Posted on 06/09/2010 1:24:58 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.
Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.
Palin served different roles for each candidate – sometimes spotlighting conservatives not well known to the national scene while at others validating conservative credentials to an unsure grassroots and even stepping in to deflect nasty attacks.
Perhaps Palin’s most powerful demonstration came in South Carolina, where her endorsement propelled a major swing in the polls for Haley’s primary campaign for governor and sustained the state representative through accusations of two separate affairs.
"Her decision to get - and stay - involved in the race here in South Carolina was a huge boon to our campaign, because it caused a lot of South Carolinians to take a second look at a rising in the polls but once-little known state legislator who was fighting to give them back their government,” Haley spokesman Tim Pearson said of Palin.
Palin was quick to defend Haley from blogger Will Folks, who claimed to have had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with Haley, writing on her Facebook page that Folks was trying to “make things up.”
Palin recorded a robocall for Haley in the closing days, urging South Carolinians to ignore the “made-up nonsense.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
REAGAN SIGNED A BILL THAT HE WAS ADVISED - BY LEGISLATIVE PROFESSIONALS - WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS.
THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE - TO WORK TOWARDS A CULTURE OF LIFE, YOU SHIT-STAIN FILTH!
Talk of Democrats [or Republicans] impeaching and removing Obama fromoffice is silly. In the first place, the American people don`t want the country`s election process descending into bannana republic-levels of respect, where impeachments happen regularly and respect for the office evaporates. The office is bigger than Obama or any one president, and last time we had an impeachment it was after a long, bruising process that most Americans simply don`t want to go through. The democrats won`t dump him because a Republican Congress could go either way, exacerbating the irritation with Obama OR making Obama the `balance` most in the mushy middle want. Obama goes and what happens? We get President Biden, and a much better chance of the Dems holding the Oval Office.
...
You’re missing the entire point. In fact, you’re making 2DV’s point for him.
Reagan was anti-abortion and worked to limit, with the goal of ending, abortions. But the “Theraputic” act is a blemish on his record. It was a mistake, not a hypocritical act, but still a blemish.
Does it make Reagan any less of a hero for the pro-life cause? No. But some people — those who demand absolute “purity” — would use this one incident to paint him as a “RINO” in today’s terms.
Add on the amnesty, and these same folks would be reaching for their pitchforks.
Yet Reagan is still a conservative icon, because these few blemishes are almost the “exception that proves the rule”. If anything, the California abortion bill opened his eyes to the deception and dirty tricks the left uses through the introductions and subsequent twisting of legislation. The amnesty might have worked if the promised enforcement methods had ever happened, instead of just laughed off by the Democrat-controlled Congress.
The cautionary tale here is: if the same standard of “purity” were applied in Reagan’s case as the so-called “true conservatives” would brand him a RINO or DIABLO. “Look, he signed a bill that was pro-abortion! He endorsed moderates (liberal Republicans); that proves he’s just another party loyalst who’s talking a good game to get elected!”
And so on.
Remind you of any FR posters of late?
It would seem some posters would like to distract this thread from its main point ... Sarah Palin is a 'King-Maker'. She was 3 for 4 and the only one to lose, Bledsoe, went from a 'distant second' to almost winning. I'd say a very good night for Sarah Palin's future. People can take all the RINO shots they want at selected candidates but she's a winner. She is an authentic conservative and I expect that she'll have great influence in keeping the primary winners on point with her agenda and governing as they campaigned (i.e. as a conservative) if they end up winning the general election or they risk losing her support.
Good for America too. We're in a war for survival, and an all-or-nothing approach (at this time in this culture) is doomed for 'nothing' as the result.
He didn`t lie—Reagan signed such legislation. From that point on, you tried to make it seem like he meant Reagan wasn`t a true conservative. That wasn`t his point. If you weren`t so determined to make it seem like that was his point so you could bellow self-righteously, your mind would clear and you could see his very simple and correct point in the context of this discussion. I`m afraid your posts here show you`re either unwilling or unable to understand a simple point made without endless qualifiers. 2nd assumed he was writing something any thinking person could grasp; I suspect you do get it, but are so worked up that in order to save face you`re only prolonging something that makes you look silly. I don`t mean to insult you, but you don`t get it; as someone who actually WORKED for Reagan, he surely has the background to make such a clear statement, which is an honest one.
(((((((Ping))))))))
Breaking News: Politico Has some nice words to say about Sarah.
I suspect that Reagan was an impure conservative, that or I'm an impure conservative (or, most likely, both). All of us fall short in some ways. The point with Reagan was that he genuinely believed in individual freedom. To me, that was the critical factor when I first heard him speak in person and when I worked on his campaigns. I have no doubt that Palin is also an impure conservative but also that she genuinely believes in individual freedom. Or is there anyone who questions whether she supports the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, our troops, and the pro-life cause?
As for signing that bill, in my mind, he signed it, period. Doesn't mean he was pro abortion, but he DID, in fact, sign it. I find it troubling that we can't admit the truth when a conservative screws up. Saying he meant THIS and not THAT is parsing words when a bill is signed.
That’s what I thought too!
I think you mistake his point that no conservative is perfect to, "he's claiming Reagan was not a pro life warrior".
That wasn't his point at all, rather that no candidate is perfect, but they should be judged on the entirety of their record and work.
I could be wrong about this next one, so others here correct me if necessary: As I remember, when the senate was about to pass a bill in the eighties outlawing abortion except for the health of the mother, he famously said we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. His words were not heeded and the law was killed by purists.
Sorry. Should have pinged you to post 53.
He (2DV) didn’t lie about Reagan, and he didn’t call him an abortion supporter either. He merely stated that Reagan was given information that made him choose the lessor of two evils. Politics is not always black and white, and governors are not dictators. They have to work with state legislators, in this case, California state legislators.
You on the aother hand - and I don’t care how long you’ve been here, are acting like a child. Especially with your scum bucket list.
Sheesh!
Please add me to you scum bucket list. I think it will become a badge of honor.
His signing of the Military Ex-Spouse Protection Act (read: Screw Military Retirees Act) was my greatest gripe against him, along with amnesty in 1986, but his overall positive impact overrides the shortfalls.
“Breaking News: Politico Has some nice words to say about Sarah.”
That is really historic. I see the thread has deteriorated into a debate over Reagan’s ideological purity, which has nothing to do with the article.
If one wishes to examine Reagan in the context of this article, then it would be more germane to consider his endorsements and their effect.
I watched Reagan very closely from 1968 on and supported him from the time I first became aware of him when he won the governorship in 1966. A great man and the greatest President of the 20th Century by far. I rank him with Washington and Lincoln.
That said, his endorsements NEVER (I repeat, NEVER) had the kind of influence that Sarah Palin’s have had. Not when he was Governor or during his interregnum or when he was President or after he was President.
I have honestly never seen a politician lift candidates from also ran status to smashing victories against long odds.
Palin took a giant, probably dispositive, step toward the GOP nomination last night. She will win Iowa. She will win South Carolina. (Does anyone seriously think that Huck (whose candidate was pulverized by Palin’s endorsee) is going to beat her there? If she wins those two states, as now seems nearly inevitable, the game will be over.
I had to laugh at 2ndDivisionVet being called a Romney-Bot.
Eventually, they will come for everybody. It's like being called a racist, at some point everybody will get called one, and it won't make any sense or difference.
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.