Skip to comments.Sarah Palin's Vague Debt Threat
Posted on 07/28/2011 11:37:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This afternoon Sarah Palin issued a vague threat to freshman Republicans just ahead of the House vote on a bill to reduce the deficit and raise the debt ceiling. Does Palin want Republicans to vote it down? She wouldn't say precisely. On her Facebook page, Palin cited quotations from a 2010 letter she issued to Republicans reminding them that they "campaigned on a promise to rein in out-of-control government spending... promises that you must keep." She punctuated her reminder with an ominous post script: "P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries."
So does that mean she's threatening to run hard-right candidates against Republicans who vote for the bill supported by House Speaker Boehner in the next election? A number of conservative Republicans were upset that the GOP's Cut Cap and Balance bill was abandoned. But those left puzzling over her Facebook postings were just as confused as we are.
Sheila Marikar at ABC News writes:
"That could be a threat -- suggesting that she wont support members of Congress who vote to raise the debt ceiling or a reference to her 2012 aspirations."
CNN's political unit:
"Palin, who is considering a bid for the White House in 2012, has said raising the debt ceiling is inevitable, but that Republicans "better get something out of it." She has also been a proponent of the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" pledge passed through the Republican-controlled House and failed in the Senate."
But Jim Geraghty at National Review has it all figured out:
"If she were any clearer, they would have woken up with horses heads in their beds this morning."
For Geraghty, it's clear she's asking them to vote against the Boehner bill. Giving Boehner a little support, he justifies the speaker's position.
Of course, in the eyes of John Boehner and his allies, his plan is the best remaining option to stick to the principles that propelled their campaigns, rein in out-of-control government spending, and so on. And its not like Boehners plan is generating much pats on the back from the Left in the media.
Just as you did here?! LOL
Your response is nonsense.
As I pointed out to you it seems to have stopped in March of 2010.
A cursory look using your google search shows that to be the case.
Oh, and yours wasn't? LOL
At least I showed that you had no clue as to what you said was true but rather just fantasy, that she only supported him one time. I guess we all know what that makes you now. What about her moving into his neighborhood to be only a few blocks (some here say only 2 blocks) away from his primary residence. Just mere coincidence, eh?! I think all of this is irrelavant as I do not believe she is going to announce and run anyway. She is much better off being a Kingmaker of sorts and have more clout and money that way. Her percieved negatives are still pretty high.
I'm not against Palin, I just want to keep the facts straight and stop already with the made up fairy tales about her.
Sarah was VERY Gracious and Uncle McSmeagal returns the favor by trying to snatch her ring.
And if there ever been the living embodiment of a Hobbit...
She owes him NOTHING!!!.
You did nothing of the sort except to act like a jacka$$.
You asked when does her support stop?...
To which I responded with what I believe is the last time Palin supported McCain...
I used the word "one" to describe the amount days Palin spent in Arizona campaigning for McCain.
I used the word "since" to describe the point where there as been no additional support.
At no time did I say that Palin never supported McCain before March 2010.
What about her moving into his neighborhood to be only a few blocks (some here say only 2 blocks) away from his primary residence.
McCain lives in Phoenix. Palin bought a house in Tucson.
When you can actually demonstrate an example of Palin supporting McCain SINCE March of 2010 that isn't a product of your imagination, give me a ping.
Else spare me your clueless snarky comments.
Do your own research, son, before you post.
You my friend are nuttier than a fruit cake.
WHAT research? What you claim is acceptance of the status quo and it has got us circling the drain of destruction. Nobody is making you post and you sure as ..... are NOT in charge of what I post. Some days the nose pickers need to get a life. AND I am no body's 'son'.... dufus.
As I said, ping me when you feel capable of having a normal conversation.
” And yet, she called CCB, which would raise the debt ceiling $2.4 TRILLION, the right plan.
An advanced case of PDS if ever I saw one...
Pound sand, newbie.
Pound sand yourself, TROLL
Gosh. I'm a troll, who's been here a decade longer than you have. I must be really skilled.
A skillful troll, if that satisfies you...
But troll, nonetheless!
And still, the original comment of mine that you reacted violently to remains accurate.
Did she, or did she not, call CCB, which would have raised the debt ceiling $2.4 TRILLION, the right plan?
I watched the video. I quoted her verbatim, and in context.
What exactly is “trollish” about quoting your candidate verbatim, and completely in context?
So you don"t support Rand Paul either? Sen Paul and Palin's positions re CCB are near identical... Just curious.
No, I don’t.
To be completely frank, I didn’t support either of them before this, either, for a number of important reasons.
But their support for a bill that would have borrowed and spent trillions more, just like Obama wanted, is just one more brick in that wall.
Every one is trying to cover themselves now, but some of us have paid close attention through every single step of this process.
And the fact is, there were only NINE House Republicans who didn’t at one point or another vote to raise the debt ceiling by more than two TRILLION. And most of the rest of the Republican establishment was on the wrong side of that equation.
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.