Dick Cheney not sold on Sarah Palin presidency

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | February 14, 2010 | Jimmy Orr

[Doulos1]

What does it mean to show up to a fellow politicians podium and say you need to vote for him...blah.blah..blah. A few reasons off hand, paid to, or common idealogies, or using another’s podium to get face time. I DON’T KNOW. My point, still is, because she has cozied up to Juan, she walked away from me. I will not knowingly vote for a RINO. Her closeness to Juan is making her smell bad. The longer she stays there the more she smells. Jim DeMint isn’t campaigning for Juan and neither is Rush, for a reason.

[reasonisfaith]

Wow, you’re really working hard on the smell metaphor.

Forget about personalities, and look at principles.

Palin’s support of McCain has no effect on her ability to get things right for our country.

[reasonisfaith]

What if we view Palin’s campaigning for McCain simply as a mistake, or a problem she couldn’t escape? Even the best face problems, and this one will have no effect on her potential as president.

It doesn’t somehow lock her in to being obligated to take on McCain’s policies and politics as her own. She can come away from this mess of having to fulfill a promise, and simply do what she has always done.

[giotto]

She’s going to have to demonstrate that she has better sense than to endorse the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry, before I will endorse her. We’ll see.

[Doulos1]

Wow, you sure are working to make Palin’s support for this guy sound so innocent. Forget about Palin’s pretty hair, nice legs, are charming dialect, it is all about principles and she obviously has put hers away in her big luggage while she is in Arizona. RINOs stink!

[Doulos1]

I want genuine. Obama is the opposite of genuine. He is what ever he needs to be at that moment to further his goals. By Palin going to Arizona she has lost some genuineness. Now, I doubt her. I never doubted Ronald Reagan. I knew where he stood at all times that is why he, by many, was the greatest President this past century. For me, the greatest president ever. Palin has put doubt in my mind with her support of Juan. If McLame wins she loses.

[Brices Crossroads]

“Honest to God, you folks mean well, but you’re just plain idiotic. In your mind individual loyalty now trumps the safety of our nation.”

Now who is being idiotic. McCain “threatens the safety of our nation.” You are out of your mind. I disagree with McCain on many issues but I don’t perceive him as a “threat to our nation.” Did you vote for McCain? If you didn’t it would not surprise me. In that case, you have some share in whatever evil Obama accomplishes.

Weren’t you for Pat Buchanan? And one of Buchanan’s main nostrums was to isolate America from any intervention in foreign disputes. Yet now you have your arms wrapped around Dick Cheney, who has exactly the opposite orientation and believes in American involvement, including and especially military involvement, at any place and at any time. Yet he supports open homosexuality in the military (which,and I am no McCain fan, McCain happens to oppose) and which policy would threaten military order and readiness and you don’t think that “threatens the safety of our nation.”

“In your eyes God favors backing a man who is willing to reach out to those who wish to take our nation down.”

Good Lord. What a silly statement.

“We don’t need Snows, Grahams, and MeCains on our side in the U.S. Senate.”

Can you count? Count to 41 very slowly, because that is how many you need to prevent a government takeover of the health care industry from which we will never disengage ourselves. Yea. Let’s get rid of all of them, and the Dems can invoke cloture and you will get socialized health care, cap and tax, Cass Sunstein on the Supreme Court.

“Right. You think it shows character for a Conservative to back a man like MeCain. You know better than that.”

If it shows a lack of character to endorse “a man like McCain” for a measly U.S. Senate seat, then a foriori, it
showed an even greater lack of character to ENDORSE HIM FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and still less to RUN ON THE TICKET WITH HIM AND TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SEE THAHE WAS ELECTED. I suppose the 59 million of us who voted for McCain/Palin also showed lack of character. Her lack of character from your blinkered perspective was already established when she accepted McCain’s offer to be on the ticket with him.

“Who do you support?

We are just under two years from having to make a decision on that point, and I am holding off on my decision until then.”

When I asked the question about who you support, I was genuinely interested. Now I could care less. I don’t think you have an agenda, though. I think you are just plain nutty.

[Brices Crossroads]

I retract the “out of your mind” and “nutty” comments of post 287. I think you are wrong, seriously misled, as you believe I am, but I have no evidence that you are unbalanced. I should have withheld that hyperbole. I am sorry.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not here to focus on Sarah Palin. There are other issues that should be attracting our attention. Sadly, her actions and the defense of them have required some of us to address what is taking place.

As Conservatives we keep getting these fixations on people who do things they shouldn’t, then running cover for them because we like them.

I happen to like Sarah, but I am not going to turn a blind eye to her supporting someone the likes of John MeCain.

If she can’t figure out that MeCain would screw over an administration that was Conservative, then I’m at a loss to explain how she is politically savvy.

[DoughtyOne]

Honest to God, you folks mean well, but you’re just plain idiotic. In your mind individual loyalty now trumps the safety of our nation.

Now who is being idiotic. McCain “threatens the safety of our nation.” You are out of your mind. I disagree with McCain on many issues but I don’t perceive him as a “threat to our nation.”

1. MeCain supported closing Gitmo and moving the terrorists to U.S. soil.
2. He also demanded we stop water boarding, which would have resulted in our loss of critical intel needed to prevent terrorist attacks
3. MeCain cosponsored a bill that would have seen between 20 and 35 million illegal immigrants become citizens
4. As a result of that plan, upwards of 70 to 100 million more foreign nationals would have come to the U.S. under chain migration
5. MeCain wanted us to sign on the the Internation Criminal Court
6. MeCain wanted us to sign on to the LOST treaty, causing trouble for our Navy and giving the U.N. a perpetual income stream
7. MeCain signed on with Lieberman a number of times to introduce anti-business climate bills that would have seriously damaged U.S. competitive status

And on and on it goes...  once again: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2451231/posts?page=263#263

Yes, who is being idiotic because they like someone so much they are blinded to the truth?

Did you vote for McCain? If you didn’t it would not surprise me. In that case, you have some share in whatever evil Obama accomplishes.

When Congress goes back to the Republicans this November, be sure to come back and blame me for it.

Weren’t you for Pat Buchanan? And one of Buchanan’s main nostrums was to isolate America from any intervention in foreign disputes. Yet now you have your arms wrapped around Dick Cheney, who has exactly the opposite orientation and believes in American involvement, including and especially military involvement, at any place and at any time. Yet he supports open homosexuality in the military (which,and I am no McCain fan, McCain happens to oppose) and which policy would threaten military order and readiness and you don’t think that “threatens the safety of our nation.”

Look at you.  All this bull s--t because you can't come to grips with the reality that John MeCain is indefensible and supporting him is a the last thing a true Conservative would do.  You dredge up all of this to divert attention from the train wreck that is taking place right in front of our noses now.  That's the tactic of a disinformation specialist.  Your acting the part of a disrupter.  You dredge up my past as if it's relevant, but when I link you to a list of many things John MeCain has done, you completely ignore it.  I'm not running for office.  John MeCain is.  I'm not supporting John MeCain.  Sarah Palin is.

Yes, I was for Pat Buchanan.  It's great to take military action on other continents, but it's even better to defend the sanctity of our own borders.  Today we face a situation that may alter the internal makeup of our nation forever.  If the open borders people get their way, over 100 million new citizens could be realized within twenty years.  That means that up to one third of the current total population of our nation would be made up of people who did not grow up here, do not have the same ties to our nation that we do, and could easily be swayed to move this nation even more toward the European model our Founding Fathers tried desperately to avoid this nation becoming.  And if you want to come down on the side of those who celebrate the loss of White self-rule in the United States, be my guest.

Do I support all Buchanan policy?  No.  I've been frank on the forum about my differences with him. His flawed foreign policy lunacy was clear. None the less, getting our borders under control over four years was worth his temporary poor judgment when it came to foreign relations.  And while you probably think this would have related poorly with regard to the military action tacken after 09/11, I don't think Buchanan (or any other president) would have been able to avoid taking military action post 09/11.

This is the second time you have made bonehead comments about my saying that Cheney is leadership personified.  Let's review.  Dick Cheney was a $20 million dollar corporate president before he stepped down to be Bush's vice-presidential running mate.  He's no light-weight when it comes to his corporate leadership skill set.  I have stated that I have differences with him on policy, but you have chosen to continue to beat this drum like a liftist drone.  I have been very reluctant to state I would back Cheney to be president because of his participation in the last administration, in addition to other issues.  That doesn't reclude me from addressing his leadership skills, and lamenting what a loss it is that we can't expect him to rule as a true Conservative.

As to what MeCain and Cheney support for our military, I will have to jerk you back to the reality that it is John MeCain that is running for re-election.  Cheney has no announced political aspirations.  Buchanan is not running.  And your attempts to move this subject off the issue of MeCain's and Palin's antics couldn't be more clear.

John MeCain is to Conservatism what Kryptonite is to Superman.  You tireless spinning isn't going to change that.  You're diversions aren't going to change it.

In your eyes God favors backing a man who is willing to reach out to those who wish to take our nation down.

Good Lord. What a silly statement.

So like MeCain, you think Obama, the Democrat party, Soros, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Pelosi are the best friends the United States and it's citizens have ever had.  LMAO, nice one.

MeCain said we had nothing to fear from an Obama Administration.
MeCain also said he respected the Democrat Party and it's goals.
MeCain has also co-authored legislation with Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, Lieberman, and others that was very detrimental to the United States.

With this guy, reality is such a bitch.

We don’t need Snows, Grahams, and MeCains on our side in the U.S. Senate.

Can you count? Count to 41 very slowly, because that is how many you need to prevent a government takeover of the health care industry from which we will never disengage ourselves. Yea. Let’s get rid of all of them, and the Dems can invoke cloture and you will get socialized health care, cap and tax, Cass Sunstein on the Supreme Court.

Okay, so you think we do need the Snows, Grahams, and MeCains on our side.  Well, I don't.  We need to replace them, and this year we will be retiring John MeCain.  The others will follow.

BTW, Have you heard of Scott Brown?  Just wondering, because your mention of 41 is comical with what just took place weeks ago.

Right. You think it shows character for a Conservative to back a man like MeCain. You know better than that.

If it shows a lack of character to endorse “a man like McCain” for a measly U.S. Senate seat, then a foriori, it showed an even greater lack of character to ENDORSE HIM FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and still less to RUN ON THE TICKET WITH HIM AND TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO SEE THAHE WAS ELECTED.

This displays an astounding lack of political savvy.  When Palin agreed to run with MeCain, he was already the nominee.  Her Conservative ideals made her a good pairing, in the hopes she could moderate some of his political insanity.  She was not endorsing his political tenets, but rather saying, hey you may not like him, but I'll be there to help moderate him.  That case was made across this forum thousands of times in 2008.  It allowed many people who could not vote for MeCain, to say that they would instead vote for Sarah.  You didn't know this?

I suppose the 59 million of us who voted for McCain/Palin also showed lack of character.

I let the record reflect what 59 million of you voted for.  I don't need to explain it to you.

I will never in my life vote for a man with John MeCain's political outlook, willingness to sell out Conservatism, and willingness to team up with some of the worst political players this nation has known.

Her lack of character from your blinkered perspective was already established when she accepted McCain’s offer to be on the ticket with him.

Your grasp of political matters is non-existent, if you don't realize that having a Conservative voice in a piss poor administration is better than not having one there.  And if you're trying to say I don't realize this, then you've made yourself a fool twice over.

Who do you support?

We are just under two years from having to make a decision on that point, and I am holding off on my decision until then.

When I asked the question about who you support, I was genuinely interested. Now I could care less.

No, what you sought to do is find something else to argue about so you could take the focus off MeCain and Palin.  Didn't work did it.  I feal your pain...

I don’t think you have an agenda, though. I think you are just plain nutty.

So a person who thinks it's a wonderful idea to support the likes of John MeCain thinks I'm nutty.  Well, excellent!

If supporting MeCain is deemed by such a person to be the Conservative thing to do, then color me nutty as can be.

In case you missed it, here's that link again: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2451231/posts?page=263#263

[DoughtyOne]

A bit of name calling and hyperbole goes with the territory.

Thanks for the apology, but it wasn’t needed. I didn’t take offense to it. I realize that I included some in my comments too, and what goes around comes around.

Of course you think I’m an idiot. That’s okay. From your perspective I am.

Later...

[Brices Crossroads]

back atcha. Happy Mardi Gras.

[DoughtyOne]

Happy Mardi Gras to you as well. Thank you.

[reasonisfaith]

“If she can’t figure out that MeCain would screw over an administration that was Conservative”

We don’t know this much. All we know is her intention to campaign for him. In fact, we have evidence that she can figure out things which are more complicated, so your idea is a bit silly.

It’s much more sensible to assume she can figure it out (given her ability to figure out conservatism) but doesn’t believe it’s such a tragedy to fulfill her promise to the guy who allowed her to speak on a national stage.

[reasonisfaith]

I don’t think Palin supports the principle that says promise you will campaign for somebody, then break it because you’re afraid to do something unpopular with your base. And I’m glad she doesn’t.

I don’t thing Palin has ever done anything solely for the purpose of winning support. She doesn’t seek popularity. That’s why she’s the best thing out there and that’s why I like her.

[reasonisfaith]

“Palin has put doubt in my mind with her support of Juan.”

Based on what I’ve seen of your judgment as illustrated in your posts, my response to the above quote is to trust Palin even more.

That is to say, I think it’s pretty safe to take the opinion opposite yours in every case across the board.

[DoughtyOne]

Actually we do know this much. MeCain was a thorn in Bush’s side from day one. He was angry that he didn’t get the nod, and he determined that he would make life as miserable as he could for Bush.

MeCain went on as many talking head shows and disagreed with Bush constantly. Bush would announce policy, and John would find some way to tweak it to make Bush look less than presidential.

I was not a big Bush fan, but as a team player MeCain was insufferable. He’s a self-centered jerk, and if Sarah were to become president, she would have to deal with MeCain’s intransigence. I wouldn’t wish that on any president, having a guy in his own party trying to submarine his efforts constantly.

Look at the Democrats right now. There’s nobody to compare with what MeCain was doing in 2001 to 2009. Bush would figure out a strategy to deal with the Democrats, and MeCain would tweak Bush’s policy, thus defeating the ability for Bush to accomplish much.

If MeCain would have been right, perhaps it would have been okay. Most of the time he wasn’t. And the only reason he got the surge right is because it was against Bush’s initial policy, and John just happened to hit one policy right with a pellet from his shotgun approach.

As for MeCain’s selection of Palin, it was calculated to serve MeCain’s end, not as a favor to Palin. We can lay that to rest right now.

[reasonisfaith]

That’s obvious. But if you’re Palin, you see it differently.

As would anyone in that situation with trustworthiness, sincerity and class, like Palin has.

[DoughtyOne]

Our obligation at each election is singular. Support the candidate that will be better for our nation. John MeCain will not be good for our nation. That much we know.

You join a ticket to affect it. You can’t effect MeCain by supporting him. You can only deny a poor governing prospect by denying him power.

Hayworth would be better than John, thus Hayworth is the go-to guy.

It is admirable to say, “I will always be John MeCain’s friend, but at this time I think J.D. Hayworth is what the nation needs. I’m sure John has had to face this type of decision in the past and understands this.”

[DoughtyOne]

Let’s recall last year when John was asked if he would support Palin for president. John refused to voice support for her. Why is she supposed to operate by one code of loyalty and he is free to do as he pleases? Didn’t she do him a big favor in 2008? Well, yes she did. If he’s not bound, she’s not bound.