Posted on 01/20/2010 6:29:26 AM PST by GOP_Resurrected
If she supports McCain over a real limited government type conservative in the PRIMARY, it will effectively end any support she may have had from me. Forever...
I dont care if she thinks its a loyalty thing, battered wife syndrome, or some other issue... It doesnt matter.... When and if she sides with a socialist over a freedom minded conservative she has burned a bridge that cannot be rebuilt.
It isn’t loyalty. It’s doing what the higher ups say. She is a politician after all, and she is playing the game.
Conservatives, of all people, ought to know by now that politicians should be viewed with skepticism. We let GWB and the Republicans in Congress get away with way too much, because they were supposedly “our” guys. Look at what they do, not what they say to get elected.
Sarah Palin should not support John McCain. Besides his problems of granting amnesty to illegal aliens and restricting freedom of speech, he is severely deficient in the areas of national security and integrity.
Politics is the art of compromise and leadership is the art of principle. Lincoln used superb political skills to implement some of the most cogent and insightful principles to guide this nation. McCain has used political skills to implement compromises consistent with increasing personal acclaim among liberal media and politicians. The former is dead and the latter is alive, but dead to principles unrelated to his immediate personal advancement.
John McCain lacks leadership for the War on Terror. His leadership codified the Army interrogation manual making terrorists legal combatants. His leadership granted terrorists American citizenship rights under Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He thereby ensures information vital to defeat terrorists remains sacred and unobtainable. Terrorists are unresponsive to direct questioning and psychological gambits. Therefore, interrogators need all stress and coercion techniques our military encounters in survival schools. McCain embraces liberal orthodoxy considering those methods torture, but his searing experiences call forth contrary insights he must suppress.
McCain especially understands from the Geneva Conventions terrorists are not insurgents or freedom fighters; when captured, certainly not prisoners of war. They are not armed forces, militias, or volunteer corps of any country or authority. These killers are not members of organized resistance movements carrying arms openly. They have no distinctive identifier. Terrorists cannot even qualify as spies or saboteurs destroying infrastructure required to support military operations. McCain understands Geneva Conventions intended to isolate such forces, provide them no protections, and allow destruction with any overwhelming furies needed to crush their abominations. Knowing these factors he promised to close Guantanamo Bay, inviting terrorists into our legal system. He decided to accommodate extraordinarily savage behavior, which checkmates national laws intended to manage simple murder and kidnapping, and renders Posse Comitatus a crumbling deception.
McCain especially appreciates from our Constitution that laws guaranteeing civil liberties presuppose operation within an invincible society. He more than most understands Alexander Hamilton’s words that devastating, unforeseeable perils must lead deliberations. The Federal government’s three branches primary responsibility is to pursue Hamilton’s admonition that powers exist without limitation; providing capabilities thwarting dangers as well as repelling attacks. McCain understands powerful warfare capabilities require potent intelligence acquisition and exploitation before and throughout campaigns.
The framers of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions held powerful positions throughout the darkest times of our country and the world. They were our Founding Fathers, and parents and grandparents of the Greatest Generation. Their words expressed durable morality earned in our fight for freedom, and against the ultimate bloody deluge of the 20th century. These first generations expressed principles derived from confronting shattering tragedies, and earning peace through victory.
John McCain’s actions are particularly reprehensible because he turns a blind eye to the council of these people. McCain continually seeks popular advancement by placating those coveting luxurious morality requiring shelter from hard choices and danger awareness. His crime is repudiating military and intelligence professionals facing hard choices when confronting shrewd, ruthless enemies obscured behind frightening uncertainties.
Instead he follows the success of Bill Clinton, who cemented in politics for both parties the idea that character did not matter. There are no principles, but only ideas that secure possession of an office. John McCain is the most prominent Republican example of this new direction towards possession of power through careful exploitation of perceived expediency.
John McCain succumbed to the terrible addiction of political power. The same addiction expressed itself differently in fellow Navy officer Randy Cunningham, who was the Navy’s first Vietnam ace. Over the decades the honor and moral authority of both were gradually traded away for influence in the political arena.
To me McCain is like a cadaver prepared for viewing. The removal of blood and organs equates to the trading away of honor and moral authority. The reputation that remains is like the cosmetics applied for viewing the corpse at the funeral. It is easy for anyone to get onto the same sort of gently downward sloping path. The final result is tragic, but we should not suffer such pathetic and contemptible modern day Macbeths or Hamlets as Republicans in the Senate.
How else can one read it?
I’m not at all surprised, she has been very loyal to McCain from the beginning and never says anything bad about him... I hoped she would stay out of our primary, however...
Bad decision.
I could understand if she stayed neutral instead of backing Hayworth but backing McLame if Hayworth runs is not cool.
Innocent doesn’t mean juvenile or naive.
Sarah has no guile. That’s her strength, not weakness. The cynical and ego-driven will never see it.
“Bad decision.
I could understand if she stayed neutral instead of backing Hayworth but backing McLame if Hayworth runs is not cool.”
Hayworth has enough of a struggle without a cute, popular
gal who now has Fox News as a bully pulpit. I believe that if Hayworth is convinced Sarah will do this, he will not run. Why should he?
And Bob slithers out of his hole...
Bob, nobody has ever claimed that she was not going to campaign for McCain. We've known that for a long time now, and even JimRob himself has told you that. he has no problem with it either.
So, you're being disingenuous at best, dishonest (again) at worst.
any association with the rino asshats is pure poison in gilbos eyes...
time will tell...
Because McCain sucks and should be replaced. I hope this does not discourage him from running.
Conservatives will be with him even if Palin backs McLame. No thinking conservative would vote for McCain over Hayworth just cause she says so. Hopefully they’ll chock it up to her loyalty and dismiss it.
I dont call it loyalty or integrity, I call it pure appeasement or opportunism...neither of which is appealing to me...
Oh yeah, let's talk about that thread, and how you got into trouble with the boss for it!
Loyalty would be more appropriate if McCain chose Palin as a personal favor or in order to give her political career a boost. But didn’t he choose her in order to help himself win? Was it not just a political calculation? Wasn’t she just a useful vote-getter and campaigner? If someone uses another person to their own benefit, then does the person suddenly owe that person loyalty? Maybe she is just using him back and sees that she can later on use his help. And this is what I don’t like about politics. It is all about THEM and about them using one another and their teams and cliques and it is not about what is best for our country or what is LOYAL to the constitution.
Thanks for the eye-opening post!
The only serious challenger is JD Hayworth, who has yet to declare a candidacy. Jim Deakins and Chris Simcox are declared challengers, but they aren't (IMO) viable.
Thanks! Keep that post handy. I damn sick and tired of his constant whining.
“No thinking conservative would vote for McCain over Hayworth just cause she says so. Hopefully they’ll chock it up to her loyalty and dismiss it.”
Look, Hayworth has a small chance to beat McCain by 1 or 2 points, and that is WITHOUT Palin and her new Fox News bully pulpit.
With her going full bore, Hayworth hasn’t got a chance.
As for “thinking conservatives” look at the inanity of the posts right here that try to rationalize Palin’s promotion of McCain.
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.