Posted on 05/07/2012 4:18:26 PM PDT by palin45potus
Was Steve Schmidt Qualified to Be McCain’s Campaign Manager?
by WHITNEY PITCHER
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/07/was-steve-schmidt-qualified-to-be-mccains-campaign-manager
In a recent article at the National Review, John McCain’s failed 2008 campaign manager Steve Schmidt is quoted as saying “it will be a very long time before questions about capability and preparedness are not a part of the process.” The implication is that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was neither “prepared” nor “capable” to be vice president in the 2008 cycle, and that now hangs over the current vice presidential selection process.
In his comments about the VP selection process, Schmidt indicates a pretty simple concept-- “capability and preparedness” are characteristics that a presidential nominee would seek in his or her running mate. However, Schmidt’s comments indicate that the selection process and the entire campaign he was involved in during 2008 did not consider such factors, which leads one to ask, “did Steve Schmidt have the ‘capability and preparedness’ necessary to perform his role as campaign strategist?" In other words, let the vetting of Steve Schmidt begin.
The 42 year-old New Jersey native’s campaign experience started with work for four failed state and national races during his mid to late twenties—ranging from the Kentucky Attorney General’s race in 1995 to working as Communication Director for Lamar Alexander’s 2000 presidential bid. He also managed failed Lt. Governor and Senatorial bids in California in 1998.
(Clicl link for more)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
This was disturbing, as the pundits, writers, and others that I trusted seemed to be much more perceptive than I, as they had her spotted as a fraud before she got off the plane, or that there seemed to be another agenda playing out before my eyes.
What we now call The Establishment seemed to have their poor opinion of her in very solid terms, very quickly. The evidence cited to bolster this opinion wandered from lines from a SNL skit, to 'a woman's place is in the home, caring for her family'. When they said she was uninformed, they did not offer, nor could I find evidence that this was true. When they said she was naive to the ways the real world worked, Both her words and her actions in Alaska belied that. So that brings me to the belief that I was being lied to. Why? Are these people all privy to what goes on 'behind the curtain?' A view that we commoners must be protected from? A view that Sarah doesn't have?
Like Reagan?
There have only been two ‘watershed’ situations in my lifetime that have truly contributed to my political/ideological direction. The first was with Reagan’s triumph over the Carter years, and the whole return to patriotism and common-sense conservatism, which totally solidified me as a Republican voter all these decades. The second was this ‘establishment-GOP’ backstabbing of Palin, who was the first figure in ages to come along and fully represent my views ideologically, politically, and culturally. And as a result, I basically now have a deep, intense distrust of the GOP. I’m nowhere near as willing to give my vote to some “R” candidate unless I’m entirely convinced of their conservatism. And, to be honest, I could bolt to a 3rd-party at the drop of a hat.
what a jerk...but I hope he keeps it up.
The more he does this the better everyone can see what the real problem was with that campaign.
You are wrong on all counts.
I do not have to defend Schmidt. And I did not run anywhere. Remember the old adage....Choose your battles wisely? There is not a thing I could say to change your mind nor you mine. We would both be wasting our keystrokes. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.
I am not a guy. Just sayin’
(Regardless of whom McCain’s running mate was, incidentally.)
Ha, then you are a mind reader too, for I have never expressed a thought about Schmidt, here or anywhere else. No, even better, you are a thought predictor, because Schmidt was utterly unknown to me before this thread. At least as far as I can recall. So here I am, the truly objective, uncommitted lurker, hoping to see a real contest and learn the truth in the process, and yes you did run away, howsoever much you may protest the charge. You tell me by this you lack confidence in the persuasive power of your arguments, or else that you believe in them, but are convinced we are nothing but barbarians incapable of appreciating the sophistication of your gossamer elocutions. You misjudge us. I for one truly desired to know both sides, and now I won’t. Regrettable.
Steve Schmidt isn’t qualified to manage your kid’s campaign for Student Council.
I apologize if you feel I misjudged you or anyone else. I simply know when I am certainly in the minority and I do choose my battles. It is not that I do not have confidence in my “persuasive powers.”....It is that I am not interested in persuading anyone to have the same opinion as I. I am very well aware...now..that most on this thread disagree with me. They have a right to their opinions. I am not one who tries to get people to agree with me. I have said before I have been married for 46 years to a yellow dog democrat. I do not try to persuade him to change his political beliefs. He is a smart man. I respect him and his opinions even when we disagree. I do appreciate your polite response.
Steve Schmidt is, to put it bluntly, scum of the earth.
We can agree to disagree. I have no problem with that.
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.