Romney to raise cash for DeMint
Posted on 12/16/2009 4:38:39 PM PST by Al B.
I agree with your comments. It’s time to wait and see for me.
I don’t see her as Saint Palin.
I do not see her as John McCain.
Time will tell.
This post best represents my opinion.
“1. SarahPAC donated $5000 to McCain’s campaign, as well as donated to to Lindsey Graham’s and Orin Hatch’s campaigns.
2. McCain’s top campaign security and foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, is also currently advising Palin
3. Sarah Palin has said: “I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection....John was a maverick, and he said he had picked me because in many ways I’m wired the same. … I was proud of the senator. … He didn’t go with a conventional, safer pick. John believed in change, the power of independent and committed individuals, the power of women.”
To me that means one of the following which only time will tell:
1. John McCain is grooming Sarah Palin, because as she has said, “we’re the same”.
2. Sarah is a naive idiot, whose loyalty to an evil man could cost us all.
3. Sarah is using John McCain to get where she wants to be, and who is a politician just playing the game until she can pull the strings herself.
I still haven’t decided which of those is the case with complete certainty. But these are things that would be foolish to ignore, because it is not something that Sarah is hiding or that is easily “misconstrued” — it’s all out there for anyone to hear if they are willing to listen to her. “
Post 718
There is not a dang thing stopping her from clarifying that she OPPOSES ANY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP, NO AMNESTY OF ANY KIND FOR ANY ILLEGAL ALIENS. She hasn’t. And she won’t. And I’m convinced that her fans don’t care either way. It’s like deja vu.....It was the same with Mr. “popular” Fred Thompson.
“There is not a dang thing stopping her from clarifying that she OPPOSES ANY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP, NO AMNESTY OF ANY KIND FOR ANY ILLEGAL ALIENS. She hasn’t. And she won’t. And I’m convinced that her fans don’t care either way.”
It doesn’t matter what you post. There are many here who have posted Sarah PAC money, and her dancing on illegals. All you get in return are invectives.
Amen, rabs.
One thing I did glean from Mrs. Palin's rather rambling remarks made during her resignation speech was that she vowed to ...support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.
If she thinks that McNuts and his Cap and Trade and all the rest of his abominable legislative baggage are something that Conservatives should support, she is more of a ditz than even I thought.
Once again, Mrs. Palin has not taken my free and thoughtful advice. I told her to say that the promotion of her ghostwriter's book and family concerns would be keeping her far too busy to insert herself in the AZ Senate race.
She clearly has done that in an interview in the last couple of weeks, It was a very short answer, there were only a few seconds left once the interviewer asked it.
She will expand on that answer, she will have to, and will probably do that next spring. I predict it will be in writing.
Then you will have to carry those goal posts to a new location. They're getting heavier, I can tell.
DeMint.
McClintock.
DeMint endorsed Romney for President in 2008.
It looks like you're down to a 1st term member of the U.S. House from California (who won his district by .6%). LOL.
Romney to raise cash for DeMint
I told you this vocal minority are 1.7%’rs...they’ll support somebody unelectable or a fringe Third Party candidate.
They are not in the equation and the pollsters already account for them.
Not worth the time to attempt to persuade, but fun to play with a little bit for kicks.
And I’m sure if you dig enough, something can be found about McClintock which rabs will consider bad enough not to support him. These purists are never satisfied and pretty much irrelevant in the big picture.
Immigration is not the only issue out you know.
Yes, in fact, it did. - and I think you are missing my point entirely.
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.
I do know that, perfectly. In fact I said:
Don't get me wrong - Retaliation was necessary. And big, statement-making retaliation at 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.
Absolutely true. But (and listen closely to this part), the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan didn't knock those buildings down. Understand: The nations we attacked were not responsible for our injury. We were attacked by a pan-Arabic criminal organization, not any government.
To compare: It would be like JFK attacking the nation of Italy for the criminal enterprise of the mafia here in the states. Certainly the government of Italy had ties into the mafioso. And just as certainly, the mafia had infiltrated into every aspect of business, and was working to control our government and was doing so.
Now, I understand that the two are not comparable in the scope of dramatic effect, but I would wager that more American people died at the hands of the Italian mafia, either directly, or by the means of the criminal elements surrounding their "businesses" here than at the hands of the Arabs by an order of magnitude (at the least). And there is no doubt that the mafia has had a huge, and lasting impact upon the American way of life - Why didn't we go tear down Italy for the mafia's indiscretions?
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.
You seem to infer that there are ONLY two directions here... The way we have gone, or the way of passivity. That is not true. Nor is that what I am advocating. The magnitude of our response is not what I object to. In fact, unlimited magnitude is fine with me. *Nothing* is off the table. It is the nature of our response that I question.
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.
This was aggressive military action without basis. Wars are fought between nations. When Japan attacked us, it was Japan herself doing the deed. Her military forces. This time around the answer is not so simple.
These were not national troops that attacked our nation. they wore no uniform. They had no national support. They are privately funded, primarily. They are multi-national. They are religious in nature. And they will survive this war.
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.
All true - But they would have opposed us anywhere.
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.
Oh, it is most definitely a departure from the norm. Groups are not nations. And understand that I am under no illusions: Radical Islam is the culprit, to be sure. But I believe one would have to go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates to find an instance where we attacked a nation for the faults of a non-nationally aligned "group". While there is some small precedent there, it is hardly "what we do".
Where nations were known to harbor terrorists, or claimed to be an enemy of the U.S. that supported terrorists, we moved in.
Are we in Egypt? The Sudan? Yemen? Syria? Iran?
Turkey put a big dent in what we were trying to do in Iraq, are complicit in the infiltration of Radical Islam into the western world, and is the seat of all of the Arabic Caliphates... Are we conquering Turkey? Jordan is as two-faced as possible, as is the House of Saud. Both are also complicit, with the majority of funding for terrorist groups coming from these regions. Are we mowing over Jordan and Saudi-Arabia?
No, we are not doing as you say. We picked these two regions for a purpose. And it isn't as advertised.
Hussein had been a problem for decades. [...]
Sure he was. But that has nothing to do with the attack on our shores. We actually had good reason to conquer his administration - Any one of the hostile acts toward our aircraft in the no-fly zone is sufficient to break the cease-fire. That is the truth. To try to tie it to 911 was pretense.
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.
Sure. but if we were going after him, and perhaps his inner circle, infiltration and a surgical strike seems the likely method. The work of spooks and special forces. What we did simply forced him underground.
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.
I didn't say that. Don't let patriotism and blood in your eye get into the way of critical thinking. This is what I said:
The Bush Doctrine is a remarkable departure from the traditional American position. And I don't know it to be correct, because of that.
Don't get me wrong - Retaliation was necessary. And big, statement-making retaliation at that. In a world full of options, is the Bush Doctrine the best retaliation mechanism? I don't know that to be true.
That does not suggest a position of passivity at all, nor does it suggest that I am precisely right; something unusual for me, as you should know. I do question the motives here though, as do many others. And I am against the precedent these wars provide. I think it squanders the "just cause" high ground, and suggests an authority that we do not own.
“Immigration is not the only issue out you know.”
Amnesty with chain migration will destroy the USA faster and more irreversibly than anything the Dictator could dream up.
If you assume that Republicans can never win the Hispanic vote, yes that would be true. Of course such a belief is a bigoted assuming that Hispanics cannot make good conservatives.
You have been here a few weeks. You first trashed conservatives on your first post. You never let up. You are a pro amnesty RINO
T R O L L
retread.
I don’t hate anyone, DISRUPTOR TROLL
I’m not the one trashing Sarah over one issue. One issue voters like you and rabs are a cancer on this movement. You people obsess over Republicans, who don’t agree with you 100%, more than you do Democrats.
The last Freeper to make up hit lists was ZOTTED recently, so I guess now we know what your previous handle was.
Eh, Cedric???
Not even a state posted on homepage.
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.