Posted on 02/03/2011 7:06:58 AM PST by techno
In a liberal majority state like Washington, Dino Rossi lost two squeakers. ..... With his Gubernatorial run being decided by 133 votes in a case of probable voting fraud.
In a liberal majority state like Delaware, O’Donnell lost by a landslide in 2010 ..... exactly as she lost by a landslide in 2008.
Forget the B.S. about "establishment candidates" versus "non-establishment" candidates. All politics is local and only the blind political purist refuses to acknowledge that.
The bottom line is that a Conservative Sarah Palin-backed candidates will do great in a Conservative state and a Conservative Sarah Palin-backed candidate will be gutted like a king salmon in a liberal state.
The bottom line is that a Liberal Nancy Pelosi-backed candidate will do great in a Liberal state and a Liberal Nancy Pelosi-backed candidate will be gutted like a king salmon in a Conservative state.
It's not Rocket Science.
Conservative candidate in a Liberal state = Not a snowball's chance in Hell
Liberal candidate in a Conservative state = Not a snowball's chance in Hell
Moderate candidate in a Liberal state = Maybe
Moderate candidate in a Conservative state = Maybe
Liberal candidate in a Liberal state against a Conservative candidate = Slam dunk
Conservative candidate in a Conservative state against a Liberal candidate = Slam dunk
Having Nancy Pelosi attack and help defeat a popular middle-of-the-road Democrat that would have won in a Conservative state because he is "not Liberal enough" is exactly the same as having Sarah Palin attack and help defeat a popular middle-of-the-road Republican that would have won in a Liberal state because he is "not Conservative enough".
Instead of a middle of the road Republican Senator, like the "RINO" Scott Brown, who stopped the Obama Agenda Juggernaut in it's tracks by replacing the Liberal Ted Kennedy, Delaware ended up with a Senator firmly in the Obama corner for the next 6 years.
"Either a Senator just as Conservative as I am in a Liberal state or a Senator firmly in the Obama corner!"
It was just plain stupid on the part of Sarah Palin.
The only other explanation would be that Sarah Palin was not able to resist being the center of attention, no matter what the political consequences.
“Moderate candidate in a Liberal state = Maybe
Moderate candidate in a Conservative state = Maybe”
A moderate is just a person who is so contaminated with leftism that he can’t be called reliably rational. They are congenital cowards, and can’t be trusted when the chips are down.
A castle wall is breached by continuing to hammer at it, not by promoting generals who can be persuaded or intimidated into not attacking.
No moderate nominees! Never again.
Did you miss the part where I stated that she already has my support? I should have been more clear in my point. We must be prepared to know who Obama fears most... And who he would rather face, assuming he runs because I don’t think he will. The MSM will push the weakest candidate on the sleeping masses who won’t know any better. We have to be prepared for that tactic this time, and not allow the MSM and their bed buddies the liberals and democrats to choose that candidate this time!
My bad for not making that more clear.
To 24 - I believe Mrs Palin quite capable of winning over voters by her own means. She doesn’t require ‘help’ from every Tom, Dick and Cletus with a personal computer and abundance of time on their hands.
These candidates only got Palin’s endorsement AFTER they won their primaries.
They were the Republican candidate for office.
I actually agree, in a liberal state, a more ‘moderate’ candidate would probably do better. The people of the state chose otherwise.
There is also something to be said for standing on principle, and it took courage to step up and support these underdog candidates...something the national party and Roves PAC and other establishment RINO’s wouldn’t do.
Yet they threw millions behind other losing candidates...and no mention is made of that. Blaming Palin for the loses is pure double standard bullsh*t that has become business as usual from the Bushies and establishment RINO’s.
You said:
“It was just plain stupid on the part of Sarah Palin.”
Well, that’s one way to look at it I guess, but holding to principle and trying to elect Republicans (even if they are evil conservatives in blue states) doesn’t seem stupid to me, and her endorsement was able to turn some races completely around.
These were flawed candidates and they lost. They got little or no help from the party. They probably would have lost had they gotten some of the millions that were wasted in California on Whitman and Fiorina...but the narrative is Palin was stupid to endorse them. Why wasn’t it stupid for Romney to endorse Whitman and Fiorina? You never hear anything about that.
The Republicans just had a record election, and Palin’s endorsements helped many House seats and Governorships turn from blue to red. She was consistent in supporting conservative candidates and while they all didn’t win, a vast majority of them did. The establishment can’t have that narrative out there...remember, she must be stopped!
So you and many others blame her for a couple of lost Senate seats, as if her endorsement was what caused the loss.
It’s called PDS and you have given us another shining example of how it distorts reality for the sheep who believe the B.S. being shoveled 24/7...
“Truthfully, now, if Sarah Palin, with her background and experience, were a bald man with a beer gut, would you or anybody else be giving Sam Palin a second thought?”
Absolutely. And the reason is something that you, as a leftist agent provocateur, could never begin to understand.
I will vote for Palin no matter what because she is one of an almost vanished species: a decent person.
To quote Zombie, writing for Pajamas Media, “As the book (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) revealed, it’s not that left-wingers disagree with conservative principles; they actually cannot grasp the notion of having any principles whatsoever.”
I think this is a major component in both BDS and PDS.
My support for Sarah Palin began with cognitive dissonance, back during the presidential campaign. I was driving a truck across the high plains at night when her speech came on satellite radio. The highway was empty, and I was listening with half my mind, thinking about other things with another three eighths, and driving with the rest. Then I gradually became aware that something was odd. I was experiencing cognitive dissonance, but why? Couldn’t quite put my finger on it at first, but as I thought about it, I realized that the source of my discomfort was that Governor Palin had said that she cared about main street America...and I believed her. A politician had said something in a speech, and I believed it. Believe something a politician says? Unheard of. Talk about vertigo. (By the way, at that time I had never seen a picture of her.)
And that’s exactly why Sarah Palin is the only—absolutely the only—acceptable candidate for president in 2012. She has her head on straight, and she tells the truth. Nobody else in public life can say that.
Nobody’s perfect, of course. Nobody ever was, except Jesus Christ, and look what the leftists of His time did to Him. And given that leftards lie constantly and without the slightest restraint, Governor Palin can be slandered—as you have shown us.
She is, however, the only honest, decent person anywhere near the presidential campaign.
Then, too, there’s dsc’s first law of choosing candidates: “If a candidate doesn’t drive the leftards into a slavering, convulsing, howling, puking, chewing-their-own-lips-off, full-blown “Exorcist” seizure, that candidate is not morally fit for office.”
And there you have it. Either Governor Palin is elected president, or the Republic falls.
No, I saw that you support Governor Palin...I just can’t figure out how you don’t see who Obama fears to run against.
They make it clear by who they attack and who they give a pass to.
David Axelrod was interviewed and when asked about Romney he said something to the effect, he’d make a good candidate... then they asked about governor Palin and his face turned white, he looked like he had indigestion and he made some off hand comment disparaging her.
It’s obvious who they fear.
The MSM and their buddies are trying to make governor Palin as unattractive as they can. They lie about her and distort everything she says. Hell, they just accused her of being complicit in mass murder...they will stop at nothing to destroy her.
Do you think they are doing that because they want her to win the nomination?
Wake up.
You are in for a surprise.
The media spends the past two years piling sh*t on governor Palin and then they say she stinks.
She is lucky in that the narrative they have painted about her is false, and she has the truth on her side.
She is not the political neophyte or ignorant airhead she is portrayed to be.
In fact, she has been successful and wildly popular in every position she has held. She has a long record of accomplishment and almost 20 years of executive experience.
Not only that, she seems to be the only politician on our side with the courage to speak up against Obama’s agenda. She alone has the ability to change the public discourse with a single Tweet or Facebook posting.
Don’t put too much credence in polls this far out. It’s too early and perceptions change.
You are in for a surprise.
Would an honest, decent person who pledged to serve the term to which they were elected, quit halfway through that term to cash in on the celebrity gravy-train?
I wouldn't think so, but apparently you do. Good luck with that.
By the way, I'm so incredibly tired of people just like you who wrap themselves in some faux-cloak or moral superiority, and then go onto to describe someone in derisive terms (like "leftist agent provocateur") because that person doesn't worship at the House of Palin.
She is no quitter.
There was no guarantee when she resigned her book would sell or she would have any success in future ventures. It was a selfless act of courage.
She defeated Obama’s minions by taking the target of their schemes out of the equation. By resigning, she won, and America is a better place because of it (as she would not have been able to affect the elections of 2010 as she did if still Governor.)
You keep repeating the dishonest narrative and then complain when we deride you for it.
Can’t have it both ways, dude.
If you honestly don’t know the facts around her resignation I would cut you some slack, but I doubt that’s the case, and your statement is pure bullsh*t...
It is a pretty good parroting of the left’s narrative, however, so you can see why some might be confused by your insistence on repeating it.
Puke
Look on the bright side. If you have to go to the booth and decide between Palin and Cain is something I'd call a "good problem".
Ah, yes she is. When you quit, you are a quitter. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Thanks for a very well written and illustrated post.
No. Again, you are wrong. People resign from positions for many reasons, some very noble. That does not make them ‘quitters.’
A quitter would be someone who does so because they are lazy or have no passion for the challenge. That is not governor Plain. She is the exact opposite of a quitter, as you will soon see. I’m sure you will be disappointed, but at some point you will realize...whoa, I guess a quitter wouldn’t be doing that!
Your simplistic idiocy is so equivalent to the crap you find on left wing hates sites...are you really sure you’re not lost.
Because you’re not looking good here dude.
In fact I’m starting to feel sorry for you. You demonstrate the intelligence of an infantile democrat.
You would be much more at home on DU or the DailyKos. Take your crap over there, they’ll eat it up. (and that should give you pause)
“describe someone in derisive terms (like “leftist agent provocateur”) because that person doesn’t worship at the House of Palin.”
No, I call you a leftist agent provocateur because you walk, quack, and smell like one. I call you that because I have a lot of experience spotting them, and I’m looking at one right now.
You are not a conservative. You are not here in good faith. You are here to damage Governor Palin’s reputation while posing as “one of us.”
“Would an honest, decent person who pledged to serve the term to which they were elected, quit halfway through that term to cash in on the celebrity gravy-train?”
This recitation of libtard talking points makes you even more conspicuous.
She resigned because the campaign of bogus ethics complaints maliciously and dishonestly waged by your fellow leftards made it impossible for her to serve the State of Alaska properly. As they intended, they made it impossible for her to perform her duties. So, yes, an honest, decent person could very well decide to resign under those circumstances, with no discredit to her name whatsoever.
“By the way, I’m so incredibly tired of people just like you who wrap themselves in some faux-cloak or moral superiority”
There’s nothing “faux” about it. Everyone who is not a leftard is morally superior to everyone who is. In general, people are morally superior to everyone to their left.
The fact that you would come here, pretending to be a conservative for the sake of false credibility, and try to deceive people with regard to Governor Palin’s action shows that just about everyone here is morally superior to you.
Says the guy who uses the word "dude". Given that fact, I still feel good about my position, and my understanding of the word "quitter". Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska, and she's no longer the governor of Alaska, although her term still hasn't expired.
Short of death, there are two ways to leave your job - you either get fired, or you quit. For her, it's the latter, not the former.
_________________________________________________
Well, I am politically and philosophcally aligned with any conservative who defends the constitution. I do not though think that palin is qualified to assume the toughest job on the planet, nor do I believe that the American voting public would ever elect her. And, I came to that conclusion all by myself and do not even watch, listen to or read MSM.
As difficult as it might be for you to understand there are many like me. We think for ourselves, have our own opinions and are every bit as conservative as you.
There are so many errors in your post, I don’t even know where to start.
Odd, I have a lot of experience identifying mindless sycophants. I'm sure I'm looking at one, right now. How about that?
As for the rest of your mumblings, please, save it for someone who doesn't think you're moron.
In the interest of clarity if you read my narrative clearly, I focus my piece on conservatives who have a political affinity with Sarah Palin but reject her because of existential or off-field considerations brought to their attention by outsiders who insist they do their bidding and vote in the GOP primaries the way they want you to-thus these conservatives becoming PROXY VOTERS.
At no time did I suggest that anyone is a “sucker” who genuinely has a political affinity with another candidate and then votes for that candidate. That is what free elections are all about.
Instead I was again addressing the dichotomy or cognitive dissonance of many conservatives who say they “like” Sarah Palin and she’s good for the conservative movement then in the next breath they say she is too polarizing and unelectable and that they will NOT be voting for her in the GOP primaries. By whose standards is Palin too polarizing and unelectable? The standards of the MSM and the Beltway Pundits, that’s who!
And if you fall for that pack of lies and propaganda, yes you deserve to be referred to as a SUCKER, as a THERE’S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE.
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.