Posted on 12/18/2011 1:55:50 PM PST by conservativeBC
Edited on 12/18/2011 2:09:21 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Did Palin just call Newt and Mitt RINOs? It sure sounds like it.
I predicted a month back that Palin would come out in support of Bachmann before the Iowa caucus.
In Iowa, Bachmann and Santorum will do better than some RINO pundits predict...not gonna endorse until I'm enthused, but I'm not enthused enough yet with the field
--------------------------------------------------
Note: I tried to post the video, but it would not show up? I would rather make a posting that you could read from here in it's entirety, as not to be accused of blog pimping.
I tried several different types of codes but none of them would work on this forum.
Can you not post videos here? After I better understand how to post here I won't post another link like this.
For now if you want to watch the Palin video you will have to click this link.
[link removed by moderator]
And you, who are you to challenge me?
This is EVIDENCE if anything can ever be EVIDENCE concerning use of a word that clarity pays ~ and no, she didn't attack Mitt or Newt.
Remember, Newt is the guy who kicked the Democrats out of control of the House of Representatives where they'd been unchallenged for 40 years.
She did a bit of challenging in Alaska when it came to entrenched power brokers ~ which in her case were apparently corrupt Republicans (one of whom is still a Senator, the wholly execrable Lisa Murkowski).
Now, SoConPubbie, if Sarah is going to run for public office again I want her to have full and correct command of political terminology ~ you may think it's OK for her to go out unprepared but I don't!
She also wisely admitted that endorsements have very limited impact a lot of times. Ironically, due to her unique status and the nature of this race - an endorsement from her at the right time might actually have big time impact.
(for example, an endorsement of RS now might give him much needed legitimacy, or an endorsement of Newt could give him more tea party conservative cred, etc. Not saying she would do either, just thinking out loud about how she might make a difference ironically.)
I don’t totally buy our definition, but you are 100% right that it is very misused and over used and quite often abused as a personal rant.
My def would include folks like McCain and Graham and Snowe and others who use their attacks on other Republicans as a way to ingratiate themselves to the liberal media. In other words, these would be Republicans who are DEFINED by their “non” Republicanness or non conservatism. These would also be folks who have never done anything to promote the conservative or base Republican cause.
I think it’s more of a mindset than any particular issue or two.
Sarah's gone dude, so is Bush......hope you get my drift.
This is all the clown does, post something designed to mislead and or be twisted.
His screen name might say conservative, but if he is, it is not reflected via the posts.
OMG, here comes another GOP political historian elitist slapping down anyone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.......IOW, we're just dumbass FReepers.......
Save your crap for your poly-sci class oh guru, we're not worthy of your historical enlightenment.........
He can sulk back to his blog with no volume of hits outside of FR. Which won’t happen any longer.
LOL. Good shot!
LOLOLOL! WTG, Admin Moderator! Sick of the lame-ass blog pimps.
I was here long before you Newbie
Watch yer mouth with the St. Sarah stuff, that you might regret! I think if she endorses anyone at all, she will endorse your Governor Perry! She’s partial to governor’s and I can’t see her endorsing Romney or Huntsman.
FWIW, I find her compliments of Ron Paul nauseating. Forget his fiscal policies. He’s a stark raving mad foreign policy lunatic.
We have OTHER very useful names to deal with their ideology and they should be used.
The dispute with Graham is that he's not quite a traditional Republican nor is he a traditional Liberal ~ guy has his own agenda.
Bloomberg causes us a similar problem.
McCain, though, as his pudgy daughter can attest (if she were ever honest for 10 seconds), votes according to what keeps the most cases of beer on the highways in Arizona ~ man has no other ideological touch stone. Makes him an political blood brother with Bloomberg.
You cannot explain Bloomberg and Paul with your definition. That’s why it is wrong. Actually, your explanation was always wrong ~ nearly a century ago it was still wrong.
They were very real Republicans ~ still are, but they're all bats((+ crazy.
Their time has come and gone long ago.
Jeffords did what he did for a deal on milk price supports. That's not a big issue any more. He sold his reputation for curds. That makes him an idiot ~ you'd get headlines like this one: " Jun 28, 2006 Washington, DC U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today joined with Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), to introduce bipartisan legislation "
That's hardly bipartisan but it certainly doubled down on the elemental ideocracy those two could come up with.
I figured something like this had happened, there was a smell like a bad fart that hadn’t quite faded out.
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104 or 50mm.
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.