Posted on 10/17/2010 4:59:36 PM PDT by Nachum
ANAHEIM, Calif. — There were 19 Republicans sitting on stage behind Sarah Palin when she rallied GOP activists here Saturday, but none was named Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina.And just as the Republican candidates for governor and Senate here were physically absent from the event, they were also missing from Palin’s speech.Not once during remarks that lasted just over 20 minutes did the former Alaska governor mention two of the national party’s most buzzed-about candidates running in the country’s largest state.It’s possible that Palin didn’t want to mention Whitman and Fiorina for fear of handing Democrats fodder
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Fiorina would just join the Mclame Gang and screw things up.
.....nothing but enthusiam in the room.....
But the point of the story is that the top GOP candidates, Governor and Senator, were NOT in the room.
Yeah. So? Why should they be at that gathering, when they could be doing campaign stops for themselves elsewhere? Why should all the Republican 'big names' always be all together? Sounds real inefficient to me.
But I guess Politico just wanted to put Sarah down, again. It's getting very old.
Jonathon is gonna think divide when we separate them from that Gavel come November.
“But I guess Politico just wanted to put Sarah down, again. It’s getting very old.”
They aren’t going to write anything about Sarah that is positive. She can rock the house and inspire the entire audience and they will moan and nitpick about something trivial.
What do we expect from people who saw the Nevada senate debate as a draw? They are absolutely insane.
I'm sure it made you feel real principled and special to write that. Boxer and Brown sure think you are special.
Perhaps they are, but Whitman claims to want to take on the unions while Brown embraces them, and Boxer has to go.
To me, the real story from a political journalist POV, would be that attendees didn't even seem to notice the omission of Fiorina or Whitman. Isn't THAT a pretty worthy of notice?
It's interesting too that the only angle they seem to perceive is that Fiorina and Whitman are the ones brooking the risk. It never occurs to them that maybe Palin is happy to keep her distance from them, as well. In her view, perhaps: the less she says about them, the better. Rather say nothing than be insincere.
Fiorina and Whitman are both libs. I don’t think the GOP will be harmed if they lose.
Fiorina has focused on the tea party groups. Whitman hasn’t. Fiorina has a good chance of winning but Whitman seems to be fading even after Brown’s campaign has faltered and his age is showing.
What this article says about Palin is BS. If dem polling showed she was really that unpopular, they would run ads against Fiorina as Palin’s pick. Haven’t seen those ads. Palin doesn’t force herself on candidates. But, why is she in CA with several big speeches two weeks before the election? She is building momentum to defeat Brown and Boxer and she is naming them. The CA audiences have been supercharged with enthusiasm. Tomorrow, she is on to Reno to support a candidate who’s not afraid to take her help and who definitely win.
If Fiorina keeps focus on health care and stimulus and Boxer not caring about voters, she will win. Whitman has gotten off topic and gone with the personal over the substance, so I’m not sure there.
The only divide is between the Ruling Class and we the people. Palin is solidly with the people.
The best thing that could happen to CA is if the libs lead them down in flames. Fiorina and Whitman will do that as easily as Boxer and Brown, but the CA libs will just blame it on the Republicans. Better for the folks who got them into this mess to get the credit. The only thing you can say that’s good about the GOP challengers is that at least Fiorina would not be deciding state issues, so that it would be difficult to blame the results on her. But at least let Brown explain why his liberal ideas did not work. Even with Fiorina, though, there would be a cutting edge directed against the GOP. You can be certain that she’d screem bloody murder if the GOP doesn’t come to the rescue with a bailout. It would be a lot easier to tell Boxer “no.”
I have always voted on pure R principle -- voting the party ticket. But after three decades of voting, I'm seeing the approach has failed and is part of the problem. I can rationalize voting for Fiorina on pure R principle (for the letter behind her name) because of determining committee heads, etc, for balance of R vs D in congress
But Whitman? Man o manischevitz. I stop assuming so blithely that she cannot be worse than Brown. Short term, yes; long term, potent poison if you're talking about the future of the GOP and Republican candidates in standing for the very things voters are CRYING to find: limited government determination.
The Republican governor of California represents "Republican" and "GOP" in a very huge way to public perception. Yet she betrays about 60 to 70 percent of the time, limited government principle. She is a government manipulator, not a government slayer.
Her policies fail, voters say, "See, there? There's no dif between Republicans and Democrats," and Republicans take the hit. But public perception of her is: She's a Republican. She's what they stand for. Do I want to support that when I vote GOP?
Whitman is like Romney: bad news. They are managers, not leaders. "I have a plan." You have a plan that will streamline and cut fees for small businesses ... but Hey, Meg, where are you on a carbon environmental plan to hoist their business expenses to such insane highs that they go under? HMMMMMM?
Voting such that THAT is what Republican and GOP stand for reaps its own disasters.
I don’t think there’s much of a divide — there’s the Progressive/Liberals and their pet RINO’s, and then there’s everyone else (namely the Tea Parties)!
Frankly, if Meg WHitman and Carly Fiorina weren’t willing to show up and sit with Sarah, eh, they’re probably not going to win anyway. And if they did, they’d merely be the pets of Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, or John McCain at best. With a “majority” of Snowes, Collins, McCains and Fiorinas, would WE (Conservatives) REALLY have a majority? WE all know the answer to that...
I have a running dialog with Jonathan Martin at Politico.
This morning, I wrote to respond to his idiotic article and comments like this one;
Him: “She’s done nothing in the 2010 cycle to demonstrate an ability or desire to appeal to anyone beyond those who are fervently devoted to her”.
Me: “I love to see how Sarah gets to you libs, Jonathan. She is doing what she does best by rallying the base and raising money for Conservative candidates”.
Him: “What has she done to improve her standing with swing voters?”
Me: “She isn’t running for anything, Jonathan. What do we care what “swing” voters think of her?”
Me:(to myself) ?*%*&%?@#*? aka WTH?
Whitman’s lack of support for Yes on 23 is hurting her.
Whitman’s lack of support for Yes on 23 is hurting her.
MM, good job in taking it to the small men @ Politico! Every time I read any of the comments on the Politico site I am amazed by how many comments are calling out the nancy boyz of Politico. They are a bunch of high school journalistas and sound like little brats when they appear on the vile Morning Joe.
I agree, I.
Politico writers are living in a Beltway Bubble: totally disconnected to what is happening in the rest of the country.
They are going to have a rude awakening come Nov.2.
I challenge them all the time: first initial, last name, @0politico.com. It’s fun but frustrating..
Nah, they’re not insane, they just have their own agenda, and the write whatever fits it. We know that, and interpret what they say through that known filter. Sadly, others will think they ARE unbiased, and take what they say as gospel.
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.