It is quite obvious why she endorsed him. It is a matter of loyalty, personal loyalty, which is a virtue beyond whether you support cap and trade and tax cuts.
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. Read up at this link. Then come back to tell me that personal loyalty trumps all this. It doesn't. It simply can't.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2451231/posts?page=263#263
You think a Presidential aspirant, if he is pure on the issues, is free to be a disloyal ingrate. I do not.
I'm sure you don't mean to be, but you are being a shill for John MeCain. There's no explaining away his dealings with Soros, Kennedy, Kerry, et at. Those people are intent or taking our nation down. MeCain also said there was nothing to fear from an Obama administration. He also praised Democrats and their policies.
I think that shows a lack of character.
Right. You think it shows character for a Conservative to back a man like MeCain. You know better than that.
It is an old fashioned quality (a virtue which is far superior in God’s eyes to most political positions) but one I think she shares with very few politicians, one of them being Reagan. That is why I think she is special.
In your eyes God favors backing a man who is willing to reach out to those who wish to take our nation down. You also think that is a virtue, Reagan would approve, and this is a special revelation of character. Good Lord.
My thought on Cheney, is that he is leadership material personified.
Leadership material? I don’t think it is leadership to advocate against the best interest of the military which protects us all, simply because your personal family situation makes it more convenient to do so.
Sound leadership skills do not a great leader make if they favor the wrong policies. Sadly you chose to focus on one comment of mine and ignore the follow up.
BTW, why did you bring up the McCain endorsement?
Because there is no justification whatsoever for backing a man like MeCain.
I detect in your posts a latent hostility to Palin, maybe more than latent.
I've been as up front as a person could be with my comments. None the less you seek to infer latency to my "real agenda". Har. Good one. Your opinion reflects the thought I couldn't honestly be against Palin backing a man like MeCain, unless I had a hidden agenda. That's just comical.
I used to read your posts years ago and you were solidly conservative, against Bush in 2000 as too liberal, if I remember correctly.
You have an inception date from 2001. Perhaps you could read in 2000 and draw meaning from it, and did here, even though you reveal that you can't today. I called em as I saw them with Bush, and I call them as I see them with regard to Palin, Cheney, and MeCain.
How is it that you are so blind to Palin’s virtues?
It's not my duty to push Palin virtues over what I see to be her mistaken actions. It is my duty to point out people who run interference for terrible policy decisions, like you're doing here. And it's my duty to make sure people understand how disgusting McCain is and how flawed a decision it is to back a person who will damage the U.S. further with his actions if he achieves another term in office.
You are able to see good things about Palin. I think most people here are. Why do you think I need to restate the obvious?
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.
I really am curious, because it is not like you, at least not as I remembered you from your posts of several years back.
Since when is it not like me to tell it like it is? If you've been reading my posts here you'll have seen that I have hoped that Palin would gel into a very sound candidate. I have also been troubled by some things that I have seen, not the least of which is her backing of MeCain against a good Conservative.
We don't need Snows, Grahams, and MeCains on our side in the U.S. Senate. Spector was another prick that needed to go until he finally grew a spine and made it official.
Sarah is not showing character here, and the premise she is, is purely political spin to protect her image. FAIL!
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.
“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.
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.