Posted on 03/27/2010 1:48:22 PM PDT by reasonisfaith
Anyone who abandons support for Sarah Palin because she campaigned for McCain is going to have to demonstrate a bit of consistency. Otherwise, sincerity and honesty are liable to come into question.
The argument can be reduce to this core notion: Palin’s support of McCain means she is equivalent to McCain. In other words, in political terms she is the same thing as McCain.
So if this is the way things are supposed to be done, of course we will have to abandon support for anyone else supporting McCain in the Arizona primary. Maybe this will make some of us slow down a bit.
But that’s not all. Because if support for McCain bestows a sort of mathematical, political equivalence with him, then that equivalence carries through with even more distant political alliances. By which I mean, we will be forced to reject any particular politician x who supports Palin, and by the same means we must reject any politician y who supports politician x. And for any politician z who supports politician y, you’re not getting our vote either.
If we are to be consistent, we must identify the chain of support all the way down the line. Because the entire chain is defined by the initial link. The initial link which is Palin’s support of McCain.
So it never ends in this game of political equivalence, until all the dominoes have fallen. Silly at best, self destructive at worst. I think the error in judgment took place in the beginning, with the conclusion that Palin’s support of McCain somehow transformed her into McCain himself.
It’s a form of tunnelvision--an inability to comprehend the importance of the larger context--otherwise known as a lack of common sense.
And then there are the socialists disguised as conservative posters, whose life agenda is to thwart Sarah Palin. They aim to stop her or any other Reagan-like individual who would threaten to save our country from Marxism.
A much better approach is to slow down and look at the individual, making a common sense judgment of their standing based on their entire record. And always focus on principles.
Oh, no.
I’m starting to feel twinges of affection for the trolls.
That’s one of our Saul Alinsky tricks. Be likable.
parsy, who is now ducking for cover.
Here are some facts.
Palin crossed the aisle to get Dems to go along with an increase in taxes on the oil companies.
Palin prior to deciding to join McCain stated that she did not endorse McCain because of his stance on ANWR.
McCain never changed his stance leaving Alaska and ANWR on the chopping block.
We Alaskans who voted for her to become Governor see her supporting a Senator who is against everything about Alaska and now she wants to make a travelogue aout Alaska while supporting McCain.
Your vanity is based on the antics of emtionalism and foolishness.
EXACTLY! They miss the point that it is not a two part equation... This contest is a three part equation, involving a far better candidate: JD Hayworth. The issue cannot be reduced to that of Palin’s electability, because she is NOT running for office. So all the subterfuge that McCain supporters are throwing out so to diffuse legitimate criticism of Palin not supporting a true conservative (especially when it is McCain we are looking to oust) is plain bull crap. They are comparing apples and oranges. We are not disputing Palin’s credentials, we are disputing the logic of supporting a RINO SOB versus supporting a viable strong conservative. It may be politically expedient in some twisted way, but it is not the best move for the country... and especially now!
Oh, so its OK if she throws America under the bus to save McLame’s hide? What are you going to say if McCain gets another 6-year shot at shoving amnesty down our throats because Hayworth loses due to Palin’s influence? When RINO Johnny Jerk-off starts voting with the socialists for another six years... are you going to say we should cut him slack because Palin did?
Excellent points! I agree, and especially with the last.
You just do not get it, do you?
NO ONE IS EQUATING PALIN WITH MCCAIN!
That is sheer subterfuge on your part.
What we are all trying to hammer through your iron skull is that SUPPORT for John McCain, a RINO, is a DEFEAT for JD Hayworth, a CONSERVATIVE... AND THUS A DEFEAT FOR AMERICA!
I could care less what Palin’s justifications are at this point. The issue is that if McCain wins re-election, then AMERICA LOSES!
How much simpler can it be put to you?
Quote from post 16:
“’m only saying that Palin cannot be equated with McCain’s RINOism simply because she campaigns for his conservative principles.”
His “conservative principles”? Are you joking? McCain has no principles, never mind conservative ones!
But then you continue a few posts later...
Quote:
“And her support of McCain cannot be equated with his rino style of politics.”
Which is it? His conservative principles or his RINO style of politics? I think you are terribly confused, both of what the stakes are and of what the consequences will be should McJackass get another six years to screw America into oblivion... But hey, what the heck! We could do worse than Obama, right?
Reasoning?
Reason has no place in this subterfuge.
Palin is not the direct issue here, since she is not in office nor running for any office.
THE ISSUE IS John McCain... and the damage HE WILL DO, if HE gets RE-ELECTED TO OFFICE.
Do you think we should all make a deal with the Devil just to save face? Because that is exactly what you and the other spin doctors here seem to be arguing.
I supported Palin, I like Palin... a great deal... and I will likely support her should she decide to throw her hat in the ring come 2012 (If we still have a country by that time)
BUT PALIN IS WRONG ON THIS ONE DECISION. PERIOD.
“I want McCain to lose too. But I doubt that it’s going to happen.”
If McCain wins, it will be because NOBODY HERE STOOD UP TO STOP HIM... It will because you are all so damn enamored with and focused on whether or not the world loves Sarah Palin, that you were willing to let a DANGEROUS RINO obtain another SIX YEARS IN POWER, just so to spare Sarah a little humiliation (which will not matter one bit to her supporters were she to run for office again) when you COULD have worked hard to get a true CONSERVATIVE INTO McCAIN’S SEAT! DAMN IT!
EXCELLENT RESPONSE! However, unfortunately, I believe you are arguing with a concrete block.
Could not have said it better, sir!
I would say the problem with this whole mess is the fact that McCain says one thing and does another. If you look at what he says at Republican Conventions and when he’s campaigning, you’ll see that with his mouth he upholds conservatism perfectly. So when Palin campaigns for McCain, she is in fact only campaigning for conservative principles. The problem is that McCain realizes he can act like a rino without verbally contradicting conservative principles. You see, McCain never comes out and says “I stand for the principle of ridiculing conservatives and praising Marxists.” Yet he does it. He never says “I support the idea of casting just enough votes in the senate to maintain a conservative appearance while behaving politically in a way that sets conservatism back three more steps.” Yet that’s what he does. He never outright states “I support talking on the record like I support conservatism but acting politically like I’m a Marxist plant who was brainwashed when he was a POW.” Yet that’s how he behaves. You see, he says one thing on the record but in a very slippery and slimy way he does another. And he does it in a way that allows him to escape accountability.
So now you should understand that the term “McCain’s conservative principles” is a term which describes a real phenomenon. Not a sincere phenomenon, but a real one. Think carefully about this and you will be able to conceptualize how it is that we are forced to deal with McCain the leftist and McCain the conservative at the same time.
“We Alaskans who voted for her to become Governor see her supporting a Senator who is against everything about Alaska and now she wants to make a travelogue aout Alaska while supporting McCain.”
You make it sound like she is planning to have McCain on the show.
This exaggeration of yours indicates a strong possibility that you are engaged in deceptiveness.
I don’t think you are what you claim.
There are many conservatives who have supported RINOs and are currently doing so.
I want to see your lists, all of you, of who you are withdrawing support for, or otherwise consistently criticizing. Rubio, Hunter, Tancredo, DeMint, Ann Coulter, Bachmann, Mark Levin, Hayworth, Arpaio?
This is a case where logic will be our friend. Logic will define you as either genuine or as leftist frauds. (If you are leftists, how is it that you don’t realize the mirage of your “social justice?”)
All you state here is the fact that McCain speaks out of both sides of his mouth. But, more importantly, his ACTIONS are the opposite of his words. In other words, John McCain is not honorable, he is not trustworthy. All the more reason that Palin SHOULD distance herself from him, not stand by his side and lend support. A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.
Reasonisfaith, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You as much admit that McCain is a scoundrel: that his WORDS are deceitful and his ACTIONS are Marxists... But you think we should all line up behind him because Palin’s credibility is at stake, else you accuse us of being disingenuous... However, it is you who are using sophistry and intellectual dishonesty in your arguments.
I will not support a RINO ever again, and for the record, with the exception of the 2008 debacle, I never have. I voted for John McCain only because there was no other choice (considering what I knew of BHO); and having the hope that perhaps McCain would die in office, thus placing Palin at the helm, or in the alternative, that she would be in a better position to run for the office herself in 2012.
What seems to escape you is that that past situation DOES NOT THEREFORE COMMIT ME, OR ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE, TO THE SUPPORT OF A RINO. You expect conservatives to throw principle out the window WHEN A VIABLE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IS THE ALTERNATIVE? Are you out of your mind?
Your arguments are nothing more than circular logic, and I am done with this thread.
Should I show you the email between her and I in 2005?
I think I know what the hell I am talking about and you don’t.
The case made by you is that in effect she is just like any politican isn’t she.
But then there is the fact that she has a choice between a conservative and and a RINO.
Nice try.
Keeping one’s word is a rare commodity in today’s poltiical world.
I’m not anti-Palin, I’m anti-Cult of Personality.
And you are a cult member.
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.