Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ansel12

Then why did she do it?

She flew down to McCain’s campaign because she knew she couldn’t help.

That’s what you’re trying to peddle. McCain’s opponent suffered a ten point shift loss directly after her appearance.

You really shouldn’t play this game unless you know the facts.


83 posted on 06/13/2013 12:13:19 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Now playing... [ * * * Manchurian Candidate * * * ], limited engagement, 8 years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

” . McCain’s opponent suffered a ten point shift loss directly after her appearance.”

Just a coincidence....


89 posted on 06/13/2013 12:15:44 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne

The facts are that McCain was not going to lose his seat, and that you are some kind of obsessive guy who REALLY doesn’t want Palin on Fox news and who is not interested in Senator Cruz or the only Senate seat pick up in 2012 or the historical conservative victory of 2010.

Here is a 3 year old post, you won’t get it but others might.

To:*****
““I think it makes perfect sense, and not from a stance of political loyalty, either. In short, in this age of “gotcha” journalism, Sarah cannot say in 2008 that McCain is good enough to be President, but that he isn’t good enough to be Senator in 2010; which would be the meme if she declined to campaign for him. All it would do if she declined to campaign for McCain or outright spoke against him is make political hay for the left””


I think that the 2008 Republican VP not supporting the Presidential candidate in his reelection to his Senate seat would make the entire Republican race of 2008 look like a failed sham that the GOP was trying to pull over the public’s eyes, and I think that it would have halted the momentum that conservatives have built in recent months.

I believe that the general public would view Palin as shallow, unstable, and threatening, and also see the entire Republican brand in the same way, like they are in disarray and broken and most importantly, unstable and not ready to lead. Obama and the Democrats would be seen as the more stable and their win of 2008 would be perceived as the nation dodging a bullet that did not become known to the general public until Palin turned on the man that 60 million Americans voted for, for President.

I think that Palin has the reasons that you and others describe, but I also think that she sees the big picture and knows that the image that affects the vast general public will effect all of the conservative hopes for 2010, and that the general public does not see or want the same thing that the smaller number of us that despise McCain see or want.

I think that the media would have created an entire devastating narrative on the Arizona race that they would have used as a bludgeon against the Republicans and the Tea Parties and conservatives, and they would have buried Palin for good in an image of totally negative character and personality descriptions. It would all be incredibly ugly and while we here would see through it, the vast voting public would not, and that would effect all of our races nationally, and at the same time make Obama and his party look like a beacon of stability and consistency.

43 posted on 4/5/2010 4:12:41 PM by ansel12


107 posted on 06/13/2013 12:27:29 PM PDT by ansel12 (Social liberalism/libertarianism, empowers, creates and imports, and breeds, economic liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson