...
Posted on 01/22/2010 10:39:43 PM PST by se_ohio_young_conservative
I've certainly seen a few of them around lately.
I never understood why liberals loathe Palin. What upsets me is it seems she is trying to appease and please the people that hate her.
Outside the Republican party example.. showing up on Oprah,
Inside example... campaigning for McCain.
I've always said that this kind of misplaced loyalty proved to be the Achilles Heel for George H. W. Bush, as well as George W. They both seemed to think that loyalty to their buddies took precedence over loyalty to the Constitution.
We need to learn to elect curmudgeons to higher office--men with few friends, a family they can take or leave, and no pathological need to be liked.
I have VERY strongly supported Sarah.I have been one of her strongest supporters on Free Republic.
Her speech at the 08 Convention was magic and I honestly thought she was going to lead our party in a new direction.
...
She is the walking, breathing embodiment of what liberals SAY they want a woman to be--independent, achieving things on her own without special favors, while also having a good marriage and bringing up a good family...AND (this is the worst of her "sins"), she is pro-life and walked the walk even with a child born with Down's Syndrome. THAT is the unforgivable. Oh, and she's attractive, shoots guns, and has gone after corruption in her own party. How could they NOT hate her--she's against everything they CLAIM to be for, yet the result is what they really all want to be, and can't.
What upsets me is it seems she is trying to appease and please the people that hate her.
What difference does this kind of thing make? I'm sorry, you can't win a national election by appealing only to conservatives. Ronald Reagan proved that--he was a conservative who appealed to non-conservatives without sacrificing his conservative principles. People voted for him because while they may not have had the same political persuasion, they felt he believed what he proclaimed and came across as reasonable. Ditto Scott Brown--just today I talked to a Boston democrat operative who hasn't voted Republican in decades--and he said "I voted for Scott Brown, he's just a regular guy, very reasonable..." before I could even ask how he felt about the election.
Outside the Republican party example.. showing up on Oprah,
Reagan would have appeared on Oprah if in the same situation--why not Palin?
Inside example... campaigning for McCain.
She owes him, she pays him back. I respect loyalty, and would have lost respect for her if she tossed him over.
“Why was she is Wasilla and not in Massacusetts helping out early this week ?”
Wrong horse Aunt Sarah.
I think Palin could do the same thing Scott Brown did on a national level and win as a conservative.
but she doesn’t seem to want to fight for it.
Dear Concerned Trolls,
I guess this means you hate Reagan for picking Bush Sr. for VP and campaigning for him in 1988.
Remember the “voo-doo economics” swipe?
What a fricking idiot. Why wasn’t she in MA? Why not ask Brown that question, if he had asked her to come she would have. Would you have her charge into MA uninvited? Brown only invited Rudy to campaign with him, because Rudy is popular on the east coast.
I suppose now you are throwing all your support to someone really tough, like Romney or Huck or Tim or Newt.
I don't think so--poll after poll shows she can't. Yes, I know, we don't trust polls...unless they tell us what we want to know.
Brown threaded the needle--he saw that perception was what would kill him. His campaign was trailing thirty points until it was within ten points--at that point, people believed he MIGHT win, so they started supporting him, for his economic message and in retaliation for Coakley's negative, awful campaign.
Mostly, though, Brown won because most voters only got their first impression of him in the last month. I have followed Mass. politics for decades and I didn't hear about the guy (beyond his name) until December.
People looked at him, saw how he behaved, heard only what he wanted them to hear--economy, jobs, healthcare--and he won.
Were the election a month longer, he might have lost because the Dems would have poured more money in and possibly won the race to "define" Brown.
It's not that Palin doesn't want to fight, it's that she sees reality a lot more clearly than most of her fans, and she knows she's lost the race to define herself to the nation.
Biggest supporter - yet you trash her so easily. Take it somewhere else!
Thanks
so what kind of a candidate do we need for 2012 ?
how do they have to be better ?
They have to address jobs and the economy.
The issue that didn't come up much in the MA election was terrorism, and Brown's position is the right one, too. But jobs and economy are always THE issues. I think Obama has so damaged the fantasy of healthcare for all that it'll hang around his neck like an anchor, and the Republican must have pro-growth, pro-capitalist positions, and have nothing to do with healthcare boondoggles--which leaves out Mitt Romney, for one.
He or she must also be prolife and promarriage, but if they're smart they'll look at not what Brown's positions were as much as how he presented himself.
I am not ashamed to say this was the first campaign since Reagan's which had me excited like it was Christmas morning when I was a kid. That came from the feeling that someone who was actually responsive to the desires of folks like me was about to win. I don't think he shares my views on abortion, but he was reasonable and fought for an exemption for those who oppose it--that's a lot better than the alternative.
Anyway, the key words are "economy," "security," and "communication" for our next candidate.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcianhro.htm
“Two Former POWs Say They Doubt McCain Was Physically Abused
1999 - March 25, 1999, The Phoenix New Times: Ted Guy and Gordon “Swede” Larson, two former POWs, who were McCain’s senior ranking officers (SRO’s), at the time McCain says he was tortured in solitary confinement, told the New Times that while they could not guarantee that McCain was not physically harmed, they doubted it.
“Between the two of us, it’s our belief, and to the best of our knowledge, that no prisoner was beaten or harmed physically in that camp [known as “The Plantation”],” Larson says. “. . . My only contention with the McCain deal is that while he was at The Plantation, to the best of my knowledge and Ted’s knowledge, he was not physically abused in any way. No one was in that camp. It was the camp that people were released from.”
In 1993, during one of his many trips back to Hanoi, McCain asked the Vietnamese not to make public the records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs.”
http://www.vvof.org/mccain_hides.htm
“Brought to tears
By this time, tears were running down Alfond’s cheeks. She reached into her handbag for a handkerchief. She tried to speak: “The family members have been waiting for years — years! And now you’re shutting down.” He kept interrupting her. She tried to say, through tears, that she had issued no insults. He kept talking over her words. He said she was accusing him and others of “some conspiracy without proof, and some cover-up.” She said she was merely seeking “some answers. That is what I am asking.” He ripped into her for using the word “fiasco.” She replied: “The fiasco was the people that stepped out and said we have written the end, the final chapter to Vietnam.” “No one said that,” he shouted. “No one said what you are saying they said, Ms. Alfond.” And then, his face flaming pink, he stalked out of the room, to shouts of disfavor from members of the audience.
As with most of McCain’s remarks to Alfond, the facts in his closing blast at her were incorrect. Less than three weeks earlier, on Oct. 23, 1992, in a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, President Bush — with John McCain standing beside him — said: “Today, finally, I am convinced that we can begin writing the last chapter in the Vietnam War.”
The committee did indeed, as Alfond said they planned to do, shut down two months after the hearing.”
~~~
Point : Fu’Kin’ McPain and Fu’Kin Kerry left MY Brothers
for dead,,,
Why would anybody support this Trash ?,,,
For any reason !...
By the way, screw "fire in the belly." OBAMA HAS FIRE IN THE BELLY. And Hillary sure as hell had "fire in the belly." So did Hitler, and so did Reagan. George Washington and Napoleon and Churchill had it, too, as has every mover and shaker in the history of the world. The term "fire in the belly" is like fingernails on a chalkboard in terms any meaningful value and its use is about as grating.
She is supporting McCain because he is now, like it or not, leading the anti-Obama cause in Congress and the Senate. She is loyal to the man—not his handlers. Now, was she treated badly by McCain’s people, Yes. Sarah Palin is her own person—she isn’t the head of the tea parties, she isn’t the head of the GOP. She can do what she wants. I still like her and support her in any future projects. Don’t try to define her—shes above all that.
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.