Skip to comments.Rush Defends Sarah Palin's Choice to Campaign for McCain
Posted on 02/18/2010 6:59:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
Rush Limbaugh on the Tea Party movement the Republican party and the conservatives Sarah Palin her Daytona beach appearance and McCain. Rush Limbaugh says that Sarah Palin is not a Tea Partier , she is a republican first and foremost, Rush Limbaugh believes that Sarah Palin owes McCain the fact that she is what she is today and that it is a payback time for her to McCain , it is an obligatory payback says Rush Limbaugh.
The main two points:
1. Her own loyalty to the one who chose her as VP candidate.
2. Had she NOT supported him, the media would have been all over her 24/7.
It's a no brainer. The ankle biter 1%ers are caught up in their own fury over a perceived slight of THEIR HATRED of McCain, and are being myopic at best. They've been at this for weeks now, everytime someone explains the obvious, or tries to reason with them, they just send spittle all over their own monitors for us all to see.
Yep. Once a golfbag watercarrier, always a golfbag watercarrier.
The same one-percenters would have jettisoned Reagan when he did far worse by choosing Schweiker.
It's one mistake so it's off with her head, right?
What a RINO.
Post to me some time when you're able to stand on your own, OK? You can even say the same words you did here, but without the gang ping.
btw, I've done more to get rid of RINO's that you ever have (and maybe ever will), so don't give me that garbage any more either.
If you want to have a civil discussion as fellow conservatives (which I believe we are......at least I know I am), I'm all for it.
Let me know when you're ready to get rid of the training wheels, and we'll talk.
I'd especially like to discuss the concept of integrity with you.
They say they support him, but they either have forgotten, or never heard that he wasn't the god-like image now portrayed.
A wise, intelligent, thoughtful, strong conservative leader. But not up to their standards of perfection. Mostly because he was unabashedly a Republican.
As I said before when it comes to the perfect conservative.......there ain't no such animal. And even if there were, some of these guys would find a reason to bash him or her.
Seems impotent, doesn't it. I think most would be embarrassed to do such a thing.
It's the wierdest thing I've ever seen on FR.........and as you well know, there's been plenty of wierd stuff going on around here. ;)
I wanted Huck because I could trust him on abortion.
I voted for McCain for Palin.
I would not vote against Palin because of McCain
I would never vote for McCain because of Palin again.
If I lived in AZ I would go see Palin campain for McCain and I would carry a Hayworth/Palin sign.
Palin can't win the campaign for McCain. Conservatives are smarter than that.
Thanks for the info.
If you think she would’ve been the frontrunner in 2012 without being McCain’s running mate you are out of your mind. People in the lower 48 don’t pay attention to Alaska and only political junkies like us had ever heard of her until McCain picked her. Even some of my friends who I consider to be fairly well informed had never heard of her. Without name recognition, it’s impossible to win a primary.
You are incapable of finding the right balance between realism and idealism. Also, I find people who are constantly saying how principled they are to often times be pompous, self-righteous blowhards. Our main principle should be stopping and destroying Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. Victory over these bastards should be our principle.
“Looks like I struck raw nerve.”
You struck nothing but the air. The fact is that you made a statement about Palin’sensorsement of McCain as being a “black mark”. I simply identified one of Reagan’s flawed decisions (which led many to question his conservative bona fides) and you treed to paint it as a virtue. I lived through that. I was for Reagan long before you were, I’ll wager...BDVD, if you get my meaning. Calling yourself Reagan Man doesn’t make you the arbiter of all things Reagan. You don’t know what you are talking about with Schweiker. Reagan probably alienated enough delegates in the Mississippi and Louisiana delegations with the Schweiker announcement that it actually COST him the nomination. It was wildly unpopular with conservatives and if you don’t know that you either weren’t paying attention when it happened and only read about it after the fact or you are too young to have lived through it.
“Some conservatives weren’t always satisfied with Reagan. So be it. That included Jesse Helms..”
Huh? Against you don’t know your history. Let me help you with the “Reader’s Digest version:
“Defying expectations, Ford narrowly defeated Reagan in the New Hampshire primary, and then proceeded to beat Reagan in the Florida and Illinois primaries by comfortable margins. By the time of the North Carolina primary in March 1976, Reagan’s campaign was nearly out of money, and it was widely believed that another defeat would force Reagan to quit the race. However, assisted by the powerful political organization of right-wing U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, Reagan upset Ford in North Carolina and then proceeded to win a string of impressive victories, including Texas, where he won all 100 delegates.”
Helms, far from not being satisfied with Reagan, SAVED him in North Carolina. He was one of his two Reaganites in the U.S. Senate at this time. And the pick alienated Helms, caused a huge backlash at the Convention, quite possibly cost him the nomination and in any event did nothing to help him. It was ill-conceived, and the only good thing about it is that it did him no lasting harm. It was apolitical mistake.
“After all, Reagan almost beat a sitting US President for the GOP nomination in 1976. An historic event of the first magnitude.”
Really? I know. I helped him. Also in 1980. In fact, Reagan was favored to beat Ford in the 1976 primaries and his losses in Iowa and NH led to a string of defeats that almost led to his withdrawal (which would have meant political oblivion for him and some other screen name for you, buckeroo.). But old Jesse, who was never satisgfied with him, saved the day.
“Stop the revisionism”
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think you do, either. Reagan made a calculated political gamble in picking Schweiker, who was a LIBERAL in 1976. It was a compromise that alienated some of his base and did him no good. Palin, on the other hand, endorsed McCain BEFORE Hayworth ever got in the race and she had what most rational people would agree was a obligation to him. Ergo, I think her motives in the McCain imbroglio were purer and less tainted by politics than were Reagan’s in the Schweiker fiasco.
“Let Palin be Palin and let the cards fall where they may. What are you afraid of?”
Listen. Palin can take care of herself. She does not need me or even Rush to defend her. Conversely, Reagan does not need you to defend him. His legacy can take care of itself. I have been a supporter of his for over 40 years, and he was the greatest President of the 20th Century and one of the three greatest of all time. But he made a mistake with the Schweiker gambit, which was not even Reagan’s idea but was foisted on him by John Sears, his campign manager, who was no conservative
“By persuading Reagan to announce that Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker was his choice as running mate, Sears confused the Republican delegate picture sufficiently to stanch the flow of support to Ford and keep Reagan alive. But the moveby outraging some conservativesmay also have guaranteed Ford’s nomination. Whether Sears’ greatest gamble was shrewd or foolhardy will not be entirely clear until after the Republican presidential nominee is selected next week.”
(BTW, in case you did not know it-since you apparently don’t know a lot about Reagan- Sears was a big time RINO who almost cost Reagan the 1980 nomination with his mushiness and bad tactical decisions in Iowa, and purges of Lyn Nofziger, Deaver and finally Ed Meese, at which point Reagan fired him and overcame his early loss (engineered by Sears) in Iowa and won NH and the nomination). Had Reagan continued to pursue iterations of the Schweiker strategy in 1980, as confected by John Sears, he might very well have lost the 1980 nomination.
Couldn't agree more.
Thanks. He put out a little more misinformation in post 391 so I had to give him another history lesson on Reagan, which is at post 417, if you are interested.
Sorry. I really don’t know. I think Virginia Ridgerunner is on it.
dang rabs, i just played with the food, you ate the rotten carcass...8^}...
>>>>>You struck nothing but the air.
I hit raw nerve, to the bone. Why else would waste so much time cutting and pasting content from a liberal rag like Time magazine, the Reader's Digest, Wikipedia and who knows were else, in an obviously vain attempt to make me think you know what your talking about. Sorry, I'm not impressed and I'm not buying it either. Also, FRee Republic is an anonymous forum. You can post anything you want. Doesn't make it true and doesn't convince anyone you know what you're talking about. You could tell me you helped Reagan, PM Thatcher or Pope John. Meaningless. Don't try to bullshit me!
>>>>>The fact is that you made a statement about Palinsensorsement of McCain as being a black mark.
Right. Why? Because that's exactly what it is. Palin's endorsement of McCain and her endorsement of the libertarian loon Rand Paul are also black marks on her record. And quitting her job as Alaska Governor is even a bigger black mark on her record and in the long run will cost her votes, should she decide to run. Does that mean I won't vote for Palin? Of course not.
You dragged Reagan into the debate, not me. The fact remains, you made statements about Richard Schweiker that didn't tell the whole story and weren't true. Just as in 1968, Reagan had no intention of running in 1976. But once he decided to challenge Ford, everyone knew it was a longshot candidacy on his part. In the end Reagan came up 70 votes shy of victory over Ford. For you to even suggest, that by Reagan choosing Pro-Life champion Richard Schweiker as his running mate, "that it actually COST him the nomination", is about dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. Again, some folks never did like Reagan. You appear to be one of those folks.
Join the military, get a job, buy a house, take on a car payment, have some kids, pay some hardcore taxes.....then you’ll be qualified to discuss RINOS and fair-weather conservatives. Until then, you’re just another inexperienced college kid living at home with mom/dad, with a brain full of idealistic mush and wishful thinking.
The world according to you. Been there, done that. !!!!
“For you to even suggest, that by Reagan choosing Pro-Life champion Richard Schweiker as his running mate, “that it actually COST him the nomination”, is about dumbest thing I’ve heard in quite some time. Again, some folks never did like Reagan. You appear to be one of those folks.”
Yea. resort to calling names and cursing. And ignore the facts. You repeat the same assinine argumenat about Schweiker being an asset to Reagan . I give you news sources, interview excerpts from Helm on the convention floor and you dismiss them as coming from liberal rags.
“Why else would waste so much time”
Trying to educate you, since you seemed to be ignorant of the facts surrounding the 1976 primary. Now I see you are too small a man to acknowledge that you were wrong.
You are right. FR is an anonymous forum. I did not lie about myself. Why would I? To convince someone who obviously does not know what he is talking about that I do? No. I am familiar with the Schweiker fiasco and I don’t need Tony Perkins, who was 13 in 1976 to educate me about what I observed first hand.
“Again, some folks never did like Reagan. You appear to be one of those folks.
That statement is ridiculous. BYE.
I ignored nothing and the issue is not what you posted, but rather why you posted it. I've run into this same problem for years with RudyBots, RomneyBots and more recently with BrownBots who choose to run wild around the forum making outrageous remarks and comparisons in order to make their candidates appear as though they're political conservatives. Didn't think the PalinBots would revert to the same tactics. After all, Palin is a traditionalist and a conservative of sorts. An instinctive conservative.
News flash, bucko, Ronald Reagan is not running for anything and his legacy is not open to cheap pot shots as a way of making Palin look better. You dredged up all of this rhetoric about Richard Schweiker to divert attention away from any criticism directed at Sarah Palin. You want to obfuscate any negativity to the Palin factor and for good reason. Her record is short and limited and any deficiencies (aka. black marks) on her record stand out for all to see.
Yes, Palin is a phenomenon and I like her, but she has a lot of work to do in the next year to prepare herself for a Presidential campaign run. More importantly and contrary to the opinion of a few of her most ardent supporters, there is no evidence whatsoever that she's running in 2012. In about a year we'll all know who the major and minor players are for the GOP nomination, and we'll know if Palin will be one of those players.
Joining Fox News was a good move to help improve Palin's debate skills. Lively debate and discussion on the issues with major blowhard's like Bill O'Reilly, Bob Beckel and Juan Williams could only be helpful to Palin's future in national politics. Going toe to toe with firebrands and taking direct fire from political hell-raisers is good for Palin. But all that back and forth, give and take, does not remove or lessen the impact of recent decisions Palin has made which have left black marks on her record. Btw, all politicians have black marks on their record. Nothing to be proud of, however. Some learn better then others from their bad decisions. Still, its always good to look at a politicians full and complete record, warts and all, and not just one or two issues that may stand out and sway voters one way or another on a particular issue.
If you want to help Palin, stay away from the comparing her political career with that of Ronald Reagan's. There is no comparison. Reagan is an historic figure of immense proportions. For all intent and purposes, Palin is the new kid on the block. If you think otherwise, you're about as brain dead as they come.
ROFL that was kind of funny.
Yeah, for those of us that have a sense of humor, lol
I have held actual jobs, and I have paid actual taxes, though I'm not sure what exactly would qualify as "hardcore" by you.
But no, I'm just an "inexperienced college kid living at home with mom/dad, with a brain full of idealistic mush and wishful thinking" (your words).
Nevermind the fact that I have had that piece of paper for a while now.
But hey, I couldn't expect any less from a "lifelong Republican" (your FR profile page) who apparently kept going back to the RINO Party like a broken, beaten, and scarred wife to her abusive husband.
There are alot of 'maybe's' in your thinking.
Maybe she is simply wrong in being loyal to someone who doesn't deserve it?
Your premise depends on two things you cannot know
yet... 1) what her reason is 2) what she means by
I don’t know the answers either, but her actions
will influence conservative voters. I don’t doubt
she’s thought of that. so we’ll see.
Hard to be definite when there are so many maybes
we can’t know...
but you may be right. Time will tell.
RUSH IS A RINO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /s
simply put, unless a politician is willing to stand tall and defend certain principles, [which none of us ever say needs be 100% representation, 50% would prolly be realistic] and abandons those who have proven themselves to be our enemies, they simply will not get a 'better than the other evil' vote in the future...
I no longer fear the boogeyman of 'what if obambam wins'...
Id sooner pencil in the Lord Jesus, then just maybe there would come some restorative power to human government...
Thanks Brices Crossroads.