Posted on 03/09/2010 8:28:51 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
I cannot tell how much of this outrage about Sarah Palin's endorsement of McCain is feigned by those who do not wish her well. It is not principally to those folks that this post is directed.
To those conservatives who are genuinely disappointed by Sarah Palin's decision to support McCain, let me say that I think Rush and Mark Levin understand it and have said that it is a question of loyalty and that loyalty is a virtue. That makes sense to me and, personally, I would be a little put off if she did otherwise, since it would look like rank ingratitude.
But, if you remain unappeased by this explanation, let me give you an historical analogy, based upon the supposition that Palin was wrong to endorse McCain to attempt to put the matter in perspective. In 1943, there was an American General who had taken the Seventh Army from a humiliating defeat at the Kasserine Pass to the conquest of all North Africa and then of Sicily. He appeared to be the overwhelmingly likely choice to lead the invasion of Europe, code-named Operation Overlord. The German General staff viewed him as, far and away, the best field commander in the Unnited States Army, and they feared and respected him enough to follow his every move.
He had no tolerance for shirkers, however. While visiting a field hospital, he saw a soldier suffering from battle fatigue, lost his temper and slapped the soldier, humiliating the man but not injuring him. I think that most anyone would agree that the General was wrong to slap the soldier. He was relieved of command of the Seventh Army and sent back to England. The invasion of Italy was commanded by a mediocre General whose lack of ability cost the lives of many Americans at Anzio and Cassino and the command of the Normandy Invasion forces fell to a less talented commander, who got bogged down in the hedge row country, again with heavy casualties. Just in the nick of time, this General was recalled to active duty, given command of the Third Army and carried out one of the most remarkable military campaigns in history, smashing huge German armies at Saint Lo, the Saar and finally the Ardennes Forest.
That little slap in Sicily cost the lives of many American soldiers and could have altered the war, because the response to it by the General Staff was DISPROPORTIONATE. In the larger scheme of things, it was no justification for removing a commander of this stature. In 1943, many a worried parent would have preferred to know that their son was under the command of this general because their boy's very life was at stake, and they would not have wanted a fracas in a field hospital to interfere with what they regarded as a matter of life and death. Great military commanders are a relatively rare commodity. They don't turn in long casualty lists and they have been known to save their countries.
Political geniuses are no less rare. They too have been known to save lives and to save their countries. The stakes in this upcoming election could not be higher. The Republican party, at this particular point in history, possesses a unique weapon, a political genius who so flummoxes the other side that they devote all their attention to her every move. Yet there are some sincere conservatives who believe that her endorsement of John McCain, a 75 year old Senator likely serving his last term, is so serious as to justify removing her from consideration for the GOP nomination. This strikes me as the political equivalent of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." The response is, once again, disproportionate.
My view is that the Obama White House would be as delighted to see Palin removed from the scene as the German General Staff was delighted to see Patton relieved in 1943. For the Germans, it was much easier to contend with the likes of Mark Clark and Omar Bradley than Patton. For Obama, it is much easier to contend with the likes of Pawlenty, Romney or Huckabee than Sarah Palin. With our country very likely at stake in 2012, can we as conservatives, even if we sincerely believe Palin to be wrong in this matter, afford to be so disproportionate in our response to it?
It’s your team that keeps bringing this up. LOL
Anyone trying to get McCain reelected is not my friend. He has caused incredible damage. McCain-Feingold gave use the Dem 2006/2008 Congress and Obama 2008.
Ping!
Loyalty can also be a vice.
Nicely written, I’m hot and cold on McCain but see the Palin endorsement for what it is, a acknowledgement of a campaign partner.
As an aside, without McCain would Palin and Brown be national GOP figures today if he had not either selected nor supported them?
There is a lesson in there, McCain for his many flaws, is one of the precious few Republicans who...recognizes young talent..the GOP needs more of that ability moving forwards, not that McCain is “that” guy, but if we ever dissected how the Dhimmis are running everything in DC, lied to do so, and got away with it, perhaps we can offer a counter message?
Naah...let the bashing begin..JD Hayworth huzzah! huzzah!..
Really?
I thought it was because the Dems increased their total registration numbers, coupled that with a plan for raising money along with 4yrs of Republican power that ran away from Conservatism?
Gosh...McCain and Feindgold are the two most powerful men in the world if they themselves could create wins and losses in elections..
As I’ve posted before we must ignore the situation that necessitates Sarah Palin’s involvement with John McCain at this point in time, and concentrate upon his defeat in spite of her obligation to him. It is her obligation, not ours.
We must all say sorry Sarah, but ol’ John’s gotta go, wish her well, and bid John McPain buh bye.
You’re a broken record. Marked you off a long while ago.
Sarah Palin seems to have studied Reagan’s rise and is replicating it. Reagan supported Republicans and that means incumbents of stature. His purpose was to get elected. Ultimately he got elected. MCain is perhaps somewhat disgraced but he is still a Big Gun in the Party and will be considerable help for Palin’s election- in the primaries, especially. She is the principled and political best we have. She is arguably the only possibility of avoiding a Romney “It’s His Turn” presidency.
Agreed. A McCain endorsement of Palin in 2012 would be very valuable to Palin politically.
It isn’t that I don’t wish her well. I really do like the woman.
I just believe she isn’t fit for the office of the presidency. She obviously couldn’t handle being governor of Alaska(I could be governor of Alaska), because she quit even before serving a full term.
If shoe DOES have hopes for being president, it disturbs me a little that she thinks quitting governor, going on a book tour, and hitting the talk show scene is a better path to the presidency. Sure 0bama has been a mockery for who can be president, but his shouldn’t be a baseline for future candidates.
That is exactly how I feel about it. I wouldn’t vote for McCain. But I do give him a “hat tip” for introducing Palin on the national stage.
;-)
Stop apologizing for Vichy RINOs. It's conduct unbecoming of a FReeper and a conservative in good standing.
McCain is a nightmare for those of us who are conservatives but he is a master poltician — he will destroy Hayworth in the primary and Palin’s role will be negligible.
On the other hand, had she NOT endorsed him the MSM would be killing her for reocmmending him as prez in ‘08 but not senator in ‘10.
By 2012, this will all be meaningless and mainly forgotten. Palin is the only one who can beat Obamsky and if we fail to nominate her we lose.
P.S. The opposition to Palin here at FR is mainly people who cling to the notion that either Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter will get the 2012 nomination and win. God bless ‘em but what can you say to that?
“A McCain endorsement of Palin in 2012 would be very valuable to Palin politically.”
That is ridiculous. A McCain endorsement would do her no good. It might even do her harm. She has nothing to gain politically by endorsing him.
How exactly? Reagan didn't quit his job as governor early on. Just about anyone could support Republican candidates. Does that make anyone that supports Republican candidates(like McCain) "studied" in "Reagan's rise", and worthy of the presidency?
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.