Palin supports McCain '100 percent' [Palin pushes back at TMZ 'disprespect' meme]

Politico ^ | Dec. 16, 2009 | Mike Allen

[Al B.]

Declaring that she “was honored and proud to run with him,” former Alaska governor Sarah Palin pushed back hard Wednesday against a report that she had disrespected Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by blacking out his name on a sun visor she wore on vacation.

The website TMZ accused Palin of “a frontal attack on Sen. John McCain” during a Hawaii vacation this week: “Sarah chose to wear a visor from her campaign -- a visor that was emblazoned with the former presidential candidate's name ... that is, until Palin redacted McCain's name with a black marker.”

But Palin said in a statement to POLITICO that she was just trying to “be incognito” -- to go unrecognized and shield her children and husband, Todd, from paparazzi.

The hotel where she was staying had to chase away five photographers, a friend said.

Palin said in the statement to POLITICO: “I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago. So much for trying to be incognito."

The Palins were taking a break from a three-and-a-half-week book tour for her million-copy-selling memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” Palin has signed more than 59,000 books -- an average of 1,750 per stop -- and has traveled more than 19,000 miles by plane and bus. She has spent 115 hours -- or 4.8 days -- signing books in 33 cities in 25 states. Her stops have included five military bases.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Only “stupid people” would “worship” a politician. “

Once again, where did I post that?

[stephenjohnbanker]

C O W A R D

LOL

[WVKayaker]

CYAL8R. No reason to stay!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Nope no reason to stay after I caught you in a bald-faced lie.

[DoughtyOne]

“I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago. So much for trying to be incognito."

Folks, this statement was NOT made up by someone on this thread.  It is a quote from Sarah Palin, and nobody is responsible for it other than her.

Lets look back at what has been taking place on Free Republic since early-2008.  Many of us were aghast, that our choices in November might turn out to be Barack Obama or John McCain.  Anyone who wasn't, should just trot off this thread right here.  They don't have the standing to participate on this topic.

So what was our reaction to the possibility of being confronted with having to vote for John McCain.  Well, some of us started early on trying to wake people up to who John McCain really was.  Later on, we just acquiesced to the reality that November the 4th, 2008, would be a day in infamy, one prick or another becoming our top elected official.

TigersEye and I developed lists of things John McCain had been involved in during his life and or career.  Rabscutttle389 started a "McCain Watch" of sorts, posting anything he could find on the guy daily.  And then recently the owner of this forum found it important to explain this site was not going to support RINOs.  And while I don't think Palin has done enough to be labeled a RINO at this point, so I'm not attempting to put words in Jim's mouth, it is quite troubling that she could say what she said, knowing McCain like we do.  So that's where we find ourselves right now.  We're asking folks to own up to what our Republican candidates have advocated in their past, what their statements are today, and how those things could reflect who they actually are.  And if those actions or statements are bad enough, we're seeking to get people to avoid supporting them at all cost.

And we're doing it now, because we don't want to see a repeat of 2008.  Does any of us want to see that?  I don't think so.

Folks, Barack Obama is the embodiment of what the Leftist Democrats want in the way of a leader.  He's a full blown leftist who thinks terrorists have been created by the evil deeds of the United States.  And on and on it goes.  He's pushing right now for every pipe dream the left has ever had.

Back on the Republican Ranch, we have folks positioning themselves for a 2012 run.  Sadly, all but one of the prominent ones has so much baggage in their trunk, that we can't support them.  What does that really mean?  What it means, is that we recognize these people as a person who will implement leftist agenda should they become president.  Is Barack Obama going to implement any of the Right's agenda during his term in office?  Hell no!  So why must we continually back folks who will implement the leftist agenda for them?  What we wind up with is either a nation headed at 90 mph toward Leftist nervana, or a nation headed there at 60 mph.  Folks, this has got to stop!  The problem is, it never will unless we develop a backbone, and call a spade a spade, and quite backing people who can't even understand why John McCain is not a Conservative.

Then into this political environment came a new player, Sarah Palin.  Many of us, including me, have found Palin to be a breath of fresh air.  Her down home flavor and seeming alignment with our values, has enticed many of us to hope she can become president in 2012.  Still, as much as we like her, we still  have to see her flesh out her own agenda, before we can be absolutely certain she is supportable.  But this is merely the rational approach.  There is another faction of people who have self-appointed themselves to be her knights in shining armor.  They have become so infatuated with her politically, that they cannot bear to see anyone say anything negative about her.  Where have we seen this type of behavior before?  BUSHBOTS.  Anybody remember that infamous group of people who would go for the throat faster than Dracula the day after a two week fast?

Now some of you are going to read my comments about infatuation and declare I'm being very unfair with my comments about your mindset.  I have only to point to this thread to shut that disagreement down.  Folks, please use those links to TigersEye's list, my list, and Jim's comments on RINOs.  Then try to tell us why we are wrong to think that Sarah Palin has no business backing a man like John McCain, even if he were her father or husband, which he is not.  G D it, wake the hell up.  Take the blinders off and get with the program.

I'm not asking you to write Palin off at this point.  I am merely asking you to look at Palin realistically, and not through filtered glasses.  I know some have gone further than that, but this escalated far beyond what it needed to, because our PalinBot contingent started the denial routine with dismissive and attack comments tossed in.  What was that going to achieve other than to have people dig in their heels and go negative on Palin.

Let's look back at the "BOT"ism that has taken place on this forum, with specifics to George Bush.  Early on, I complained that he wasn't a Conservative.  He had tossed out big spending ways to fix education in Texas.  He had telegraphed he was going to reward illegals with 'a pathway'.  He had developed a catch phrase that self-portayed himself as a compassionate Conservative.  From early on it was impossible to criticize him on this forum.  Before he was the nominee, it was supposedly unwise to talk frankly about his actions as governor or his announced policies.  It might damage his viability.  Then it was unwise to talk about him frankly after he was nominated.  Once he was elected, it was unwise to talk frankly about his actions.  It might damage his ability to get good legislation passed.  And then it was wrong to talk about him because he was running again.  And then it was still wrong to talk about negative things he was doing, because he needed our support to get things done.  There was NEVER a time when we could disagree with George Bush, not from the moment he first looked like he was going to run, he had his self-appointed knights in shining armor here, ready to stab folks in the front, back, side, or head if they dared to question him in any way.

What did this buy us?  It bought us a leftist with nobody able to question a single move he made.  Were members of his own party able to express displeasure with his actions?  Well, not here they weren't.  So how did we reign him in?  How did we get him to move toward the right?  How did we get him to swear off big spending big government actions?  Well, we didn't.  Who gave a damn if he was ballooning the national debt out 87% during his term in office?  He was their fair haired guy.  Not overspending, not new big government programs, not an amnesty plan for illegal immigrants, NOTHING was able to be addressed here, without people supporting the RINOest of it at every stage.

We came to a place in 2008, where even a guy like John McCain was considered so 'presidential' that he received the nomination to represent us in November.  No matter how much people tried to explain why he wasn't qualified, there were those who thought differently.  And so folks, we wound up with the second worse nominee in our nation's history, Barack Obama being the only man would could save McCain from being the worst.

Is it any wonder, why folks today have adopted a policy of jumping on anything negative someone utters, so that the McCain triumph will never happen again?  Seriously, who is unable to understand why someone would take offense at the comment quoted at the beginning of this post?

There are folks here who ARE NOT going to accept a group of pinheads becoming the self-appointed defenders of RINOism.  That's a reality you're going to have to come to terms with.

If Sarah is one of us, a Conservative, we're going to do everything in our power to support her, but we will never do that blindly.  And if as she gets specific with her platform, and she turns out to be a person like some of the last people we have been encumbered with, there's going to be bloody hell to pay.

NO MORE RINOS.  That statement shouldn't bother a single person on this forum.  As long as people aren't RINOs or Democrats, they'll remain in our good graces.

So those of you who are wasting your time trashing folks who disagree with Sarah's statement, stop it.  Send Sarah some objections so that she will know better than to do something like that again.  Now is the time to take corrective measures.  It is not the time to blast everyone who recognizes a terribly ill thought out statement for what it was.

Once again, read the lists linked above.  Do you support that crap 100%?

You folks should be ashamed of yourselves, trashing folks who recognize a statement for what it is, all the while evidencing a woefully transparent case of denial.

[carmody]

Maybe she wanted to trigger the response she knew she would get from the media just to give herself the opportunity to slam them back down with her strong statement of support for Mr. McCain. The media lies. And once again Sarah gets to draw our attention to that fact.

[SoCalPol]

Ron Paul supports closing GITMO

[molybdenum]

Mrs. Palin should know McC well enough by now to have the proper assessment of this backstabber. She knows we are in a life&death struggle to defeat RINOs & rinoism. IMO, she has made too many statements in the last few months re McC & the (failed) campaign, which more than hint at a continuing support of him. Enough w/ McC and she should divert any questions away from him, & concentrate on the enormous problems we face with the 0-tyranny in DC.

[rbmillerjr]

LOL.

Wow, I’m surprised.

I thought the guy had a little moxy.

Guess not.

There the vocal 1.7 %’rs.

Not worth it anyway. They are irrelevant and not in the equation.

C Ya

[WVKayaker]

Nope no reason to stay after I caught you in a bald-faced lie.

You win. One more post.

When you get out of your mother's basement, write back to me. In the meantime, don't waste my time with your distortions and malignments (sic). You are obsessively attached to your own reflection, and don't care to converse with any sort of intelligent discourse. I haven't lied, and you haven't given any reason to support your candidate. Instead, all you do is recited "she did, she did..."

Apparently yo are the most important thing in your life, but it doesn't seem to affect any change to Sarah's popularity, nor following. You talk about worshippers, and you seem to be staring in that mirror just too damn much...

You overestimate the power of the SJB brand. It is about as successfull as Wile E. ...

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Ron Paul supports closing GITMO”

Who the heck is for Ron Paul?
And bananas are 49 cents a pound too!

So what?

[molybdenum]

thank you DO. Lest we forget—”United we stand, divided we fall”! And never “fall in love” with any politician; if ;you love one, then make it be Tough Love! Acknowledge their mistakes & let them know same.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“When you get out of your mother’s basement, write back to me.”

I retired at age 52, three years ago. Living off my real estate investments. Hows that job working out for ya?

LOL

[stephenjohnbanker]

“NO MORE RINOS. That statement shouldn’t bother a single person on this forum. As long as people aren’t RINOs or Democrats, they’ll remain in our good graces.

So those of you who are wasting your time trashing folks who disagree with Sarah’s statement, stop it. Send Sarah some objections so that she will know better than to do something like that again. Now is the time to take corrective measures. It is not the time to blast everyone who recognizes a terribly ill thought out statement for what it was.

Once again, read the lists linked above. Do you support that crap 100%?

You folks should be ashamed of yourselves, trashing folks who recognize a statement for what it is, all the while evidencing a woefully transparent case of denial. “

You deserve a better thread than this. The entire post is the gospel truth.

Thank you.

[rabscuttle385]

Where have we seen this type of behavior before? BUSHBOTS. Anybody remember that infamous group of people who would go for the throat faster than Dracula the day after a two week fast?

There are still plenty of them on FR.

[DoughtyOne]

No, the U.S. didn't start this war.

It recognized that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were terrorist organizations we were going to have to deal with, and it took action.

You can try to avoid that reality, but at the end of the day, that's what took place.  You know that.

Was the U.S. attacked?  Yes.  We could easily have lost 50 to 75,000 people on 09/11/01.  Fortunately we didn't.  Still, this was an attack on the political, military, and financial infrastructures of the United States.  You talk of the message that was sent to the world by our attacking the groups responsible, but fail to mention what the message would have been if we hadn't.

To start a war, you have to take aggressive military action without basis.  We were attacked.  We knew who the groups responsible were.  We knew who their allies were.  We knew who we had been dealing with in the region.  We went in to clean out the wasps nest, and we're still doing it.

Did terrorists oppose the United States actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Yes.  So how can anyone claim we didn't attack the right places?  Tens of thousands of terrorists disagree with your premise regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.  They have fought the U.S. tooth and nail.  They have killed thousands of Iraqis in the process, without concern for innocents I might add.

The Bush doctrine IS NOT a remarkable departure from the traditional role of our nation.  We were attacked, and we went after the groups responsible.  Where nations were known to harbor terrorists, or claimed to be an enemy of the U.S. that supported terrorists, we moved in.

Hussein had been a problem for decades.  He had attacked no less than four different neighbor nations.  He had occupied one, and had used illegal chemical weapons on his own citizens.  He was paying a $25 thousand dollar reward to the families of anyone who would act as a suicide bomber against Israel.  Iraq was a no brainier.  Most of the European leaders, our politicians, and even the U.N.'s own inspectors thought Hussein had WMDs.  He was responsible for the deaths of over one million people in the region.

It was thought that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan.  Of course we were going to pursue military action there.  He was known to be intimately involved in the planning for 09/11/01.  We would have been remiss by not going after him.

Look, neither you or I want to see the U.S. involved in military adventurism.  I thought our actions in Kosovo were extremely poor.  In this instance, I am absolutely astounded to see people I respect adopt the position that we have jumped the shark in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.

Imagine what our enemies would have thought, if we didn't respond as we have.  We would have come off as the paper tiger of the millennium.

Sorry to disagree so ardently, but I really do.

[rbmillerjr]

“The entire post is the gospel truth”

See that is your problem, it is not truth it’s his opinion.

If you think a person can win national election across 50 states and ignore the fact that McCain, in all of his RINOness, is the person responsible for Palin being a nationally known politician...you need to study up on electoral politics.

DO thinks the statement was a mistake. I think it shows that Palin is savvy politically. Those are opinions.

I give that opinion despising McCain as much as any of you. I almost didn’t vote for the puke. I did reluctantly, with Palin being on the ticket.

[Chunga]

So those of you who are wasting your time trashing folks who disagree with Sarah's statement, stop it.

Defend these anti-Palin cretins all you want. It won't alter my calling them what they are. Anyone who states "I cannot in good conscience support her" isn't giving her the benefit of any doubt and I in turn won't give it to him.

I know you fancy yourself the voice of reason around here. As far as I'm concerned you merely run interference for the enemy of the good.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.