Skip to comments.Should McCain’s Campaign Have Muzzled Palin on Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Racism? (Video)
Posted on 07/29/2013 7:10:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When truth is prevented from ever reaching the ears of the American public during a presidential campaign the consequences can often be tragic. Consider the case of the 2008 mainstream media cover up and strict avoidance of Obamas long time connection to Black Nationalist minister Jeremiah Wright and his firebrand racist comments. The media shackled the truth and allowed then U.S. Senator Obama to skate all the way to his election as president.
What is even worse was former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palins recent revelation that the John McCain presidential campaign actually banned her from talking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright or anarchist Bill Ayers. Think about the repercussions of how an informed American public could have at least had the opportunity to discuss as well as evaluate this information with the fullness a vice presidential candidates focus would have offered.
Why did McCain Presidential Campaign Silence Palin discussion on Rev. Wright and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers . Why did McCain Presidential Campaign Silence Palin discussion on Rev. Wright and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers
Typically it is the vice presidential candidate who is given the task to reveal the underbelly of the oppositions campaign and bring attention to issues that a presidential candidate seeks to avoid discussing.
But instead of engaging in a fully spirited public campaign discussion that would have given Sarah Palin the ability to point out these glaring inconsistencies she was silenced. She is right to be appalled......
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
It was a terrible idea to muzzle Sarah Palin. Not only did it lose the election but, now that we have learned about it, the GOPe will have hell to pay.
For the sole purpose of getting trounced by any or all Dem nominees back in ought-eight...
He was his own electoral tragedy--
....turnkey convenience for the left...
And the GOP fell for it... of course---
A damned silly question. If our side had allowed itself to bring up a subject so germane to the election as his associations with racists and terrorists, things might have turned out differently.
Of course, that would have meant a President McCain, which would have been bad, but also would have meant Vice President Palin, which would have been good.
The republican party will do the same thing to their candidate in 2016. It will be off limits to talk about Hillary’s sordid past and 3 decades of lying on every subject imaginable.
Attacking the opposing presidential candidate is the traditional job of the VP nominee
The question still is: did McCain honestly seek to gain the presidency or was he just Obama’s Trojan horse?
If he were the latter, what does it make Palin? Shouldn’t she have told McCain to find another VP candidate or is she naive?
The McCain campaign prevented Sarah Palin from discussing any substantive issues. She was expected to merely parrot McCain's weak and shallow talking points and praise McCain as a great hero and patriot.
At the same time McCain's staff undertook a deliberate effort to trash Sarah Palin in the media.
Sarah campaigned for McCain in Arizona in the Senate primary. McCain has shown no loyalty or gratitude to Sarah whatsoever.
I wish Sarah would call out McCain for what he is. I wish she would tell America that he is a liar and traitor.
The POS showed no gratitude to the Viet Namese man who pulled him from the lake.
It sickens me to think that someone running for president that was so disgusting (obama), that it made me vote for mccain. Then I turned around and voted for Romney. I’ll never vote for another republican unless it’s Ted Cruz. And that’s only if Cruz keeps doing what he’s doing.
The point of this question is to achieve what . . . . ..???? Have we not learned the folly of selecting candidates for President that think it bad form to lob meaningful criticisms against their opponents.
Could we, would we have suffered as much thru a McCain presidency? I love SP, and was thrilled to have her running. She was my candidate. There is only one negative re Sarah, she allows loyalty to cloud her vision at times. Why did she agree to run with Juan? Was this her opportunity and her time to shine? Once she agreed, campaigned for him and lost with him, did she feel that she had made the right decision? When she endorsed Johnny over J. D. Hayworth, attempted to understand why, but had trouble accepting the fact that she felt the need to do so. Still working on the attempt to quieten that anger.
I believe that McCain was oblivious to what was going on in his campaign. The operative word is doddering. I believe it was his campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, that operated as a mole for the Democrats. His purpose was to collect information about McCain’s strategy and to sabotage everything that had a chance at being effective. This may have been the first time the Democrats infiltrated the inner workings of a campaign and dismantled it from the inside. I believe it is this explanation that may be the true answer to what happened.
So sad . . .
Either loser Steve Schmidt is the stupidest strategist ever or he’s a demmunist party plant.
Ping to Sarah's Awesome List!
I honestly wish McPain would have switched to Dem back in '06, would have saved us alot of time and effort.
Originally I was thankful for McCain for picking SP, now I think SP would have burst onto the national stage all by herself. It is McCain who OWES/OWED SP big time, not the other way around.
We should have ran full tilt on Rev Wright and ALL Obama`s radical friends and views. I said it at the time as did millions of us
Funny to ask the question now.... But yes if the airwaves had been bombarded with ads of Rev Wright, I think it would have made the difference
Politicians dream of scandals like this to run against, it was placed in our lap and we said no thanks
McCain should also have not yelled at his supporters when they yelled things about Obama
The more I think of this, the more I believe that McCain was intended to lose and they chose Palin as a running mate in an effort to tarnish her image so that she could not run at a later time, having been also branded a “loser.”
I think the entire idea of associating with McCain, while it seemed like a good thing at the time, was a big mistake for Palin.
Nevertheless, she can overcome it if enough of us care and support her. Keep her out of entangling alliances with the RINOs, though.
She needs money and organization - she has the idea thing down pat, I believe.
I agree with you, and it worked. The reason I do not talk Sarah seriously, and never really have, is because of her support of that stupid idiot McCain AFTER the election.
She played politics- so she showed me she is a politician. Not a Patriot.
If she made a mistake, she should admit and ask for forgiveness.
>I believe that McCain was oblivious to what was going on in his campaign.<
You’re telling me that McCain was a Trojan horse’s ass?
He hasn’t changed much since that time, hasn’t he?
I’m not even sure how much McCain had to do with it. McCain had his mysterious “handlers,” and he did whatever they told him to do.
The two guys who were given the job of handling Sarah were lent to the McCain campaign by Mitt Romney. So, their purpose may have been to ensure that McCain lost, to prepare the way for Romney’s next try.
In any case, there’s not much doubt about the fact that when McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his VP, it gave his numbers a big bounce. The high point of his campaign was the nomination celebration, when Sarah was allowed to give her one and only speech to a national audience, without a muzzle on and two handlers handcuffed to her ankles.
Nonsense. Sarah owed McCain some loyalty for choosing her, and she paid the debt. She gave him about two days on the campaign trail. And she said very, very little in his support the rest of the time. She simply refrained from criticizing him, and I can’t blame her for that. Not her job, in the circumstances.
Glad you brought up his name. Schmidt is a Progressive, liberal Republican who somehow continues to wield influence over the party in spite of his impressive streak of losing campaigns. He is not the only one of his ilk, either. It is well-known in GOP circles that he absolutely, positively loathes Sarah Palin and opposed her as the choice for McCain's VP.
I am convinced that virtually the entire class of Republican strategists in Washington would be quite content to lose the next two or three election cycles if they could only rid the GOP of its conservative Tea Party base.
The plan would be to replace them with a new "base" of largely secular, socially liberal, and economically moderate voters largely composed of former Democrats who now consider themselves "independent".
People who believe in (and live off of) Big Government, and who see no role for Judeo-Christian values in public life have no use for real conservatives.
Seeing as how it resulted in a loss, I would say "no!"
You may not take Sarah seriously, but I think THEY take her seriously. For the exact reason you stated...even mcShame realized the value of a Sarah Palin endorsement.
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.