Skip to comments.Sarah Palin: McCain Campaign Managers Wouldn't Let Us Investigate Obama's Past
Posted on 03/10/2012 9:24:11 AM PST by OUTKAST
Video: Sarah Palin: McCain Campaign Managers Wouldn't Let Us Investigate Obama's Past
He is a SCHMUCK! He even “shackled” me in the press room after the Hofstra debate 08!
I was supposed to stand behind him w/ my McCain/Palin sign, with his name in the middle, so the press would know where he was.
He and his little b*tchy “assistant” told me to go away, so I did.
One of the coordinators asked me what I was doing standing there, while the schmuck was over there. I told him they told me to go away. He said “what”?, seeming confused. I reiterated and he said no, go stand behind him, that’s your job.
I said okay and did so. The b*tch got nasty w/ me and told me they didn’t need me anymore. I advised her I was told to stand behind the schmuck, holding my sign and wouldn’t go away.
I can’t remember her exact words (not kindly) but then they ran behind the roped off section where no one was allowed to go.
I think the elites of both parties are on the same team. I don’t know how anyone can seriously think that Mitt Romney will beat Obama. Obama is certainly smug about it.
Watch “The Undefeated”
Sarah Palin’s numbers were going up and taking McLame’s with them. There was something like an 8% lead over Obama in September.
Then McLame “suspended” his campaign and the bottom fell out.
Palin could have dragged him to the winner’s circle kicking and screaming but he muzzled her.
So...I think you are right.
Well, the difference now is Obama will be running on his own record of incompetency and craptitude when before he was running on Hope and Change.
I just have to believe he is heading for a Carter style landslide loss no matter who the GOP throws up there.
Two main scenarios emerge here. One, that McCain himself did not intend to win. Two, McCain had turncoat staffers who sabotaged the campaign. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. McCain may have hired these people knowing what they would do.
But a third scenario could be considered. First, consider what an egomaniac McCain appears to be. Second, consider how weak his campaign was until Sarah was picked. Third, remember how much unbelievable excitement Sarah injected into his campaign.
Theory: McCain would rather have lost the campaign than allow the credit for the win to go to Sarah, because he couldn’t take the hit to his ego. Just sayin’.
This is my theory, but I think that McCain wanted to win...but not all that much, basically, and he was more interested in being nice and civil than in doing what had to be done. Look at all the times Repubs were being lovey dovey milquetoasts while the Left were a bunch of ruthless Machivellians.
Your post made me think about the characteristics of the last 2 successful democrat presidential candidates. Smooth talkers, cool, above the fray, culturally hip. Just the right blend not to offend people, while appealing to the lowest common denominator that thinks a presidential candidate should act like their ideal celebrity: it doesn’t matter what they actually say, think or do, so long as they are really cool and tolerant and not mean. Meanwhile, the formula calls for surrogates in the campaign, the reliable lap-dogs of the media and the entertainment world to do the dirty work of smearing the opponent relentlessly, which, together with attack ads 24/7 combine to destroy the opponent.
Of course, conservatives prefer substance over style. Sadly, the American electorate has been dumbed down to prefer style. This probably dates back to the Kennedy Nixon debates and has been gaining dominance over the election process ever since. Obama has the style thing down pat. Any opponent is going to need to counter that with some style of his own. The current field doesn’t fill me with confidence that we can compete on these terms. I think the only remedy is someone who will not flinch at going right at Obama on every front. Gingrich is probably best qualified for this kind of warfare and his insistence on debating Obama would give him the opportunity to penetrate Obama’s cool bubble. I think that Obama’s soft underbelly is being challenged head to head on substance. Without a teleprompter and prepared remarks, I don’t think there is any way he could counter Gingrich’s mastery over issues, history, and his unique ability to shift the focus of any debate unexpectedly in a direction that would completely flummox Obama.
Am I saying Gingrich should be the candidate? I still don’t know. I recognize his baggage problems. But Romney is so flawed by flip-flops, RomneyCare, his foot-in-mouth tendencies and his sincerity deficit, that I find it hard to accept that he is really capable of beating Obama. I really like Rick Santorum on most issues, but I fear he’d also be a weak candidate pitted against Obama’s smooth, above-it-all style. Ron Paul? Hardly requires comment. Just when you are nodding your head in agreement when he talks about small government, he says something so insane about foreign policy that you immediately realize that he would be mortally dangerous in the White House and I, for one, start to really worry that the same insanity would ultimately bleed into his domestic policy agenda.
It’s been said many times, but I still can’t get enough of the prospect of Gingrich facing Obama in debate. To finally see someone wipe that smirk off the jerk’s face, to see him lose his cool, to see fear in his eyes is such a delicious prospect, I’m (almost) willing to go with Gingrich on that basis alone.
I agree 100%.
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.