Posted on 06/15/2011 3:23:17 PM PDT by techno
Why thanks so much, oh wise one, for pointing out my “supreme” ignorance. If it is as you say, why waste a moment of your superior life defending Palin to one as lowly as me.
Actually, I wasn’t one of the most dedicated Romney people. I was hoping Fred Thompson would get in the race. I didn’t even formally support him as my only choice until Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, by which time even Rush Limbaugh was urging people to vote for Romney.
But you can certainly re-write history any way you want. At least in 2007 you could be seen as principly attacking a candidate widely panned in conservative circles. Now you are attacking the darling of the tea party.
As I said, if the owner of the site wishes to tell freepers to stop defending Michelle Bachmann against false, unsupported smears, I will stop. Until then, as a Palin supporter I will call out people who, in her name, make unsubtantiated attacks on other conservatives. And if you want to defend yourself against that charge, I suggest you find a tweet or facebook post from Palin agreeing with your attack. I haven’t seen it, and I don’t expect it, because Palin is much classier than some of her supporters.
Not true that “no one” has been as closely examined as Palin. With the exception of the pass given Obama, potential presidential candidates are routinely scrutinized in incredible detail. Also, no one knows “everything” there is to know about any other person. 20,000 emails are nothing compared to the papers of many historical figures, and yet people still debate them. Do not mistake the fact nothing particularly negative was found in those mostly routine business emails with them giving in depth insight into the private person.
I stand in awe of your ignorance, you are just posting nonsense.
I didn’t attack Palin. It’s pretty brazen of you to claim that an attack on your unfounded charges is an attack on Palin, when Palin herself hasn’t joined your bizarre theory.
Some Palin supporters like to pretend they speak for her, and that attacks on them are attacks on her. I contend that those supporters attack Palin by associating her with their rantings.
You’re going to look pretty foolish running around claiming that all the Bachmann supporters are actually pro-Romney.
BTW, Ed Rollins was Mike Huckabee’s campaign manager in 2007, when that campaign was non-stop Anti-Romney. Of course, I believe part of your argument is that Rollins is also a pro-Romney plant. Apparently the 2008 presidential primary was part of a long-term secret plan by Rollins to gain anti-Romney credence for the 2012 election (my theory, much less convoluted, is that Ed Rollins is an opportunist and a publicity hound who attacked Palin because it got him national attention).
Just as Michelle Bachmann’s entire life as a strong conservative was apparently part of a manchurian strategy to support Romney in 2012. Fooled us all, she did.
BTW, you know who else went out of their way NOT to attack Romney in the debate? Herman Cain. And Rick Pawlenty, and apparently every other person on stage. Maybe the entire set of candidates are all just stalking horses for Romney.
Yes, Pat Buchanan. I don’t need to recall some long ago radio and early TV personality. I remember more recent history quite well. Before his first presidential run, Buchanan was every bit the darling of conservatives that Palin is now, and for most of the same reasons. He imploded after winning NH. Palin, I believe, is not going to run. We’ll see. If she does not run, she will demonstrate more wisdom than Buchanan did. Time will soon tell, because it’s getting late in the day for putting a campaign organization together.
Like most conservatives, I was thrilled McCain put her on the ticket in ‘08. But my opinion of her has steadily eroded since then, to the point where I now do, indeed, see her as I’ve described in this thread. You folks who feel compelled to defend her against all comers can’t force people to see things as you do. Only Palin can change hearts and minds by her actions.
You were always one of the very top Romney defenders, all the time denying it, and in regards to Bachmann’s campaign launch, they aren’t smears if it happened, you are lying when you deny that Bachmann has gone after Palin and has pointedly ignored Romney.
Now here you are again, another election and another cycle of you pushing Romney in your indirect way, this time as a true “Palin supporter” just like last time you were rabidly defending Romney as a true “Thompson” supporter
Man, you and GOP_Lady, and all the other Romneybots, well I guess there are fewer of you this time, it will be interesting to see if you succeed in keeping your Romney support as low key and hidden as you hope, and that you pride yourself on.
Hahahaha, I take that as a warm compliment coming from the likes of you. You know what they say, “ignorance is bliss.” Snicker...
That link has a much more serious and reasonable discussion of the Bachmann "strategy", along with the same critique I gave it when it first happened. The HotAir folks manage to discuss it without guilt-by-association attacks or false accusations. You should try that sometime.
Bachmann's number one problem is being seen as the "poor man's Sarah Palin". Rollin's remarks I think were the wrong way to solve that problem, but were clearly meant to attack that problem. It's hard to have a serious discussion about politics when some folks want to circumvent logic and just throw names around. But it's clear that some people don't care to discuss.
Bachmann in fact has been fighting the tea party fight for a LONG TIME. She may not be the right person to carry the banner as the Presidential candidate -- but it's stupid to try to smear her as some RINO-enabler.
And of course the Cain campaign didn't trash Palin, like the Bachmann campaign did.
I’m curious to see how you handle pushing Romney after Bachmann drops out, I know that you will always find a Romney path.
You should also notice that Cain, who leads Bachmann, and is closer to Palin in the polls, has not been called a stalking horse by anybody.
He’s not a woman, and I don’t believe Palin supporters see him as a real threat to her base of support.
Cain is a conservative. Cain is doing better in the so-called polls than Bachmann. Cain is more of a threat to Palin than Bachmann. It has nothing to do the sex of the candidates. Why would you accuse Palin supports of going after Bachmann because she is another women.
Sheesh Charles.
LOL!
As I said nobody is calling Cain a stalking horse. I would also add that nobody called Bachmann a stalking horse before Rollins made those remarks, before Bachmann's silence on the Rollins remarks, before Bachmann refused to answer a question about Romneycare and before the LSM started promoting Bachmann.
Bachmann invited attacks because of Rollins. But it’s usually the left that makes up stuff about candidates.
The Bachmann attacks on Palin were straight from the left playbook.
The relevance of "A FACE IN THE CROWD" was not just timely almost 60 years ago; it can be used today............just NOT for Sarah Palin! Glenn beck comes to mind, actually, and for very good reasons, which if you are unable to comprehend, I'll be more than happy to explain to you.
Your second stab at finding someone, anyone, relevant or not, to equate Palin to, Pat Buchanan, is also a nonstarter and in spades!
Pat has been ridiculed here and long before FR ever existed, due to his many flaws. Again, you don't know what you're talking about ! You've been here a rather long time, yet claim that conservatives supported him? IN WHAT UNIVERSE?
Frankly, I don't believe that you were "thrilled" at all, when Palin was chosen for the VEEP spot.
I haven't been "defending" Palin; I've been showing you the errors and mordant stupidity in every single post you've made on this thread, of which there have been many!
I'm more than up to listen to all opinions.....but they have to be factual and have some meaning to them; otherwise, they are worthless.........as all of yours have been.
And FYI................nobody in the political sphere has had so much dumped on them and have been so "investigated" as Sarah Palin and all of her family and friends, in the history of this nation! Go look up our history and just in case you really will do so, I'll be more than pleased to give you some book titles that will help.
I am not in the pro-Romney crowd, but I do not think Palin's numbers look good. Yet.
I am in the pro-objective-reality crowd.
you are lying when you deny that Bachmann has gone after Palin and has pointedly ignored Romney.
I never said that. In fact, I said that Rollins was stupid for attacking Palin. And I provided links to articles that discussed Bachmann's campaign attack on Palin. And I said that nobody at the debate attacked Romney, and Bachmann was AT the debate.
So I have in fact said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you accuse me of saying. And you accuse me falsely because you can't defend what YOU appear to be supporting, which is the unsupported charge that Bachmann is actually a stalking horse for Mitt Romney.
In this thread I am defending Michelle Bachmann, darling of the tea party, the person who gave the "official" tea party response to the SOTU, from unsubstantiated attacks linking her to the Romney campaign. And you are trying to equate that to "supporting Romney", which simply continues your baseless belief that support for Bachmann is actually support for Romney.
I made it clear in 2007 why I was defending Romney. It turned out I was accurate in my fear. Conservatives couldn't get behind a single candidate, and in the end the only hope we had left to stop John McCain was Mitt Romney. Rush Limbaugh understood that. Mark Levin understood that. My goal was to keep the inaccurate attacks on Romney at bay, so that if it turned out he was our only hope, he wouldn't be too damaged.
Unfortunately, Huckabee came out of nowhere, and was able to split the vote enough that McCain won. I understand that there are more than a few freepers who found that preferable to a Romney candidacy. I would have preferred a Thompson candidacy, but like Rush Limbaugh I would rather have had Romney than McCain (although in retrospect we might not have Palin now if not for McCain's candidacy. I think we don't know yet whether McCain's pick of Palin in 2008 will be seen as helpful or hurtful, at the moment it seems helpful).
I was probably the BEST Romney defender here. Most of his "defenders" were his rabid supporters, who made rediculous defenses, attacked other candidates to distract people, and defended him against the truthful attacks. They were much like a few of the Palin supporters are now, and actually how many strong candidate supporters tend to be.
I was more effective because I tried to stick to the facts, only defended against charges that I thought were incorrect, and was up front about Romney's flaws, and about why I was willing to ignore or discount his past. That gave my arguments some level of credibility.
I don't know how you could claim I ever denied being a top Romney defender. I deny being a top Romney SUPPORTER. Romney was my 3rd pick; consequently, he was the 3rd candidate I actually gave money to. (Hunter and Thompson were the other two). Hunter was a lost cause of course. Thompson was the only guy I thought could seriously win the nomination and stop Giuiliani, McCain, and Huckabee, all of whom I rated below Romney.
I don't actually support Romney in any fashion this time around, as he lost me with his lame defenses of the Mass. health care program. And I found the site's banning any defense of Romney to be a relief. I don't want to defend him this time around anyway, and now when someone attacks him, I know we aren't allowed to say anything, so I don't feel burdened to do so.
And since everybody at the site knows that you get banned for even suggesting anything good about Romney, nobody reading this site is under any misimpression that they are getting an unbiased viewpoint on that matter.
But as I said, we are still allowed to defend Michelle Bachmann. And as much as I would prefer Palin to Bachmann, given the irrational smears heaped upon Palin, I see no need to support irrational smears against another good conservative.
Rollins said that Palin wasn't a serious presidential contender. I disagree with him, but I don't see that, coming from Ed Rollins, as nearly as vicious a smear as someone on FreeRepublic claiming that Michelle Bachmann is a closet Romney supporter vying for the VP slot on his ticket.
If you actually find some real evidence for that, it would certainly make me even less likely to support her. But I see no reason to believe from Bachmann's record that she could ever do that. And yes, I know that some otherwise strong conservatives HAVE endorsed Romney in the past, but that was in 2008 when there weren't any really viable better conservative candidates. That isn't a problem this time around.
I know one thing I'm not doing this time around is pining for a candidate who isn't in the race.
I don’t recall you ever being so open, thanks for letting a little sunshine into your true self.
I am in the anti-Romney crowd. The numbers look fine to me.
Cain is ahead of Bachmann in this one poll.
At the start of May, the two leading candidates were Trump and Huckabee, both of whom are gone.
Bachmann clearly doesn’t see Cain has her biggest rival, she sees the other woman in the race, because they share a natural constituency (not just because she is a woman, but in part because being a woman she has been closely linked with Palin, and has an unofficial label as the “B-version” of Sarah Palin. That’s what she has to overcome, although in my opinion it was stupid to do so by attacking Palin, especially before Palin is in the race, when she should instead be trying to get Palin’s endorsement (in my opinion).
I don’t think Cain is any more of a conservative than Michelle Bachmann. I also don’t think Cain is more of a threat to Palin than Bachmann, although I might be persuaded that Palin is as much a threat to Cain as Bachmann.
In my opinion, Bachmann polls low because the media has convinced us that Bachmann is too radical and disliked to be a serious contender. I think Cain polls well because he is the substitute for Palin for conservatives who think Bachmann can’t win.
Bachmann’s campaign has attacked Cain as well, and in much the same way, citing his inexperience in poltiics and government. But those attacks don’t really get media coverage, because who cares what a 3rd-tier candidate says about another 3rd-tier candidate? Attacking Palin makes national news.
Palin supporters are going after Bachmann because Bachmann’s campaign said something negative about Palin. But I’m sure you knew that, so my answer to you was why I believe we are in the situation we are in, not a claim that Palin supporters are attacking Bachmann because she is a woman. Palin supporters clearly will support a female for President, after all. I hoped that this would be obvious, but I should have made that more clear, and not been so flippant in my response.
Charles,
Rollins has said the following as Bachmann's campaign manager.
"Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years"
"She got the vice-presidential thing handed to her. She didn't go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance. She gave up her governorship."
yeah Perry does pretty good and it appears his support is coming from Mitt.. I would imagine he draws the ABPP conservatives away from Mitt. which is what I thought. I doubt Perry would hurt Palin much at first. He would be their second or third choice if Palin falters....but out of the gate I think he hurts Mitt the most...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.