Mitt Romney

[vector7]

I think the above article gave me the words I've needed to describe what it was I don't like the most about Romney.

He's an "opportunist".

Mitt Romney’s Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Mansion

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

Wednesday, September 28th at 3:27PM EST - 80 Comments

Back in 1992, Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas, running for the Democratic presidential nomination, labeled Bill Clinton a “pander bear.”

We’ve come full circle I’m afraid and the issue goes directly to why so many conservatives who are willing to settle for Mitt Romney really do not want to settle more Mitt Romney.

Romney is bringing up Sanctuary Cities again. He is using it as an issue against Rick Perry with a new Pew report out that Texas has the highest number of illegal immigrants next to California.

“As you know, I opposed sanctuary cities as the governor of my state,” Romney said. “And the idea that a city would determine that it’s not going to follow the U.S. law is unacceptable and immigration law is federal law.

“Immigration laws are the responsibility of the federal government. The fact that you’re seeing states come up with various programs to try and secure their border is simply an indication that the federal government has failed in doing its job. And I need some lawyers to tell me how to go about doing it, but I would end sanctuary cities, if it’s legally possible.”

First, I expect we’ll start hearing about Mitt Romney’s sanctuary mansion again. But beyond that, the record suggests that, like going after Texas’s job creation record compared to his own in Massachusetts, Romney will have to be careful.

As Factcheck noted way back in November of 2007,

Romney might well get tough on sanctuary cities in the future, but he didn’t when he was governor.

During his tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed legislation declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Brookline and Cambridge reaffirmed their longtime status as sanctuary cities in so many words. Somerville and Orleans didn’t officially deem themselves ‘sanctuaries,’ but Somerville affirmed its ‘long-standing policies in support of all immigrants,’ while Orleans forbade city officials from turning in illegal immigrants without probable cause. We asked Romney’s campaign if he had acted against these cities, but they didn’t provide us with any examples. As far as we were able to determine in our own research, Romney made no attempts to penalize, censure, or cut funding to them.

But we don’t have to rely on a left-wing site portraying itself as the arbiter of truth.

Go back to August 22, 2007, and the Associated Press covered the Giuliani v. Romney fight.Romney has pledged to cut federal funds from cities that adopt what he calls sanctuary policies and ignore federal immigration laws. But as governor, Romney didn’t cut funding for four cities called sanctuary cities in Massachusetts.

The ads also say that as governor Romney ordered state police to enforce existing immigration laws. While true, Romney signed the law ordering state police to enforce the laws during his final weeks in office. Romney’s successor narrowed it to Department of Corrections officers. State police never began training.


Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:14 AM PST
Gov. Mitt Romney's 4 Sanctuary Cities for Undocumented Immigrants

As Governor, Mitt Romney used taxpayer money to fund four Sanctuary Cities for undocumented immigrants.

Ok, so no matter what you, or I, think the USA should do with undocumented immigrants -- Candidate Mitt Romney sure does chastise his fellow candidates regarding "their" position on the issue.

In fact, since running for President this time, Romney loves to accuse his fellow candidate's ideas on undocumented immigrants as:

"a magnet to draw illegal immigrants"
~Romney 2011 gobs of times

Here's the rub though, as Governor, Mitt Romney used Taxpayer money to fund four Sanctuary Cities: Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville and Orleans, Massachusetts.

Factcheck.org in 2007 wrote this regarding Governor Mitt Romney's Sanctuary Cities:

"During his tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed Legislation declaring themselves Sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.

- Brookline, MA: reaffirmed their longtime status as Sanctuary Cities. - Cambridge, MA: reaffirmed their longtime status as Sanctuary Cities.

- Somerville, MA: affirmed its "long-standing policies in support of all immigrants,"

- Orleans, MA: forbade City Officials from turning in illegal immigrants without probable cause."
~ Factcheck.org

In 2007, when Factcheck.org researchers asked Mitt Romney's campaign about those Sanctuary Cities, Romney Campaign said:

"We asked Romney's campaign if he had acted against these cities, but they [Romney Campaign] didn't provide us with any examples. As far as we were able to determine in our own research, Romney made no attempts to penalize, censure, or cut funding to them."

~Factcheck.org

Governor Mitt Romney Administration "Romney Administration's e-mails were all wiped from the government server" 11 days before Mitt left office.

NPR NPR reported:

11 days before leaving office in 2007, "Romney aides also requested that emails be scrubbed from a state server."

Many have asked "why" Governor Romney 'wiped' all of his and his staff's emails off of the government server ... and in typical Romney form - he lies.

Fred Thys of WBUR in Boston reported:

"State law actually does require that governors turn over paper documents to the archives. Romney says his administration turned over 700 boxes of documents. State law also requires that electronic documents be printed and turned over before they're deleted. According to two sources, aides to Romney told state officials they had printed their emails before deleting them. But questions remain about whether hard copies of all emails were turned over."

~Fred Thys of WBUR in Boston, November 2011

Naturally, Romney is lying when he falsely said:

"under Massachusetts law, there is no provision asking either the governor's office or the legislature to provide any information for the archives."

~Romney (lie) November 2011

There might be a connection between Governor Romney's Sanctuary Cities and his emails that were scrubbed off of Massachusetts State Government Servers ...

According to Factcheck.org 2007 Candidate Romney said:

"As President, I'll oppose amnesty, cut funding for sanctuary cities and secure our borders." ~Romney 2007 campaign

Maybe Romney did not want anyone to find his written support of the Taxpayer funding Romney's four Sanctuary Cities so he had his staff scrub all his emails from the State's server?

2007 Factcheck.org found the following quote of Romney's to be intellectually dishonest

"I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws."
~Romney 2007 campaign

Factcheck.org research show:

"[Romney] didn't do so [authorize State Police to enforce immigration laws] until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president.

Romney ... didn't sign an agreement with the Federal Government - a necessary condition for that authority to be granted - until Dec. 13, 2006. Romney was scheduled to leave office Jan. 4, 2007."

~Factcheck.org 2007

hmm .... 11 days before Governor Romney leaves office, "Romney aides also requested that emails be scrubbed from a state server."

hmm .... Less than 1 month before Governor Romney leaves office, December 13, 2006, he signed an agreement with the Federal Government to allow State Police to enforce immigration laws ....

hmm .... Governor Mitt Romney used Taxpayer money to fund four Sanctuary Cities.

These tid-bits of information make me wonder if Romney's plot to suddenly sound "tough" on illegal immigration was discussed in those "scrubbed" emails? Did his staff email him ways to talk to tough on illegal immigration?

All politicians have a "truth problem" - but seriously, it is becoming clear that Mitt Romney does not know the difference between fact and fiction ... even when it comes to his own first name.

CNN Debate; November 22, 2011:

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name."
~Romney, CNN Debate, November 22, 2011 (lying about his own first name)

umm ... no, Romney, Mitt is not your first name. Your first name is Willard. Willard ... err ... Mitt, dude, you're a pathological liar - see a psychiatrist.

All this information begs the question, does 2011 Mitt Romney thinks Governor Romney's Sanctuary Cities were "a magnet to draw illegal immigrants?"


Romney staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records



View Photo Gallery —  After what was widely considered an unfocused and bloated campaign in 2008, the Republican former Massachusetts governor is returning to the presidential sweepstakes with a more tightly knit team that he hopes will keep him on point.

By Mark Hosenball,

Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in 2007 as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret.

The move was legal but unusual for a departing governor, Massachusetts officials say.

874Comments

The effort to purge the records was made a few months before Romney launched an unsuccessful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He is again competing for the party’s nomination, this time to challenge President Obama.

When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor’s staff had e-mails and other electronic communications wiped from state servers, state officials say.

Those actions erased much of the internal documentation of Romney’s tenure as governor, which ended in January 2007. Precisely what information was erased is unclear.

Opponents of Romney say the scrubbing of e-mails — and a claim by Romney that paper records of his governorship are not subject to public disclosure — hinder efforts to assess his performance.

As governor, Romney worked with a Democratic-led legislature to close a budget shortfall and signed a health-care overhaul that required nearly all residents to buy insurance.

The state’s health-care law became a model for Obama’s health-care program. As a presidential candidate, however, Romney has criticized Obama’s plan.

Massachusetts officials say they have no basis to believe that Romney’s staff violated state laws. They acknowledge, however, that the law has not been updated to deal with issues related to digital records.

Romney’s spokesmen emphasize that he followed the law and precedent.

But Theresa Dolan, former director of administration for the governor’s office, told Reuters that Romney’s efforts to control or wipe out the records were unprecedented.

Dolan said that in her 23 years as an aide to successive governors “no one had ever inquired about, or expressed the desire” to purchase their computer hard drives before Romney’s tenure.

The cleanup of records by Romney’s staff included spending $205,000 for a three-year lease on new computers for the governor’s office, according to official documents and state officials.

In signing the lease, Romney aides broke an earlier three-year lease that provided the same number of computers for about half the cost — $108,000, according to documents.

Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Romney’s campaign, referred questions on the issue to state officials.

The removal of digital records by Romney’s staff, first reported by the Boston Globe, has sparked a wave of requests for paper records from his governorship.

— Reuters

[vector7]

Mitt Romney, the Judas Candidate

by John Galt
January 15, 2012 12:30 ET

The American people have been exposed to a litany of misinformation by the mainstream media, financial press, and Republican candidates about the political advertisement title “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” produced by the Winning the Future SuperPAC (click www.kingofbain.com to watch in full). The mainstream media, who desires to have Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate for President against their man, Barrack Obama, has mysteriously come to the defense of the former Massachusetts Governor and CEO of Bain Capital by focusing on the factual inaccuracies of the production and falsely championing their belief in the American capitalist system. The financial media is aghast that one of their own is under attack for being exposed as a participant in activities of similar ethical lapses as the major financial institutions engage in on a daily basis. Lastly the Republican Country Club community is disturbed that the PAC would dare to attack a fellow Republican in such a manner on an issue near and dear to the heart of those who believe in “free markets.”

Oh the hypocrisy of it all. First, the mainstream media rarely if ever attacked the proclamations made in attack ads by Romney, Gingrich, or RNC operatives against Congressman Ron Paul, I would probably have a heart attack from the shock. Mitt Romney and his collection of PACs engaged in numerous attacks in Iowa and New Hampshire against Gingrich and Paul and the mainstream barely batted an eye. Yet this same mainstream media that acted shocked regarding the attacks against Romney and Bain Capital have to be held in the lowest of regard as they were also the same group accepting advertising dollars from the very banksters that caused the financial system to implode in 2007 through 2009. Thus saying their bias is for the almighty dollar and not the truth says more about their perspective of vulture capitalism versus the reality of the American worker. To say that I have experience with the practices alleged to have occurred while Mitt Romney was the CEO of Bain Capital will be a decision I leave for the reader to decide, keeping in mind that the following story is true, the names and corporations involved are kept discreet to protect the innocent and in the hope that those involved can someday re-engage in litigation against the parties involved.

At the turn of the last decade, I had an opportunity to offer my services as a management consultant to a small company in this area. The corporation had a unique niche where the management consulting varied from government compliance issues to streamlining corporate structures to increase efficiency and reduce expenses. During the evolution of this company, a program was developed then submitted for patent approval which would save companies engaged in regulatory submissions to various Federal agencies millions of dollars and thousands of man hours versus the methodology of the time. The idea was so promising the owners of the company at that time wished to cash in on their good fortune and the employee’s hard work and created an Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP) which would pay the workers off quite handsomely once the product was distributed not just within the United States, but worldwide.

The production of programs in question moved forward and attracted quite a bit of attention in the business community which could use the product while expansion plans moved slowly forward to accommodate future demand were underway. The expansion was going so well, investors were contacting the ownership on an almost daily basis, almost begging the company to accept outside investment. In the end, a “venture capital” firm in West Central Florida wormed their way into the hearts of the ownership and seized the day by pouring millions of dollars into the pockets of the owners who yielded their shares of the company to the investors on the condition they walk away after one year, thus leaving the ESOP shares at the mercy of the investors. The program and company at first seemed quite safe, but in less than 9 months events would prove otherwise.

After the contracts were signed, handshakes completed, and financial work completed the new owners took the office staff and families out to an extremely expensive restaurant in the area and promised great things for the future of those employees vested in the ESOP and how the company would grow and expand. Shortly thereafter, this small company of about twenty-five office staff and between twenty to thirty field employees rapidly doubled than tripled in size. Although the level of work to be completed was the same, huge investments were made in marketing, new office space, furniture, office electronics, and exorbitant expenditures to entertain current and potential clients including golf outings, fishing trips, and vacations for the client’s families. The problem was quite obvious and the cash flow from ongoing jobs and new contracts was swamped by an over three to one ratio due to the spending by the “new” ownership.

The old owners remained on the job consulting the new management but due to the contractual agreement, would not and could not discuss the condition of the company or the approach to existing accounts which were being exposed to a barrage of marketing calls for the new product, even though consultants were on site already testing the new program at some of their facilities. The company began to flounder due to the negative cash flow and some of the new peripheral employees were laid off due to a lack of work but soon the trend of firing those workers vested in the ESOP began. This process caused a great deal of stress within the company and began to raise questions about the entire buy out and the financiers behind the move. Then came the date which gave the vultures the excuse they needed to make their move, one which caused recriminations for years and destroyed the livelihoods of numerous employees for years to come.

On September 11, 2001, the terrorist attacks created the financial excuse for many corporations to file for bankruptcy and clean up their balance sheets. In addition to this shock to the economy, the company I am describing elected to pull the trigger on their final plan. By the end of November all but two employees who were vested in the ESOP were terminated. The downsizing was completed when the company fired all of the original consultants in the field and reduced the company’s operations to those working with a potential suitor which was heretofore unknown to everyone, and those programmers working on upgrades to the patented software. The consulting division was no longer part of the business and the software division and those personnel were fired. As this occurred, questions began to arise about the financials of the company and thus legal counsel was sought by several former employees. What was discovered in that process explains why my exposure to vulture capitalism left me with a sour taste for people like Romney and the practices Bain Capital allegedly engaged in on a much large scale.

The employees discovered that the previous owners pocketed millions of dollars from their sale of the company via a financial accounting gimmick which locked their shares at a fixed price while the new owners were allowed to reset the valuation the stock held by the employees at a much lower level. Complicating the matter, as this was a private corporation, was the fact that the new management group headed by the investors paid themselves salaries far in excess of the old owners and in fact paid themselves and selected officers of the company (under contract it turned out) bonuses on a monthly basis further depleting a company which was formerly a cash cow loaded with reserves. To make matters worse, it was discovered that the two former owners reportedly did not pay any capital gains or income tax on their earnings during this period thanks to the accounting gimmicks.

The legal battle was short lived however as the lawyers would not accept the case without a large retainer as it was too risky to take the case on a contingency basis due to the firepower of the investment company’s legal team. When the Internal Revenue Service was contacted about the ESOP abuse, their answer from the field investigations office in Fort Lauderdale was that they have literally thousands of these cases and the small amounts involved, under twenty-five million dollars, did not justify the expense of an investigation. To add insult to industry they said that without the copies of the books from the company before it was acquired and after, there was not much they could do and the personnel involved in the accounting department probably should have taken copies of all the financials home with them, that’s right stealing them, so they would have a ‘basis’ for an investigation. Then the I.R.S. told the employees to call the Department of Labor who offered the classical bureaucratic response to fill out a form, send the data to them, and they would “see what they could do.” The end result was the rape and pillage of a perfectly profitable company where the owners pocketed millions, the investors pocketed tens of millions from the sale of the assets to a multinational corporation, and the former employees ended up with hardly anything.

The final check from the ESOP settlement, once valued at north of $400,000 was a whopping $1.89 to most of the vested employees. We never cashed that check but kept it as a reminder to be vigilant for corruption and liars in the future and to never be suckered again by the scum and wolves who offer you a martini, a handshake, and their “friendship” and then end up playing the role of betraying one’s trust. Thus why my experience with vulture capitalism leaves me withe a somewhat jaded view of Mitt Romney and his experience at Bain Capital. The American people had best take a long hard look at his record of shifting moral and Constitutional views and opinions but most of all they had best decide if this is an issue of trust.

America had best wake up and look at Romney’s entire record, before President Judas is sworn into office and sells our nation out to globalist interests to further his personal power and wealth at the expense of our nation’s future.

[vector7]

Romney camp considered ‘Yes We Can’ in 2008

• Posted on January 13, 2012 at 5:24pm by Eddie Scarry
• Comments (6)

“Yes We Can,” a slogan popularized by President Barack Obama‘s 2008 election campaign and Kohl’s Department Store, was almost used in Mitt Romney‘s own ’08 presidential bid.

The detail is included in the new book “The Real Mitt Romney”:

One of the campaign’s chief concerns was that Romney would be tagged, as one slide put it, as “Flip-flop Mitt,” given his changes on issues such as abortion. The media team urged Romney to counter that with a forward-looking brand. One of the slides suggested that Romney use this as his catchphrase: ‘Yes, we can.’ But Barack Obama would take it before Romney could.

The book is set to be published Jan. 17.
h/t Huffington Post

Romney WILL lose against Barack Obama: Republicans don’t be fooled

Written By: Staffwriter - Jan• 10•12

The media is already touting Romney’s first GOP candidate to win both Iowa caucus & New Hampshire primary.

But that does not make Romney a winner against Barack Obama in November. What we are seeing in the 2012 GOP race is what we saw in 2008 with the Democrats. The party establishment has decided who the voter is to accept as the parties nominee, but unlike 2008, the GOP will not win against Barack Obama if the nominee is Mitt Romney.

Let us explain how we come to our opinion in this matter. The GOP is a splintered party and has failed to come out in force in recent years behind a single candidate. Even if those who identify themselves as being Republican came out in November 2012 in full force behind an RNC installed Mitt Romney it would not be enough. Why you ask? Simple, Romney is another John McCain. Romney has had more positions than what is listed in 365 Sex Positions: A New Way Every Day… And John McCain, who recently performed the Arizona back-step with Greta Van Susteren over his 2008 campaign ad “A tale of two Mitt’s’ has demonstrated some of those many different positions already.



Romney is another John McCain in that neither he nor the RNC has the guts it will require to take the fight directly to Barack Obama. Romney has already pulled a clear John McCain in his speech in Iowa January 3, 2012 when he said “President Obama is a good man.” John McCain made the same mistake in 2008 and Mitt Romney has already begun his “I am entitled to be the GOP Nominee” attitude.

Republicans might want to remember what took place in California after Proposition 8 passed. You better remember the radical Gay rights protesters who targeted the Mormon Church and California Mormon business owners and citizens who donated money to the prop 8 campaign. Mitt Romney will not win against Barack Obama no matter which “Mitt” the Romney camp tries to put on the nightly news cast or campaign ads. Even though those of us here at LarrySinclair.org supported Ca’s Prop 8, we also know that a Mitt Romney candidacy will face a very organized and powerful radical gay rights backlash which will bring out more gay support for Obama than the GOP seems to understand. The radical gay rights group are just one of many voting blocks that will come out in massive numbers to support Obama over a Mitt Romney.

Republican voters better decide to take control of their vote back from the RNC and go vote in the primaries and caucuses in your state. Do not go and vote based on what the GOP/RNC establishment tells you; or what FOX News personalities like Britt Hume tells you; vote what you believe and for who you believe represents where America needs to go and who you believe will have the guts to take it to Barack Obama. Do not let the GOP elders tell you who you have to vote for and do not fall victim to this “unless you want another four years of Obama you better nominate Romney and put an end to the GOP primary race.”

Today we still believe Ann Coulter was sober and on to something when she said this in Feb 2011 “If we don’ t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose,” and we also believe Ann was either drunk or was experiencing a contact high from all the fumes she was breathing when she said this on December 13, 2011, “I think it’s going to be Romney, I think Romney is the strongest candidate and I think Republicans want to beat Obama and Romney is the best one to do that.”

We are NOT in any way, shape or form endorsing anyone in the GOP Presidential nomination process. We are however pointing out that the Party “elders” and or “establishment” has demonstrated that they are more concerned with selecting a nominee they can or will control as opposed to allowing the process to work by letting the Republican voter decide who they want to represent them. We are pointing out that the GOP establishment has taken up attacking and bad mouthing other GOP primary candidates who have far more qualifications than Romney not because they can’t beat Obama (we believe a number of candidates can beat Obama) but because the GOP establishment can’t get over having to do the job they were elected to do years ago.

Mark our words, here and now, if Mitt Romney is installed as the GOP nominee we WILL have four more years of Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney’s comment tonight in New Hampshire “the American free enterprise has come under attack by some desperate republicans…” shows Romney hasn’t a clue on how to beat Barack Obama. Mr. Romney, your campaign adds which are covering the air ways promoting your years at Bain Capital and touting your record of creating jobs is a valid issue to call you on, and being called on it by your GOP opponents is far better than waiting until you are installed as the GOP nominee and the Obama camp tear you to shreds over it.

[vector7]

George Soros: Not "Much Difference" Between Romney And Obama

George Soros on Obama vs. Romney



Billionaire investor George Soros explains why there wouldn't be much difference for Wall Street between President Obama and Mitt Romney. He also tells Chrystia Freeland why his billionaire constituents see him as a traitor to his class.

"If it's between Obama and Romney, there isn't all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them," George Soros told Reuters in Davos, Switzerland.

"So it won't be that great a difference and I think there won't be a great deal of enthusiasm on either side of the battleground. It will be more civilised than the previous elections have been," he also said.

[Ryan Ruck]

I heard this on Mark Levin's show last night.

YouTube: Romney-Kennedy Health Care Bill Signing - Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA, April 12, 2006

[Ryan Ruck]

Sarah Palin: ‘Not Convinced’ About Romney

February 12, 2012

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Sunday she’s “not convinced” Mitt Romney is a true conservative Republicans could trust in the White House.

“Most voters in the GOP, and independents, we will want to see that candidate who we can trust will just inherently, instinctively turn right – always err on the side of conservatism,” Palin said on Fox News Sunday, according to The Hill. “I am not convinced [Romney is that person]. And I don’t think that the majority of GOP and Independent voters are convinced, and that is why you don’t see Romney get over that hump.”

Palin‘s comments came the morning after Romney’s victory in the Maine caucuses and the day after she spoke at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference where Romney also won the presidential straw poll among attendees.

According to Politico, Palin called Romney a “great candidate” but went on to criticize his past.

“I trust that his idea of conservatism is evolving, and I base this on a pretty moderate past that he has had, even in some cases a liberal past,” she told Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “He agreed with mandating on a state level what his constituents needed to be provided, needed to purchase, in the way of health care, and Romneycare which of course was the precursor to Obamneycare — to Obamacare. Now that’s a problem.”

She repeated her previous calls for a protracted primary season, saying it will ultimately produce the best candidate.

“I believe [the candidates are] getting stronger. They’re getting better. That’s what competition provides, and that’s why I want to see the competition continue,” Palin said, according to National Journal.

Watch below, via Mediaite:

(Video not working)

Addressing the other candidate’s strengths, she said Rick Santorum is “quite bold about social issues” and said Newt Gingrich has an “historical perspective of how America was built.” She did not mention Ron Paul.

She did not detail the candidates’ drawbacks, saying “We already know that the left, and the media allies to the left, are gonna beat up our candidates“ and ”we don’t need to do that job for them.”

Asked about actress Julianne Moore’s portrayal of her in the latest trailer released for HBO’s upcoming film “Game Change,” Palin scoffed.

“I think we’re gonna call that the Sarah Palin employment act and you guys need to thank me for employing more people probably in their imitations of Sarah Palin than the president has put people to work.”

[American Patriot]

Obamneycare

/chuckles

Was that a Freudian Slip or did she purposely use that phrase? lol

[American Patriot]

Lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!

asked about actress julianne moore’s portrayal of her in the latest trailer released for hbo’s upcoming film “game change,” palin scoffed.

“i think we’re gonna call that the sarah palin employment act and you guys need to thank me for employing more people probably in their imitations of sarah palin than the president has put people to work.”