Has there ever been such a display of simultaneous cowardice and sexism than that demonstrated by “anonymous” Romney staffers who continue to trash Gov. Palin (and other female conservatives) while their boss praises Palin publicly? Certainly we at C4P pull no punches when discussing Romney’s less-than-stellar record, but all our comments and identities are a matter of record. We are a fan blog, not a campaign staff. Moreover, we’re not making junior-high-level comments to political magazines about Mitt’s IQ or mental health status then hiding out as “unnamed sources.”
Unfortunately, we’ve come to expect the low, juvenile road from Camp Romney. While the Mandate-equin was praising Gov. Palin profusely on his book tour and elsewhere last year, his pathetic underlings sniped to reporters last summer that Palin “is not a serious human being.”
Another Romney intimate warns, “If [Palin’s] standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”
Hmm, they must have missed all her previous debate performances. Nonetheless, anonymous Romney advisors apparently are at it again. For what it’s worth, in a Polutico article yesterday, they claim that Gov. Palin’s entry into the race would immediately give their charisma-challenged guy a “bogeyman,” allowing him to run against “that crazy woman.”
Republicans officials have no idea what [Palin is] planning, although they agree she would have tons to lose by entering a race that would cost her the mystique she has built up. And Romney advisers said her entry would help the former Massachusetts governor dramatically.
“The shock value would cause elected officials and party officials to rally around Mitt, because she’d scare the daylights out of them,” one official said. “And it would allow him to position himself very much in the middle of Republican, conservative thinking and avoid the fringe, and look more moderate for the general election.”
Bachmann would have the same effect, the advisers said. Either of them “gives Romney a bogeyman: ‘Stop this crazy woman.”
So Bachmann and Palin are crazy women, huh? No, that’s not sexist. Not at all. I guess Romney plans to run on the “No Breasts” ticket, and hope he can squeak by the other males in the race. And what’s this about Palin needing to “preserve her mystique” while men with no mystique run for president? Excuse me? What exactly are they referring to when discussing “preserving her mystique” exactly? Is that code for “don’t worry your pretty head about politics, sweetie”?
Funny, I thought this is what Mitt Romney truly believed about Sarah Palin:
“I believe she is an extraordinarily powerful and effective voice in our party, that she has generated a great deal of support and attention, that she’d be great in a primary process. She’d bring attention to the process, and frankly, the more people we have on the stage in those debates talking about different ideas and different approaches, the better.” (Romney, 2011)
“Sarah Palin is terrific. I have to tell you that this is a person who brought energy and spunk and passion back into my party,” he said in a speech Wednesday. “We were getting a little long-of-tooth on our stage, if you will, on the national stage, and she re-energized us, and I think she also is one of the — if you will –the instigators behind the tea party movement, which again [with its] energy and intensity gives us a better shot of picking up seats this fall. So I could say nothing except positive things about Sarah Palin.” (Romney, 2010)
“I think Sarah Palin has done a masterful job in reuniting the base of the Republican Party with the kind of enthusiasm that we had hoped for. She brought to the race, I think, the energy and the respect of the Republican base that John McCain wanted to draw, and as a result, you’ve seen large crowds, enthusiastic response, a spike in fundraising.” (Romney, 2008)
We shall see if Mitt is forced once again to tweet an apology for his “numbskull” staff as he did last July:
Romney’s Twittered apology and rebuke of his staffers reads as follows: “Anonymous numbskulls. She’s proven her smarts; they’ve disproven theirs.”
Moreover, I’m trying to understand what is more crazy or fringe… leading your state to a $12 billion surplus based on fiscally sound and transparent policies as Palin did … or enacting the blueprint for Obamacare that subjects your state to the some of the most expensive insurance premiums and longest wait times in the nation as Romney did?
Because if Sarah Palin is “crazy,” I don’t wanna be sane.
Update: Remember, Romney does have a well-documented “woman problem” as noted here and nicely by Whitney, here.