Romney.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to dacama. | January 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm

        The straw man cometh…

        Please name one poster in this thread who “think(s) he is a conservative hero just because he blasted the press in a debate.” Name just one and explain how you know that’s how they thought.

        Maybe you’re projecting a wee bit?

          valleyforge in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm

          Please. People glom onto Gingrich because he projects confidence and they want a fighter to take on Obama. Then they justify and explain away his inconsistencies to themselves and by saying he’s got to be better than Romney.

          There are 3 big government establishment Republicans in the race and one real conservative.

          No I am not projecting. I just know we are running against Obama and not ABC news, something some South Carolina Newt supporters must not be clear about.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 22, 2012 at 8:54 am

          Dude, ABC News IS Obama. Wake up.

          And try to see the vacuousness of this idea that, “I don’t support Newt Gingrich, therefore anyone who does must base it on stupid reasons.” To be true it requires that:

          -You are infallible
          -You are the center of the universe

          Neither is in evidence.

        herm2416 in reply to dacama. | January 22, 2012 at 8:52 am

        The fact that he wrote books, had speaking engagements, and started a consulting company couldn’t possibly have added to his coffers, correct? If I had life experience in a certain industry, I would be nuts not to use it–what ever the industry. Most intelligent people would do the same thing–capitalize on their contacts.

      I guess S. E. might be right if you buy Huckabee’s surmise that SC evangelicals might not have voted for Romney because he’s a Mormon. I find it a dumb and condescending explanation of Gingrich’s victory in SC.

      That would mean evangelicals all voted for Ron Paul since he’s the only Protestant in the race (and a Baptist at that). It also would mean they will vote for Protestant Obama over Mormon Romney if Romney wins the nomination. Sort of a lose-lose premise if you’re hoping the argument will bring more voters to Romney as the most electable candidate.

      S. E. Cupp is drinking Ann Coulter’s hubris kool-aid. The only candidate who can win is the one they back.

        huskers-for-palin in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 12:24 am

        Bingo on SE Cupp!!! Her thong got in a wad tonight. I would love to hear the spin from Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Karl “Tokyo” Rove, Dick Morris and a slew of others.

        It’s like clockwork…as soon as the polls closed (and it was apparent Mitt was gonna lose big), the anti-Newt operatives came out to spew crap and innuendo. Typical.

        BIGGEST LOSER TONIGHT: Nikki Haley!!! Mitt will no doubt be asking Haley to refund his campaign contributions!!! Nikki backed the wrong horse and it’s gonna hurt. Nikki is no Sarah Palin.

        Tamminator in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 3:16 am

        SE Cupp, is a compatriot to Glenn Beck.
        Beck viciously mocked Newt on the air while reading SE Cupps’ “Ms. Gingrich” drivel, has because of that, he has lost all credibility in my eyes.

        Cupp was a TEA PARTY patriot, and virtually unknown.
        Now that the fame is upon her, she EATS her own.

        Beck and Cupp mock Newt Gingrich for his past.

        Hey, Beck, ya drunk, I’d love to interview YOUR first wife.

          Glenn Beck called Geert Wilders a “fascist” on Fox despite the fact that back on HLN Glenn had been very cordial to him and acknowledged how Geert fights for freedom at great personal risk. Screw Becky, he can go cry by himself now.
          Krauthammer also called Geert Wilders a ‘fascist’ and I have not paid any mind to a word CK has had to say since. These people create their own irrelevancy.

        Sanddog in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 5:35 am

        I believe it has less to do with Romney being Mormon than the fact that he’s a Northeastern republican moderate. My 28 years living in Georgia taught me Southerners don’t like wishy-washy.

        scooterjay in reply to T D. | January 22, 2012 at 7:58 am

        Dadgum……I never thought about that! As a lifelong resident of SC I can assuredly say that YES! the Baptist Church has a strong influence over SC, always has and always will. Perhaps we hicks out in the sticks do nix the establishment picks because we are too stupid to realize a gift!

Link,er, zipline repaired:

Pure adrenaline

theduchessofkitty | January 21, 2012 at 9:47 pm

It has been only three states! Let’s wait for the other 47 before we make a conclusion, shall we?

No doubt there are hundreds of msm reporters out there looking for some of Newt’s former conquests. Problem. Unlike Herman Cain, Newt has no shame and won’t back down.

After the bimbo eruptions fail, the race card will be played against Newt. Surely someone, somewhere, sometime has witnesses Newt being RAYCESS!

Here’s hoping Newt shows others how to foil the racist claims.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Hanahan. | January 21, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    I think no one would believe any new sensational charges against Newt even if they were true. He’s got a freebie coming!

    All joking aside….. beyond Newt overtaking Captain Inevitable, it feels like another earthplate moved a little this week. A lot of people are coming to realize that it’s not just the obviously liberal media that are part of the problem poisoning American politics, it’s virtually the entire media. Even those who claim conservatism are aghast that someone other than Romney might win the GOP nomination.

    Britt Hume embarrassed himself on FOX news tonight, citing a poll showing Newt’s negatives being highest among the four remaining candidates, asserting with dour professorial demeanor, reading glasses perched on the end of his nose to cement his Seriousness, that down ticket Republicans will not want Newt atop the ticket and will now come out full force against him. Newt’s doom guaranteed by one Britt Hume. His compatriots on the FOX panel responded with an uncomfortable silence, even though they had each taken their own turns explaining why Newt’s victory wasn’t really a victory.

    I’m guessing the feeling that arose in me as I watched and as I’ve heard and seen the other expressions of elitist angst is shared by other conservatives – media sees itself as emperor and not only is the emperor naked, he done been skinned too.

    I don’t give a crap what any of them think or say, and I’m damn close to tossing the TV in the dumpster.

      valleyforge in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 11:42 pm

      Good point. Those favorables are ephemeral anyway. If Republicans rally around Newt and he has a winning streak he will look like a much stronger top-of-ticket. Same goes for any Republican.

      Hume was disgusting tonight, just as you described.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 22, 2012 at 5:03 am

      yeah, Hume has been like the grim reaper toward a Newt candidacy.

      I don’t know the details or significance of that poll, but it is a concern. Of course people don’t know much about Newt yet, except what the media and comedians and Romney PAC ads have been harping on. And that poll looked at the general public, not likely voters.

      I can’t tell why these establishment guys are intent on Romney, and seem to have personal animosity against Newt. Krauthammer at least admitted how good Newt can be at expressing the conservative vision. Baier played clips of Charles declaring the Newt candidacy dead a month ago … so perhaps Charles can admit Gingrich DOES have some organizational ability after all.

      Of course Romney is not conservative. But Newt seems to have his own flip flops. I don’t like the establishment guys pushing their establishment guy, but I don’t want to dismiss their opinions entirely. Charles seems to think Romney hasn’t done well explaining Bain or taxes, despite his years of prepping. Maybe he can warm up to an older Newt. But Hume seems hardened and/or bitter.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 22, 2012 at 9:00 am

        Hume cited a FOX News poll, you know, of the same sort that had Newt Gingrich losing in SC.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 22, 2012 at 9:10 am

        “I can’t tell why these establishment guys are intent on Romney…”

        For the media, it’s all about maintaining access to incumbents and their staffs, and anyone else who is valuable to news ‘professionals’ as contacts and sources. A guy like Dr. K can pick up the phone and get hold of just about anyone in WAshington DC in short order, the result of his years as a top level pundit. It’s like how a top level movie critic can get producers, directors, and actors on the phone pretty much at will. Top level media pros have the eyes and ears of large numbers of people – politicians need access to media pros and the pros need access to the politicians. Networks and continuities get established and it’s all good, all under control. But when a Not Approved By The GOP Establishment candidate begins to do well, these media pros see their network of established contacts and sources threatened and it cannot help but taint their views – especially if they’ve just spent a couple years badmouthing the candidate who appears to be on the raod to victory. Ruh roh! The new guy staff won’t be answering that phone call……

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 22, 2012 at 10:02 am

          yeah, good points thanks. It does seem more personal with Newt … they have some Marianne Gingrich tendencies. 🙂 But even some of the GOP congressmen are on board, and apparently were in the 90’s. I’d like to think it was because Newt was Tea party style rebel even back then … but I wasn’t paying attention then. Gingrich did seem to have some problems.

          I don’t think Newt’s policy is unpopular. His cheating is unpopular … but as far as I can tell, he started his “cheating” when he was separated in both instances. That clarification MIGHT help. In SC, at least the Republicans did not care much. Clinton and others just cheat and stay married.

          Newt’s company that got $1.5 million from Freddie is an issue, but he says his share was 35K a year. He made money off his political status. But he has BIG ideas they keep telling us, so maybe he was worth some of that money. He has to be clear he was NOT a lobbyist as they still accuse him, and it is confirmed (I think) that he actually advised against what Freddie Mac doing.

          The poll was from different sources. Drudge had linked to it with the headline “America Hates Newt” … typical dishonest Drudge header. If the debate Gingrich and Newt from last night’s speech gets known, the numbers will change. He even reached out to the Paul voters last night. He sounded presidential, not manic.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 21, 2012 at 11:13 pm

Regarding the overwhelmingly positive women’s votes for Newt in this round.

Many are older & wiser. They have lost & gained husbands maybe but most importantly they have the family. Their children may now have children & it is a new world.

Stacy MCCain’s Smitty gave me this idea when he said Family is more important than marriage.

Seeing Marianne they realize they must ditch remnant feelings of hurt .

Auld Lang Syne…To a better future for The First & Second Wives Club of America.!

    And Third Wives! Don’t forget the Third Wives younger than your kids. Anyone for Fourths?

      Tamminator in reply to JEBurke. | January 22, 2012 at 3:19 am

      I don’t know, JEBurke, are you the morality police? Is there a limit in the USA as to how many wives you can have?
      Please, Mr. Morality, tell me what to do! I need your approval.

        scooterjay in reply to Tamminator. | January 22, 2012 at 8:05 am

        doncha just love it when the left gets all sanctimonious and turn into the “morality police”. we all know they have no “moral compass” thanks to their ideology. resist we much.

An eventful week.

ScottinWisconsin’s wonderful skills as a political salesman drove his candidate, Ron Paul, deep into last place, while retire05’s special charms as an advocate drove his candidate, Rick Perry, clean out of the race.

Great job, boys!

Exit question: There’s only one candidate who’s an evangelical Christian and only one candidate who’s a veteran. Who are they?

    janitor in reply to valleyforge. | January 22, 2012 at 12:43 am

    And they need to throw their support behind Gingrich, else they will be serving to nominate a non-Christian with no interest at all in the military, who if need be could easily go live in the Caymans or on Mustique.

    I honor Congressman Paul’s service, as I honored Gov. Perry’s. That’s a badge of honor never to be lost.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to valleyforge. | January 22, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Jim Bakker was an evangelical Christian and Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran. Are you suggesting that these attributes are automatically and always positive?

Romney’s ongoing defense of Romneycare completely neutralizes any free-market capitalist bona fides that he might have ever possessed.

huskers-for-palin | January 22, 2012 at 12:28 am

Paging Nikki Haley….Paging Nikki Haley…….Mitt Romney is one line 4 and he’s pissed.

I am so glad SE Cupp was too stupid to write for the Cornell Review.

theduchessofkitty | January 22, 2012 at 2:36 am

I think the best commentary came from Erick Erickson at Red State:

“Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since.

[Remember what they did to Sarah Palin after the 2010 elections? “Thanks for helping us regain power. Now, go away you b!%@#!”]


“Basically, today’s vote is about Republican grassroots giving the Washington Republican establishment the finger.


theduchessofkitty | January 22, 2012 at 2:43 am

Remember when that higher-up from the RNC, Mosbacher, siad recently that she and her fellow higher-ups knew “who the GOP’s nominee was going to be.” Remember that?

I just read somewhere else that Romney has more delegates than Gingrich, but only by a short margin. Think about it: someone who wins primaries but doesn’t have enough delegates.

It sounds too familiar – similar to what happened to Hillary in 2008. Remember that she kept winning primaries all over the place, but the delegates were all going to Obama? That happened especially in TX. She won the TX primary hands-down, but when the TX caucus convened that night, lots of bribery and intimidation took place on the part of Obama’s lieutenants on the field. Do you remember at all?

Could the same be happening in the GOP? We better ponder this…

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to theduchessofkitty. | January 22, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Yes. Hillary won either more votes or precincts -maybe both – but the city spots which were won by Obama were given more delegates.

    It was most likely racial because Blacks & Hispanics are more popular than good ole boys.

Great election analysis by Byron York:

“How did it happen? For one thing, all the talk about Romney having a hugely superior ground organization turned out not to be true. ‘They did not do the retail politics that a Santorum and a Gingrich have done over time,’ said Kevin Thomas, chairman of the Fairfield County Republican Party. (Thomas was neutral in the race.) ‘I think Newt’s people, they had more on-the-ground staff, and they worked.’ There were a lot of them, too; after Gingrich’s strong showing in the debates, said Susan Meyers, Gingrich’s media coordinator for the Southeast, ‘We have so many volunteers, our phones are melting right now.’

“Gingrich’s campaign was also faster and more nimble than the Romney battleship. ‘There is a very strong contrast between the two campaign organizations,’ said Gingrich adviser (and former George W. Bush administration official) Kevin Kellems. ‘In military terms, it’s speed versus mass. Newt Gingrich’s operation, and Newt Gingrich as a man, has a great deal of speed — intellectual speed, decisiveness. The Romney campaign is much more about money and size, having hired half of Washington D.C. And sometimes, speed beats mass.'”
. . .
“But after all the talk of ground game and debate war, there’s a simpler reason Gingrich won: On the stump, in town hall after town hall, across South Carolina, Gingrich has been a markedly better campaigner than Romney.”
. . .
“Gingrich’s success here in South Carolina shows more than just a skepticism toward establishment Republicanism. It also shows a hunger for real substance in the campaign, for a candidate who will talk to voters and give them more than phrases like ‘I believe in America.’ Mitt Romney’s team of seasoned campaign professionals may not think Newt Gingrich has any business playing a deciding role in the race. But they better believe it, and they better take seriously what the Gingrich challenge represents — before it’s too late.”

The lone Hollywood producer on “Team Establishment Republican” just screamed out “Rewrite”. Alas, they all work for the other side.

I predict Ron Paul wins Virginia on a wave of protest votes. Love to see Britt Hume explain that.

huskers-for-palin | January 22, 2012 at 11:45 am

I could just see Palin make an off-hand remark on FOX, before the VA primary, that she “respected” Paul and believe that a vote for him in VA would “extend the vetting process”.