Posted on 05/11/2009 12:59:40 AM PDT by Candor7
This is because Obama is in effect not a person, he's a teleprompter text writing committee.
yeah, he was ‘manufactured’. Nothing ‘real’ about him.
Sarah showed the proper respect which was due her would-be CIC in the 2008 race. John McCain asked her to cooperate with the staff that he picked, and she did. This was a completely appropriate execution of her role, even though it was frustrating to her and required hiding some of her light under a bushel.
This cannot at all be fairly extrapolated to how she would personally serve in a CIC role. This is much more accurately projected from her work as governor of Alaska, which has ranged from excellent to stellar. If the roaming buffalo chip is getting its evaluation chiefly from her vice presidential campaign, then its evaluation is worth about as much as a buffalo chip.
Please don't spin what was said into something less damaging.
Specifically< Virginia Ridgerunner said:
Well, considering that the McCain campaign and the backstabbing staff he imposed upon her pretty much made all of her decisions for her, at least until the last week of the campaign, I'd say that she had NO choice about who interviewed her and the venue.
At any rate, neither argument is good. Saying that she cooperated and went along against her better judgment is just as damaging to your cause as saying she was forced.
This cannot at all be fairly extrapolated to how she would personally serve in a CIC role.
I disagree. Neither position shows the sort of fortitude needed to run the most powerful nation on the planet. Going along to get along is no better than allowing others, especially others who you know are not qualified, to make your decisions.
You know that your onto something. When 3 1/2 years out from the next election, that they are constantly trying to destroy her. That is both Dims & Elite Republicans. She got my vote last outing and so will she again. I’ll put my money where my vote is going.
I undersand totally where VR is coming from.
Most of the Gov. Palin bashing is from the Sanford
(clone of L Ron Paul) people.
His anti war, and comments such as “People who want
Obama to fail are idiots”
are a small example where this wannabe but never will
is coming from.
I suppose she could have worn the pants. It might have even kicked McCain over the finish line. But this evangelical Christian lady did what she was brought up, what the bible itself admonishes her, to do. You are completely ignoring her Alaskan record, which would put you to complete shame.
Well, bunny, since you want to presume to analyze my thoughts on this issue further, let’s look at the original stories to see how McCain’s staff and Governor Palin interacted:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=6196407&page=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13355.html
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/11/06/the-trashing-of-sarah-palin-by-mccain-staff/
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/palin_mccain_culvahouse/2009/04/17/204370.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4926283.ece
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14929.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/26/McCain-Palin-camps-spar-over-prayer-story/UPI-69951238117864/
BTW, I’m a “he” from southwestern Virginia.
You’re really stretching it. But you NEED to do that. You have no idea why she did what you think she did. What did she pick out of her teeth this afternoon? Any clue? It tells a lot about a person. What about lunch - did she skip it today or have a tuna sandwich? It’s all so important. We need to know before election day!!
thanks, I’ll post the link again.
HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED-INTERVIEWS WITH OBAMA VOTERS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
That’s about as much as I can do to show Freepers what (as you correctly commented,) conservatives are up against, as an Aussie I find it painful and sad to see how fragmented Republican voters are.While you argue about the attributes of the candidate, (and often refuse to vote if he is not up to your personal standard,) the Dems run away with the prize.
First, I'd like to say that I think Sarah Palin is a bright person, is very capable, and that she can and should do well. She seems to have an innate understanding of what conservatism means, which is vitally important.
I think McCain asked her to run for his own reasons, used her, and never had her best interests at heart. I believe he continues to not have her best interests at heart.
That said, she needs more experience, and should not have run with McCain, as many of the links you posted seem to show. She was in a position of having to rely on people who didn't have her best interests at heart, and wasn't able to do much about it. But that was what happened when she decided to run with McCain who had already run a lousy, lackluster campaign. What part of anything that happened next surprised anyone?
I think she made a serious mistake in accepting his request to run, because she was clearly not ready.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=6196407&page=1
This is about how McCain's campaign treated Palin badly and ratted her out to the press, written two days after the election. If this is true (and it almost certainly is, given McCain's insane campaign), just reinforces the idea that she should not have listened to the McCain camp from the get go if she couldn't get along with them, and should have built her own campaign staff. She didn't, though, and would come to regret it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13355.html
This is about how McCain's staff "augmented" Palin's own staff. I'm not sure what this is supposed to show, but what it tells me is that she did what McCain's people told her to, to her own detriment. While that may be the nice thing to have done, "nice" doesn't equate "presidential".
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/11/06/the-trashing-of-sarah-palin-by-mccain-staff/
Written 2 days after the election, another story about how McCain's people trashed her. This can be looked at several different ways: she was too nice to them, in the face of their treachery; she was unable to control them; she didn't engender loyalty in them. None of those translate into appearing presidential.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/palin_mccain_culvahouse/2009/04/17/204370.html
Written in April of 2009, about how Palin had been a "high risk" running mate. I don't see how this could possibly help her, so maybe you could explain it? It does say that she disclosed her daughter's pregnancy prior to the pick, but again, that is what is supposed to happen, nothing noteworthy.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/26/palin-pushes-mccain-staff-aside-as-blame-game-begins/
Written 9 days before the election, it says that Palin had finally started pulling away from McCain.
The article also mentions the Katie Couric interviews. That would be the same Katie Couric interviews where Palin said she did support McCain's pro-cap & trade position (^), but couldn't name a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with (^), or list a newspaper she reads by name. (^)
I'm sure she can name Supreme Court cases and magazines, but she she doesn't speak extemporaneously very well at all. It's a skill, it can be learned, and she needs to practice.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4926283.ece
An article about how Palin was campaigning more aggressively than McCain was, and how there was division about how aggressively they thought campaigning should be. Dated 10/12/08. Interesting, especially these paragraphs:
Despite the attacks, Obama, 47, increased his average poll lead last week to eight points over McCain. The assaults on his character have enabled him to criticise McCain for “stoking anger and division” when the economy is collapsing.
Her aggressive stance may not have worked, according to the article you cite.
However, Palin is no longer helping to attract women and independent voters to the Republican ticket. A poll for Fox News last week showed that while 47% of voters regard the Alaska governor favourably, 42% now have an unfavourable opinion of her.
Is that good news, in your opinion? The stepped up attacks hurt the McCain campaign, and women's opinion of her went down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14929.html
Another story from October of last year, about the McCain staff savaging her, and her going off on her own. Not being able to control staffers isn't indicative of strong leadership.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/26/McCain-Palin-camps-spar-over-prayer-story/UPI-69951238117864/
Another story about how Palin couldn't control staffers from the McCain campaign, and resorted to complaining publicly to the media about those people and how they wouldn't pray with her?
Again: is this supposed to make voters feel that this is an executive who can handle things? She can't control a bunch of campaign workers, complains about them in public, but she can run the United States government?
Was there some other message here that I missed?
Governor Palin needs to retreat, do her job, and make Alaska a better place to live. Her supporters need to understand that she has made some mistakes, admit them, and try not to make her into a saint or discourage others from criticize here. In doing so, they excuse behavior that they shouldn't, and turn away potential supporters.
BTW, I’m a “he” from southwestern Virginia.
Apologies for not being sure about it before. I have relatives near Gate City.
Nice to meet you.
If she runs , and is funded, you can bet that she will also elevate the standards of the Republicans who step forward into the contest. Petraeus maybe, for example.
We are runnung out of time wool gatherinng about style issues, not a good thing.
We need solid grass roots because we do not have the MSM, and will not get that.Organizing grass roots takes time and right now we have time, but we will not much longer. You can ait for perfection, but we should be going with what we have, The alternative is unthinkable.
We need unity and people are arguing about which color the lollipops should be....or ELSE!!!
What a bunch of whiners.
We have to get moving or soon it will be too late, and the Republican party has no one who will effectively criticise Obama except for Dick Cheney?
SHEESH! Shoe Sarah the money, and watch her take off. At least she will wake up much of America with the backlash she receives.
And she might just take the prize and should, if the likes of Obama did.
I’m holding out to see if Hunter decides to run again. In the meantime, I suggest Sarah write some position papers or something similar. She may be the GOPs great white hope, but at this time I’m not convinced and I’m not even sure she will run. We’ll discuss it more after if/when she announces she’s running.
Now kids, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Nobody is a bigger Sarah Palin fan than I. I’m a repeat donor to her PAC and maxed out to her legal defense fund. I busted my ass for a week in Nevada right before the election out of my regard for Sarah Palin, not John McLame.
However, it’s yet early to be bickering over 2012. Sanford or someone unsuspected may prove to be a stronger candidate. For that matter, Sarah may not even run. Perhaps her destiny is to be a Senator or Secretary of Energy prior to shooting for the Presidency. Maybe she’ll go ahead and do the commentator thing for a while. Maybe she’ll never even run for the job.
I think we can all agree that whatever she does, she is going to be a powerful voice for fiscal restraint and Constitutional government, and a mighty kingmaker in the Republican party. Her values, by and large, are my values, and I will support her career in support of my values. But it takes nothing away from her appeal and accomplishments to recognize that she may not be the silver bullet to beat Obama. Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.
Bump to the top for this WINNER
Likewise, FRiend. Don't take this as me "callin' you out" by any means...
[...] how is her record NOT Conservative?
I base my opinion on the time-tested formula: "How is the candidate able to embrace the principles of all three pillars of Conservatism?" As you are no doubt aware, this is the definition of a Conservative, and has been since the Reagan reformation, and has nearly always been so, even before Reagan.
To vote for, or support, a candidate who does not fully embrace the basic principles of all three factions is to encourage factionalism - Factional opposition and infighting in the primaries is nearly guaranteed.
So, kindly put away infatuation and limelight, as those can be manufactured for any candidate, and focus upon her actual record and her quotes critically, just as you would for any other candidate, and answer how she DOES embrace the principles of all of the factions.
For the SoCons, arguably her strongest suit, The primary issue is Pro-Life. Does she support the main-line Pro-Life position that Life is a Constitutional matter? No, she does not. She believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue should be returned to the states.
So right away, Life becomes a wedge issue, dividing the Christian Right in the primary. Do you suppose the Value Voters, whom the Republicans ignored the last time around, are going to give her a pass?
For the FiCons/libertarians, Her record does indeed show her cutting taxes, but like any moderate, she also likes big projects, and cutting spending does not follow the tax cutting. Wherever she has officiated, when she leaves, somebody is paying for more than when she left.
In Wasilla, she certainly took an axe to the local bureaucracy, but followed those savings with a civic center which cost more than what she had saved, at least for several outgoing years.
As governor, any "cuts" she made were completely offset (and more) by the dastardly pro-rated windfall profits tax (oops, I mean fees) she exacted from oil companies.
To any true Conservative (not to mention libertarian), who has been fighting the liberals' insistence of this exact scheme on a national level, to hear her touting this as one of her great victories is rankling to say the very least.
Her budget this year is quite conservative, but a good bit of that, I'd reckon, is because most of those windfall profits taxes (oops, I mean fees), gouged from the oil companies, were subsequently lost in the market crash, and if my friends in the oil patch are to be trusted, that big time money she got out of the oil companies will never occur again, as they will just shift their AK work onto federal lands if profits get close to the mark.
Again, this drives a wedge into the FiCon and libertarian camp on this issue alone, not to mention her advocacy *for* "immigration reform", another hot-button libertarian issue.
For the DefCon/Foreign policy wing, one must admit that this is a very weak faction for her generally. She does have a boy in the service, and that is a good thing, but that is not the sort of thing that warriors will bend a knee to.
They would prefer one of their own. Battle tested. If not that, they would at least have some regard for one who is experienced enough in foreign policy to be able to control the State Dept effectively and keep their a$$es out of hot zones unless there is a good reason for it.
If the choice is between a Palin and a Petraeus in the primary, I would bet good money that the DefCons would drop Palin like a hot rock, and rightfully so. Her "Iron Lady" persona, unlike Maggie Thatcher, is completely untested. No one knows if she has the cajones to do what must be done or not.
Lastly, I find it extremely uncomfortable that she keeps returning to the moderates/liberals to lend her fame to them and give them credence. If she is indeed the Conservative you yearn for, why doesn't she use her fame to join with the House Conservatives to lift them up?
Why does she surround herself with Bakerites and liberals when a Conservative would naturally gravitate toward Reaganites and libertarians?
These are generalities which are well known. I can give you links if you'd like, but I will have to wait till I am on my server tomorrow, as I don't keep a "Palin Truth file" or anything close to hand... I can probably dig links out of my backups though.
As a Reaganite, I will gladly extend the same challenge on this thread that I have on others- Defend her on the 3 pillars and I will defend against her. On the record ONLY, attributable quotes and actual articles/record/reference are acceptable, not commentary/blogs/editorial sunshine crap.
So far, that challenge remains without takers. I think that is because folks know in their hearts that it can't be done.
see my #158
see my #158
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.