Mitt Romney

Romney's Problem Isn't His Campaign

|

Is Mitt Romney having trouble sealing the deal on the GOP nomination because of his campaign team?

The Atlantic's Molly Ball gets a handful of Republican consultants to dish on the former business consultant's current staff of political consultants:

"Romney deserves a lot more out of his staff," said one senior Republican operative who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They have mishandled him. It has been a clumsy campaign that lacks a message and has relied on a crutch of negative ad spending to make up for its weakness."

Myopic, insular and overconfident, Team Romney has squandered the candidate's strengths and exacerbated his weaknesses, these critics charge.

A couple of former advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential run even go on the record. Personal and professional biases ahoy!

…Another McCain campaign veteran, strategist Steve Schmidt, praised Romney's "staying power" and said the campaign has been "technically proficient." But, he noted, Romney has repeatedly "been put on defense" in ways that have obscured his positive pitch.

"The campaign hasn't articulated a very positive, forward-looking, voter-focused vision of what prosperity looks like in the 21st century," he said. "What are his plans that are understandable and connect with people's minds? Instead, what they've found themselves in is an ideological contest against Republicans, which is a difficult fight for Mitt Romney for a lot of reasons."

…"I think they're extremely competent at the tactical things. They run a tight ship in terms of the nuts and bolts," said John Weaver, the former strategist to John McCain and Jon Huntsman. "But their messaging is a head-scratcher at times. … Can they grind it out, run more negative ads, do more robocalls, that kind of crap? Yeah, they can do that better than anyone else. But what has it got them?"

No doubt Romney's team has made a few errors in terms of signaling too strongly that the nomination was already in the bag: Romney ran on electability, and the drawn-out primary fight is undermining the case that he's the candidate who's best positioned to get people to the polls and win votes. 

But it's hard to imagine what sort of messaging would have worked better for Romney, especially considering his record. One of the arguments the consultants make elsewhere is that Romney hasn't captured the conservative media. But given Romney's political record—an incredibly complex flip flop on abortion, business fee hikes used as a cover for tax hikes, embracing the word "progressive," and supporting a state-level model for ObamaCare—conservative policy elites were always likely to be wary of Romney. A little more outreach might have softened the skepticism, but it also might have illustrated how little Romney likes to be challenged on questions about his policy decisions, and how slippery he can be when anyone tries to pin him down. Romney isn't struggling because of his campaign. The campaign is struggling because of Romney.

When it comes to policy, Romney is not and never has been someone driven by a big vision. RomneyCare is the closest he's ever come to a bold policy initiative, but even that was conceived mostly as a narrow technical fix to the insurance market. As far as I can tell, the only big vision Romney's ever had is of himself, sitting in the Oval Office. Which seems to be more or less what his campaign is running on. 

NEXT: Train Wreck

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He isn’t going to win. At the end of the day, no matter how “unhappy” Americans are with Obama, he is the more qualified candidate.

  2. Most of us can spot a self absorbed megalomaniac when we see one. Romney hardly even tries to hide it.

    1. Doesn’t that just make him a politician?

      1. Yes.

        I think he even has a little less of that “make you want to shove your face through a plate glass window after hanging out with him” quality than others.

        1. “make you want to shove your face through a plate glass window after hanging out with him”

          I think Newt’s got that market cornered.

  3. Puerto Ricans went Full Douchebag ™ as well — they’ve chosen Romney. Damn.

    1. Puerto Ricans love big government. It is a miracle they didn’t go for Santorum.

  4. John Weaver, the former strategist to John McCain and Jon Huntsman.

    What a resume. Listen to this man, he knows his stuff!

    1. they’ve found themselves in is an ideological contest against Republicans, which is a difficult fight for Mitt Romney

      I have to admit, that has been a real tally wacker of a problem.

  5. The caption to that photo should be, “I’M A REAL BOY!”

  6. “The campaign hasn’t articulated a very positive, forward-looking, voter-focused vision of what prosperity looks like in the 21st century,” he said. “What are his plans that are understandable and connect with people’s minds? Instead, what they’ve found themselves in is an ideological contest against Republicans, which is a difficult fight for Mitt Romney for a lot of reasons.”

    I thought Mitt was trying to run for President of the United States, not National Daddy Who Promises to Kiss Owwies and Buy Ponies.

    1. Yeah – that’s Obama

  7. Meh, we’ll see how he does when he’s running against Biden in 2016.

    1. All Biden will have to do is wash his trans-am with a cut-off shirt and he’ll get everyones vote.

    2. Neither Biden nor Romney will be running in 2016. Look for guys like Christie, Ryan, and Portman to run for the conservatives and guys like Warner and Beebe for the liberals.

  8. Personal and professional biases ahoy!

    Indeed. Like a supposedly libertarian journalistic outfit complaining that Mitt isn’t a GreatMan with LargeThrobbingVision.

    He’s a glorified dog catcher…which is precisely what libertarians should want in a prez.

    1. I should clarify: that’s the best libertarians can hope for in a prez given the current political zeitgeist.

    2. He’s a glorified dog catcher…which is precisely what libertarians should want in a prez.

      If Romney were fit to be a dog catcher, he’d have my vote.

      But he’s not. He successfully passed ObamaCare in Mass, leading to Obama passing RomneyCare at the federal level.

      1. Ah, we’re back to Suderman’s completely unproven claim that “Romneycare led to Obamacare”.

        To justify that claim, you have to show that if Romneycare hadn’t happened then Obamacare wouldn’t have happened either. And you can’t, because (a) the basic idea of both plans has been bandied about since 1993 long before Romney was in office, and (b) the Dems were going to pass some sort of health care thing regardless once they got control of WH and Congress.

        1. (a) the basic idea of both plans has been bandied about since 1993 long before Romney was in office, and

          No one has denied this. Romney didn’t come up with this plan alone, naked in his bathroom. To be accurate, a panel of unidentified experts came up with the plan, Romney just pushed it and signed the bill.

          (b) the Dems were going to pass some sort of health care thing regardless once they got control of WH and Congress.

          Most certainly, and with Romneycare, they had an excellent, real world example that they could use as their model.

          1. naked in his bathroom

            You know where else we Mormons are allowed to bet naked?

            1. You know where else we Mormons are allowed to bet naked?

              I thought Mormon’s weren’t allowed to bet— naked or clothed.

              1. I’ll bet I can get your daughter pregnant in just one try.

                1. She’ll be menopausal by the time your testicles drop.

          2. No one has denied this.

            Of course not…they just “forget” to mention that fact when claiming that Romney is the progenitor of Obamacare. Must be a total accident that they forget to mention it every time.

            they had an excellent, real world example

            MassCare was already falling apart before the 2008 election. I wouldn’t call it an “excellent example” of anything. If anything, the fate of MassCare provided a cautionary tale rather than a supporting example.

            And as you note above, but apparently forget a paragraph later, they didn’t need a model; the plan had been around for quite a long time before.

          3. They weren’t unidentified experts. Some of them were from the (gasp) conservative Heritage foundation.
            And. . .
            Nixon wanted a health plan.
            Even Eisenhower was interested.
            People who want to blame state healthcare off onto Romney are either ignorant or dishonest, and are definitely only blaming him because they want to have a way to bash Obama.

        2. I don’t really care if RomneyCare led to ObamaCare.

          I do care that I see absolutely no reason to believe that Romney, who to this day defends RomneyCare, not just as a political necessity, but as good policy, will do what it takes to break a Dem filibuster of the repeal bill.

          1. You’re asking for the sky.

            I’m not sure how any president could break a Dem filibuster without blowing all his political capital for rolling back big government in other areas.

            I doubt Ron Paul would be able to do it either; you have any ideas who would be willing and able to do this?

          2. This will never, ever, happen. Obamacare is making too much bank for the health industry. Lobbyists will control anyone they want if it looks like it might be in danger.

          3. Massachusetts leads the nation in fewest uninsured due to RomneyCare (about 5% compared to Texas near 25%).

      2. Was it really possible that MA was not going to have some type of heavy handed health insurance regulation, except for the intervention of Romney? If the Democrats had passed something else, could he have vetoed it? Is the Romney plan worse than the credible contemporary contenders? It’s fair not to like how he spins his involvement in the issue, but it’s not like Romneycare is all his fault.

        1. Was it really possible that MA was not going to have some type of heavy handed health insurance regulation, except for the intervention of Romney?

          No. Their next Democratic governor would have given it to them. That’s not the point. The point is, why would republicans who supposedly hate obamacare want to vote for the one Republican who did give it to them?

          1. Their next Democratic governor would have given it to them.

            Not even. The state legislature would have overridden Romney’s veto right then and there.

            And Romney didn’t give Obamacare to Massachusetts. Nice try. They’re not remotely the same thing, any more than a nationwide gay marriage ban would be the same as Idaho banning it.

        2. Shorter: when you vote for a Republican who was successfully elected in Massachusetts, you’re going to the the kind of republican that can be elected in Massachusetts.

          1. Romney isn’t my kind of Republican by a long shot. It’s not like we have any viable alternatives.

            If Santorum and Gingrich are your kind of Republican, the exit door is over there.

      3. “But it’s hard to imagine what sort of messaging would have worked better for Romney, especially considering his record.”

        Who is confused about Romney’s problem?

        The idiot detonated himself politically by being Barack Obama of Massachusetts.

  9. I’m not 100% sure I buy this argument. If the problems Romney is facing were purely a matter of policy, it seems a bit…strange that the “anybody but Romney” forces would be coalescing around Gingrich and Santorum, two guys with what would hardly be considered a sterling record on the most pressing conservative issues of the day. The more likely analysis is the more obvious – Romney did a terrific job of locking down the party leadership prior to the election even starting and then tried to ram it down the throats of the grassroots activists. Where they got the notion that that was a winning strategy is beyond me.

    1. Everybody seems to also be overlooking the fact that evangelicals and conservative Catholics don’t like Mormons. That’s huge in the South, but for some reason the media doesn’t play that up as much as the fact that Mormons heavily favor Romney.

      1. It could be the case. I just don’t see it. On the conservative blogs, you don’t see them commenting about his Mormonism. At all. You see them commenting about him being a closet liberal and about establishment arrogance.

        1. And then supporting Newt flerking Gingrich.

          1. Yeah, screwed the hell up. I know.

            1. Doesn’t that lead you to believe that something else may be at work? Some sort of hidden motivation that can’t be said explicitly?

              1. Not really. Gingrich pretty much is an arrogant establishment guy. But, he plays the role of an angry grassroots activist pretty well. I wouldn’t underestimate the power of theater in politics. You’d expect people calling us in the middle of World War IV with the Islamic world wouldn’t be all that circumspect about saying they have a problem with Mormonism. Finally, I don’t want to sound dismissive, but its not clear what percentage of the respondants in the Gallup poll you cite who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon are conservative. I could easily see a significant percentage of the cleverer-than-thou set not being willing to vote for someone who who believes in “holy underpants”.

                1. From the actual Gallup poll cited by Slate

                  Willingness to vote for a Mormon candidate

                  Party Yes No
                  Republican 80% 18%
                  Independent 79% 19%
                  Democrat 71% 27%

                  This is suggestive to me, at least, that the big anti-Mormon bias isn’t some sort of redneck evangelical thing.

                  1. You don’t think people lie on the phone during polls? When asked if they believe mormonism is a form of christianity the overwhelming result is no. All depends on the question and whether you sound like a bigot when responding.

                2. @Bill: Don’t you know anything about religious history? There are lots of groups of people who wear clothing that you can make fun of as “holy” — nuns, Methodist clergymen in their Wesley gowns, Amish men with buttonless pants, English choirboys in ruffs — or for that matter, clothing that’s not holy, like Scottish kilts or those sarong-like things that Fijian men wear. As long as these folks keep their “fashions” to themselves, I don’t care. It’s when they want to tell me how many children to have or how to get them, or similar invasions of my private philosophical/religious life, that’s when I get angry. Romney doesn’t pose a threat to my Protestantism. Santorum does. In a nutshell.

      2. Everybody seems to also be overlooking the fact that evangelicals and conservative Catholics don’t like Mormons.

        Our internal polling shows that this isn’t really an issue, but we do appreciate the media pushing the idea (Keep up the good work, guys!) since voters really like a victim, even victims born into fabulous wealth and privilege.

      3. evangelicals and conservative Catholics don’t like Mormons.

        I know quite a few evangelicals. I have never heard one of them say anything prejudiced against Mormons. So I’ll need to see some pretty convincing data before I believe that this isn’t more than just another smear.

        1. I bet you never hear them talk about their distaste for artichokes either. How often does Mormonism come up?

          Here’s some data for you

          Robert Jeffress, a prominent Baptist pastor speaking at a national family-values conference, called Mormonism a non-Christian cult and urged voters to support Perry over Romney because Perry was a “genuine follower of Jesus Christ.” Cain, again appearing on two Sunday shows, refused to say whether Mormons were Christians. “I’m not getting into that controversy,” he told CNN’s Candy Crowley before implicitly affirming the distinction: “I am not going to do an analysis of Mormonism versus Christianity.”

          1. continued…

            […]

            National polls taken in recent months show how far anti-black prejudice has subsided compared to anti-Mormon prejudice. In a Gallup survey, 5 percent of adults said they wouldn’t vote for their party’s presidential nominee if he were black. Six percent said they wouldn’t vote for a woman, 7 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic, 9 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Jew, and 10 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Hispanic. But 22 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon.

            1. Yeah slate’s been really good to us. Slate realizes that America needs a moderate with CEO experience who will work for bipartisan solutions.

        2. It depends on the particular Evangelicals and the area you are in. Here in AOG country, it is fairly blatant.

  10. The campaign is struggling because of Romney.

    Bob Dole and John McCain both had the same problem and that didn’t … oh, right …

  11. Sure, the primary voters didn’t want me in 2008, but it’s supposed to be my turn now.

  12. bold policy initiative

    Bold is just another word for risky and scary. Where’s my paper bag? I feel another panic attack coming on.

  13. Romney actually pleases very few Republicans. But they see him as their best shot ar removing Obama. Back in the real world, they are probably correct.

  14. I’m 99.9% sure Romney will be the Nominee. There’s an anti-establishment mood in the air this year and Romney is a stereotypical establishment candidate. As much as I detest Rick Santorum I will give him credit for doing a good job playing the anti-Romney.

  15. Every time Romney slips, Jon Huntsman pipes up and signals he’s about to go third party.
    What is with the Romney/Rubio/Huntsman nuttyness in 2012????

    ***There is some weird stuff going on behind closed doors folks. I bet it has something to do with religion! Go figure.

  16. The good news is this…whatever Republican gets the nomination will likely trounce Obama in the fall. The only thing keeping Obama in the race now is the infighting between Republicans. As soon as that is done the spotlight goes on Obama. In fact, I believe the later that happens the more likely it will turn on Obama big as he won’t have time to rewrite the narrative. Once Republicans regain control of the government the Tea Party will push everything in a Libertarian direction. We’ll see Tax reform (reduced rates and simplification), entitlement reform, regulatory reform (especially in the area of energy), they’ll repeal Obamacare (assuming SCOTUS doesn’t kill it first). We will also likely see at least a budget freeze if not some real cuts.

    1. “Trounce”….keep dreaming. He may lose but it’ll be close as hell. Neither party is going to cut handouts…too many are getting them – that goes for the poor and rich.

  17. Sometimes full on libertarians almost think they are The Christ himself. Mr Suderman, we know you can’t stand Romney, but to say he wouldn’t do an excellent job as commander of bankrupt USA is just ridiculous. Vision? When has any baby boomer candidate had a true and honorable vision that worked? Please get off you high horse for a change. Ron Paul is awesome, but for example, to legalize drugs in this narcissistic society would be deadly. Do I think Ron Paul is bad, no. but, no one has the perfect vision for this basket case country !
    For heaven’s sake be realistic.

  18. http://matthew-thornton.blogsp…..omney.html

    this is Romney’s Problem

  19. I just want someone to work with Paul Ryan to balance the budget at about 18% of GDP and really cut the waste fraud and abuse out of the federal government.

    Romney has the best skills to do this. He will work with Paul Ryan and the other grown ups in congress and get the job done like he has done in his other successful enterprises.

    The real problem with Romney is in dealing with MSM and duplicitous career politicians. He’s just not a good politician but he’ll get the job done.

  20. You forgot the biggest “problem” that has probably mattered more than his “policy” or his supposed “flip flops”… The only major “conservative group” that does not think he is a “true conservative” is also the same group that doesn’t think he is a “true Christian” Without the Mormon haters, Newt and Santorum would have been put to rest a long time ago. The press likes to refer to Newt and Santorum as the “not Romney Candidates”. A better description would be the “not Mormon Candidates” You notice how the Evangelicals have all quickly shifted from one “not a mormon” to the next no matter how ridiculous they were (can anyone say “Herman Cain”)

    1. @Blair: Spot on. This is all about Mormonism, plain and simple. It’s sad. All the Mormons I know are salt of the earth, the kind of folks you’d want for neighbors.

  21. My question is did Reason Magazine register as an Obama re-election campaign contributor before publishing this article? If the article and the distracters weren’t so contrived it would be funny instead of pathetic.

  22. “As far as I can tell, the only big vision Romney’s ever had is of himself, sitting in the Oval Office”

    I know this is a libertarian rag, but surely you know how low of a blow that is. The truth of the matter is that he’s NOT a big ideas man, and indeed isn’t really a conservative, but what is WRONG with a little humility around here huh? What’s wrong with a man who will listen to the state that elected him and find out their problems and try to fix them as they would want them fixed? I am no RomneyCare enthusiast, far from it I think its sent us down a dark and scary road, but that statement was just LOW and CRASS.

    The truly good thing about Romney is he is someone who tries desperately hard to see things as his voters would see them and to try to get the job done in a good and honorable way. He doesn’t have a big vision because he LETS YOU HAVE YOURS. Surely you can respect that?

  23. Aside from that, I agree. Mitt Romneys campaign has been marvelously well done which is why he’s done as well as he has in a year when voters probably would’ve preferred someone more conservative andor populist. To some degree, trying to elect a New England Moderate, even a good one, in the year of the Tea Party, is forcing a square peg down a round hole.

  24. END THE COMMUNISM! GO MITT! OBAMA MUST GO!

  25. But what has it got them?

    More delegates than The Others and probably “The Win”. If #WINNING Team Red is what you want – and that is, in fact, what Mittens wants.

    Again – I’m not voting for Obamster nor for whomever rises from the Team Red shithole.

    “Almanian – 2012”
    Free Minds and Free Markets
    (you know who else wanted Free Minds and Free Markets)

  26. Really? How long will you keep writing articles about how weak and ineffective Romney is? Until he takes the oath of office? If you keep winning, you’re effective, especially if you’re besting three other candidates. Obama couldn’t best Hillary until June of the year they were running. Keep up the familiar tomes, “Reason.” Then we may have to change your name to “Unreason!”

    1. spk2moi — Reason has produced a piece of invective smear and honestly believes its’ objective, socially redeeming, value-added journalism. And they have the nerve to ask readers at the bottom of this web page to contribute or donate, and buy their paperback edition. Get real!

  27. That’s the problem: His only vision is seeing himself sitting in the Oval Office.There are those, like Reagan- and Newt- who want the Presidency because they genuinely want to get the right things done. And then there are those who are wannabees…Bill Clinton comes to mind. Apparently, Romney is from the same bolt of cloth.

  28. Romney’s big vision, which the writer doesn’t want to see, is to get America out of the economic mess it is now in. That’s a pretty darn good vision.
    Romney is a clean guy, an upstanding family, bright, focused, competent, charitable, disciplined, and economically competent. As usual, the writer can’t wait to get his digs in so once more Romney, like Sisyphus, can carry another media-created burden up the political mountain.
    It’s enough to make you think the media hate Mormons as much as the evangelicals.

  29. How come conservatives only make sense when they’re talking about Mitt Romney?

  30. L’article de CNN Money dit: pas trop longtemps,hermes sacs les entreprises am?ricaines plus petites devez ouvrir une usine en Chine, et aujourd’hui, ils ne commencent ? se retirer kelly hermes sacs.

    Une des raisons est que l’?conomie am?ricaine reste stable,hermes sacs mais les entreprises dans les commandes ?trang?res doit augmenter la quantit? afin de soulager les co?ts pour les entreprises am?ricaines, dispose d’un risque relativement important, parce que les consommateurs am?ricains n’ont pas encore ouvert la consommation sac ? main hermes sacs. Le volume des fournisseurs locaux permet un niveau infime de l’entreprise, est en mesure de r?duire le volume de l’investissement de ces entreprises.

  31. hermes sacs a main Les entreprises am?ricaines une autre raison de retirer les probl?mes de qualit? de quartier. Par exemple Technologies WindStrean aux ?tats-Unis a longtemps ?t? de grande qualit? et c?l?bres.hermes sacs a main En D?cembre 2010 dans le cas o? l’entreprise a choisi une des entreprises chinoises en raison de leurs g?n?rateurs ?oliens de fabrication 35, 35 turbines ?tait ?videmment une catastrophe, pas seulement un grand nombre de pi?ces install?es ? l’envers, et aussi sous-standard, certaines parties bient?t tomber. Parce que les fournisseurs locaux sont en mesure de r?duire les prix et les co?ts de transport r?duits, le co?t des turbines Windstream fabriqu?s localement, mais produisent 10% inf?rieur ? celui de la Chine hermes sacs a main.

  32. hermes sacs kelly Toutefois, Zizka pour la fabrication d’un sac ? main, 170% plus cher en comparaison ? Bristol produit en Chine. Mais Jane ne se pr?occupe pas, hermes sacs kelly dit-elle, puisque l’industrie est plus pr?t ? acheter des sacs ? main de fabrication am?ricaine, puis supporter une augmentation des co?ts de toute fa?on. Maintenant, elle va contr?ler la qualit?, ainsi que le produit peut rapidement atteindre le consommateur-hermes sacs kelly.

  33. hermes sacs kelly Toutefois, Zizka pour la fabrication d’un sac ? main, 170% plus cher en comparaison ? Bristol produit en Chine. Mais Jane ne se pr?occupe pas, hermes sacs kelly dit-elle, puisque l’industrie est plus pr?t ? acheter des sacs ? main de fabrication am?ricaine, puis supporter une augmentation des co?ts de toute fa?on. Maintenant, elle va contr?ler la qualit?, ainsi que le produit peut rapidement atteindre le consommateur-hermes sacs kelly.

  34. hermes sacs birkin-Belles sacs Herm?s, la nouvelle apparence, je crois que vous aimez

    Oscar de la Renta pour stimuler son jeu d’accessoires. Collection dans les derni?res ann?es, je sais de la poche pour acqu?rir progressivement mieux. Bien que ses v?tements et robe a ?t? l’aide de la beaut? et la conception de l’histoire, les sacs ne m’a jamais attirer chaque fois que vous le pouvez.hermes sacs birkin Mais plus tard, je ne peux vraiment pas arr?ter de chanter les sacs Oscar de louange. Et, chers lecteurs, c’est la magie de cette industrie. Un concepteur de sac birkin sac ? main brillant peut montrer ? l’int?rieur de la seconde, d’attirer beaucoup d’entre nous po Oscar de la nouvelle industrie de la mode,hermes sacs birkin mais son sac est mon d?sir, m?riter leur liste d’envoi.

  35. boutique herm?s sacs Non seulement est une superbe couleur avec ce sac, mais cette forme. Structure, l?g?rement dames sacs la chose la plus importante peut-?tre pendant un certain temps, et aussi cette tendance se dissipent habituellement lentement. Si vous souhaitez effectuer votre vie compl?te, ? l’int?rieur de votre boutique herm?s sacs, allez voir ailleurs ? celui-ci n’est pas en fonction de vos besoins. Peut-?tre un ou deux suppl?mentaires, cependant, est ici la taille parfaite dans le cas o? vous voudrais juste votre porte-monnaie, lunettes, appareils mobiles et les cl?s acheter un boutique herm?s sacs

  36. herm?s sacs crocodile birkin Oscar ont tendance ? mettre son jeu d’accessoires, le pouvoir d’atteindre cet objectif. Tels que la broderie suisse,herm?s sacs crocodile birkin italienne affichage de verrouillage en cuir d’embrayage de pierres semi-pr?cieuses. Le motif de broderie est complexe, imm?diatement attirer les yeux, m?me sans distraction. L’int?rieur est doubl? avec poche zipp?e et une poche t?l?phone portable en daim. Il est ? noter, avec une transformation de la cha?ne amovible, de comprendre ce sac tous les soirs herm?s sacs crocodile birkin

  37. herm?s sacs a mains Pastels ? regarder, la controverse suit. Beaucoup de gens ne vous Meigs et hermes sac enthousiasme dans le sac en bandouli?re ? la menthe,herm?s sacs a mains mais si vous ?tes aussi au lieu de la couleur de la lumi?re, ne vous inqui?tez pas. Beaucoup de designers ont pour s’?vader, pastels et les couleurs vives au printemps de 2012 ? l’int?rieur de l’alignement entre deux de ces tendances de couleurs diff?rentes dans la saison, une n?cessit? r?elle pourrait ?tre la m?re de l’invention herm?s sacs a mains.

  38. Sacre Bleu! Mon Dieu! Grey Poupon!

    Anyway, Willard will destroy O-Care by allowing every single fucking citizen to apply for a waiver. And all 314 of us sane Americans left will no doubt apply for one.

    As for the Romney/Santorum hate: Sheesh. Get over it, Reason. Most Americans are libertarian-ish domestically. But see, unlike this here rag and its rabble rousing spewitariat, most Americans neither hate the military, nor the police.

    Nor do most Americans want the borders open wider than S. Fluke’s legs (yes, I said it!). And no, most Americans don’t think PCP-laced heroin with a dash of mescaline should be OTC.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.