Saint Sarah [Newsweek's Full Bore Palin Attack]

I see it basically the same as you do. And I’ll admit, it baffles me to see a combination of well meaning people and obvious shills, combine to do what is taking place right now.

The well meaning people should be able to be reasoned with.

Of course that may be a very small segment of this coalition too.

LOL

You two are a crack-up. “The Odd Couple” / Pigeon sisters?

Har

Can you fellas let any Palin thread go without attacking her or the good folks that support her?
Unfortunately...they can't....Go back and research previous Palin threads...Same old windbags....over and over
Sad isn't it

No, it's called being consistent, unlike some who stick their fingers into the air to see which way the wind is blowing before taking a position. DoughtyOne, StephenJohnBanker and myself are consistent. We like Duncan Hunter, we despise John Effin' McCain, and at this point we don't trust Sarah Palin because of the company she's keeping.

Happy to help you out there.

That sums it up pretty well for me.

I have no problem with the statement that McCain lost the election by his flaky support of TARP and the bailouts.

However McCain's actions did not happen in a vacuum. a majority of people voted FOR Obama not against McCain. I agree McCain by his actions could not close the deal with the voters. You say his failure is a betrayal. I choose to see it as simply a failure. As far as a RAT? McCain is more center left than center right but then when it comes to spending and increasing government budgets so is JD.

Like I said I do not support McCain I support Palin and by attacking Palin over her endorsement people do more to harm the Conservative cause than McCain could ever do. And they are in my book the useful idiots.

How would Mitt, or Huck or Ron Paul advance the conservative agenda in the Whitehouse. Like it or not the chances of a dark horse conservative coming out of the shadows at this time is less and less. We have few very few national conservatives fighting for our agenda. Belittling one because of your hatred for McCain makes no sense. And just fuels the left’s desires.

Like I have said now numerous times now I could care less about McCain or JD both are part of the problem. you can make a case that McCain is a bigger part of the problem and others can make the case that JD is a bigger part of the problem. Both men have votes and a history that tells anyone who is not blinded by hate for one or the other than neither is a shining knight for conservatives.

fighting over McCain vs JD is like fighting over death by hanging or gunshot. Your still screwed no matter which one wins out. It really doesn't matter.

What matters is to keep the ultimate goal in sight and that is to elect the most conservative candidates to positions of power in the GOP and in the government.

So who died and made you the all knowing leader of the “real conservatives”. and I love how you “real conservatives” tell everyone that doesn't agree with you cult like purity test of Palin-hatred they are not conservatives.

Your statement is beyond stupid.

” Your statement is beyond stupid. “

No, YOU are beyond stupid, just as Jim Rob said you are.

Go troll somewhere else....where the RINOS roam...;-)

sorry didn't realize you were too stupid to see past your McCain hatred. Logic seems to fail you. vote for the lesser of two evils and call it a vote for a “real conservative” if you like. I choose to go into a campaign with eyes wide open not blinded by hatred for one or the other candidates so bad I do not see the negatives of each.

To you JD walks on water and turns dirt into bread and wine. While McCain is the son of Satan. believe what you want. To me there isn't much difference between the two.

however, there is a major difference between McCain and Palin. yet you want to link the two and somehow you think THAT (tearing down Palin) will advance the conservative agenda.

yeah because a Jr. senator form a small state has more power and opportunity to advance the conservative agenda than a president of the United States or even a national leader of a movement.

Palin does more to advance the conservative agenda with one facebook post than JD has done his entire campaign for Senate. Most people in the country have never even heard of the guy. He is a small fish in a small pond. So your “logic” says to kill and gut the big fish in the big pond to ensure the small fish in the small pond wins. Gotcha

ROFL...

Again who made you the all knowledgeable RINO hunter?

what is your definition of a RINO? I guess a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-strong military, pro-family, pro-10 comandments, anti welfare, anti-government spending, anti-illegal immigration, anti-FDIC, anti-social security, anti-medicare, anti- tax increase person is now classified as a RINO. gotcha.

you truly are one of the dumbest posters I have ever responded too.

what are the requirements in your little world to be a “real conservative”? I would love to know how to get into that “elite club” that you guard so well. Wait let me guess your response. Shut up you RINO. blah blah blah

You would really allow the Democrats to take another Senate seat?

In this case, I would.

McCain has been a traitor to conservative ideals.

He is a bona-fida liar as well.

sorry didn't realize you were too stupid to see past your McCain hatred.

When McCain goes back to Arizona to live on his ranch, I could care less about the man as long as he keeps his Leftist nose out of our party.

Logic seems to fail you.

And this from the person that has been exposed to this http://www.hotr.us/data/mccainagain.html and came away thinking McCain was the best candidate to represent the Republican party.

If you were right, we should have been running Ted Kennedy, Russel Feingold, John Kerry, and other Leftists all along. Why you'd be voting for them because they were no more leftist than our guys. LOL

vote for the lesser of two evils and call it a vote for a “real conservative” if you like.

There you go again. You criticize my logic, then claim that there is not difference between John McCain and J. D. Hayworth. I asked you to post a list of the things J. D. was guilty of, and so far you've come up with one thing you didn't like. One. You mentioned another, but J. D. was never charged with any crime, much less convicted of one. You're desperate to defend McCain. You can't. His actions are indefensible.

I choose to go into a campaign with eyes wide open not blinded by hatred for one or the other candidates so bad I do not see the negatives of each.

I have worked fairly hard to develop the record of John McCain, so people like you could see what he has been up to. I have provided a link to it. You have chosen to ignore that list, so you could claim that John McCain is no worse than J. D. Hayworth. And when I asked you to provide a similar list of what J. D. had done was wrong, you provided two things that J. D. had done wrong, but one of them was unsupportable, basically a smear of J. D.

Who has been keeping their eyes shut, so as not to see what their candidate has been up to. Tell me.

To you JD walks on water and turns dirt into bread and wine.

I have never said that J. D. was perfect, so this comment of yours is delusional. I have watched J. D. make statements over the years, and when I observed him he was on the right side of the issues. I believe you have mentioned one thing he did that I disagreed with, but other than that, I don't remember anything else. You have the floor bud. Tell me what J. D. has done that is so bad, as to make him just another John McCain. I'm waiting.

While McCain is the son of Satan. believe what you want. To me there isn't much difference between the two.

This is what McCain has done with his 28 years in Congress and the Senate. It doesn't qualify him as the son of Satan, but it comes pretty close. LOL

As for there not being much difference between the two of them, well I think folks can figure that one out for themselves. They've been exposed to the same data you have.

however, there is a major difference between McCain and Palin. yet you want to link the two and somehow you think THAT (tearing down Palin) will advance the conservative agenda.

My problem with Palin is that I didn't link the two. She did by choice.

I didn't have a problem with her joining McCain to moderate him in 2008. I have a very big problem with her endorsing him to return to the U. S. Senater, in part based on his lifetime of achievement, when I see what that achievement entailed. I have a hard time with her appearing on FoxNews Channel proping him up. I have a very hard time realizing she has had adds running for him for months on the Conservative talk radio stations in Arizona freezing J. D. Hayworth out, in the minds of people who should be focusing solely on Hayworth.

She's supposed to stand for Conservative principles. That's what she claims to be, a Conservative. Here's another person who claims to be a Conservative, then backs McCain, Fiorina, and another person back east who are consummate Liberals or worse. Some people who claim to be Conservatives talk the talk, but can't walk the walk. John McCain is one of them. Is Sarah another? Frankly, that is my concern. How does a "Conservative" stomach backing a man with McCain's record, unless they actually think the man is a Conservative? I can't.

yeah because a Jr. senator form a small state has more power and opportunity to advance the conservative agenda than a president of the United States or even a national leader of a movement.

You have touched on the seniority of McCain several times during our exchanges. If McCain was a good man, you would have basis to do so. McCain's record is clear. So would I rather send a man with McCain's record that has seniority and lots of power, or a man with J. D. Hayworth's record and less seniority.

Give me the sound foot-soldier every time. A general leading in the wrong direction is of no help to our cause. In fact, he's a major hinderance.

Palin does more to advance the conservative agenda with one facebook post than JD has done his entire campaign for Senate.

When Sarah speaks of good things, I think she does a good job. But when Sarah backs bad people, she undercuts the party, Conservatism, and our efforts to turn things around. Sarah is pretty much a mixed bag right now. She is helping to get people elected who will oppose her own agenda should she be elected president. To be fair, not all of them, but too many of them. And that's only if she is truly a Conservative. If she truly doesn't understand what John McCain is, she will be sitting in the Oval Office implementing his agenda. That's a very real possibility, now that Sarah has tiped her hand, and made it clear she backs John McCain's sordid history. She does. I don't. She has said it. I haven't.

Most people in the country have never even heard of the guy.

He's running in Arizona. The people of Arizona have heard of him. Most people are not aware of John McCain full sordid history. And so most people have at this point decided to back who Palin is backing. That is unfortunate.

He is a small fish in a small pond.

He is a small healthy fish in a pond that is the same size as the one unhealthy John McCain is swimming in. Arizona doesn't shrink or expand depending on who is the Senator. Only Conservatism does.

The healthy advocacy and votes are the important thing. John's advocacy is for Leftist ideals. J. D.'s advocacy is for Conservative ideals. Look at John's record. He has at one point or another betrayed every belief Conservatives have. You simly cannot point to a similar record for Hayworth. And your slander that he is no different than John McCain is false.

So your “logic” says to kill and gut the big fish in the big pond to ensure the small fish in the small pond wins.

My logic says that putting a Ted Kennedy Conservative back into office after seeing what he has been up to, is just plain idiotic when you have a solid Reagan Conservative to replace him with.

Gotcha

I'm sure you believe you did.

When Sarah speaks of good things, I think she does a good job. But when Sarah backs bad people, she undercuts the party, Conservatism, and our efforts to turn things around. Sarah is pretty much a mixed bag right now.

Devore couldn't win in Ca. Palin now has a voice in Carly's campaign and she has a favor form her in her pocket. If carly wins she will help Palin pass her agenda if Palin takes the whitehouse. even if Palin stays out of the race Carly still will owe her thus the conservative agenda. Backing Devore would have got Palin and the conservative agenda nothing. Palin advanced the conservative agenda by backing and helping Carly win the nomination. McCain's endorsement has always been more about loyalty than anything else. Still if McCian wins he will owe Palin. If he doesn't I'm sure Palin will back JD in the general. she has talked up McCain so far not talked down JD from everything I have seen.

the only way to advance the conservative agenda at the national level is to elect conservative leadership. the foot soldiers will follow the leadership. You want to concentrate on the foot soldiers and tear down the leadership. I think that is a failed effort.

I have to laugh at your suggestion that Palin would follow anyone's orders if she was in the WH. She is her own woman and takes her own consul.

I will repeat for the 100th time that the battle between McCain and JD is in my I DO NOT CARE box. whoever wins will be better than the Democrat. I just understand there isn't much difference between the two. there are many votes Jd made that enabled the growth of government under Bush. JD voted with Bush and his big government agenda the majority of time. Same as McCain. You will not change Washington by voting for the people that were part of the problem I wish there was a third choice in the election. There isn't.

Palin's endorsement of McCain was a matter of loyalty and a political calculation on who would help her push her conservative agenda more when in office. thinking any other tin foil hat reasons is stupid. If you want the conservative agenda to pass at the national level attacking the only conservative talking conservative ideas and policy at the national level is not the way to get it passed.

When Sarah speaks of good things, I think she does a good job. But when Sarah backs bad people, she undercuts the party, Conservatism, and our efforts to turn things around. Sarah is pretty much a mixed bag right now.

Devore couldn't win in Ca. We'll never know. If Palin had backed him, and he lost, you could say DeVore couldn't win.

Palin now has a voice in Carly's campaign and she has a favor form her in her pocket. And you couldn't make it more clear what the goal was. A favor owed to Palin trumps backing someone who will be sound on policy "As long as I round up support, it doesn't really matter who I am backing..., who I am putting into a position of power, even if they are Leftists."

If carly wins she will help Palin pass her agenda if Palin takes the whitehouse. even if Palin stays out of the race Carly still will owe her thus the conservative agenda. What favors from McCain did Palin win by doing him the favor of running with him? She got name recognition, but now she has to sell her Conservative soul to back a man who would do this. And so I cannot state that Palin is truly Conservative, because that couldn't be supported any longer. She is backing a Ted Kennedy Conservative. She is also backing a John Kerry Conservative. She is backing a George Soros Conservative. She is backing a Terresa Heinz Kerry Conservative. She is also backing a Tides Foundation Conservative. We could go on and on. It's all in the documentation I've made available and linked above.

Backing Devore would have got Palin and the conservative agenda nothing. It would have telegraphed that Palin was a walk the walk Conservative. Evidently that means nothing to you. It obsiously doesn't to her right now.

Palin advanced the conservative agenda by backing and helping Carly win the nomination. Palin may have advanced her own agenda, but she did not advance the Conservative agenda by backing Leftist Fiorina to win.

McCain's endorsement has always been more about loyalty than anything else. So loyalty to evil is a great thing in your book? Obviously yes. I know of one Ted Kennedy Conservative that thanks you for that.

Still if McCian wins he will owe Palin. Rather than take a pass on hurting Palin's chances to be elected president, John McCain got her to back him to return to the U. S. Senate. Yep, he really shows that he owes her big-time doesn't he. After she ran with him, his own staff belittled her, and he didn't come to her defense. He also made a very derogatory comment with her as the butt of it. This man doesn't show loyalty to the nation or his party. And yet you come on here to argue fuzzy logic, that he's going to owe her. That's just silly.

If he doesn't I'm sure Palin will back JD in the general. The August vote is a primary. McCain or Hayworth will be on the ballot in November. Not both! You didn't know this? Whew!

she has talked up McCain so far not talked down JD from everything I have seen. He has shown no loyalty whatsoever to Palin up to this point. And yet she is bending to his will, backing him even though his performance in the U. S. Senate is a shameful as anyone's in Republican history. And backing McCain is a massive put-down to a solid Reagan Conservative, whether you can grasp it or not.

the only way to advance the conservative agenda at the national level is to elect conservative leadership. And getting McCain elected again over J. D. Hayworth is 180 degress oposite of this. He is Ted Kennedy with an (R) behind his name.

the foot soldiers will follow the leadership. And if McCain gets back to the Senate, he will be one of it's senior leaders.

You want to concentrate on the foot soldiers and tear down the leadership. I think that is a failed effort. If this argument were powerful, then you would want John Kerry or any other lefty with seniority over a first term Conservative. If that doesn't fly, why would you want someone that introduces F'd up bills with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Russel Feingold, Joe Lieberman and others? Give me one solid Reagan Conservative, over all the Ted Kennedy Conservatives at the helm. They stear the ship into dangerous waters.

I have to laugh at your suggestion that Palin would follow anyone's orders if she was in the WH. She is her own woman and takes her own consul. And backs Leftists for office. Tell me, what favor did she owe Carly Fiorina sparky? What favor did she owe the leftist back East that she supported? And loyalty? She owes more loyalty to John McCain than the nation? She owes him more than she owes the Citizens who will be subject to his future deals with the worst the Left has to offer at our expense?

I will repeat for the 100th time that the battle between McCain and JD is in my I DO NOT CARE box. Please, by all means, drive that point home 10,000 times, I beg you. Despite reading this, you still cling to the idea John McCain is good for the U. S. A., in the Senate. I want people to know that.

whoever wins will be better than the Democrat. Precisely. That's exactly what you think. As long as someone has an (R) after their name, you'll buy in. There are plenty of Democrats in this nation that would be better for the United States than John McCain. He has alligned himself with the worst of the worst in the Democrat party. Not everyone over there is a Ted Kennedy, a John Kerry. And yet those are the people John McCain chummed it up with. He also has a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton. He also said the nation had nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. He has also said he admires the Democrats and their fine goals. What part of this do you not get? Anyone would be better than that Democrat? What if it's another Democrat with an (R) after his name, specifically John McCain?

I just understand there isn't much difference between the two. I have asked you repeatedly to list the things Hayworth has done that would compare to John McCain. You have consistantly resisted doing it.

there are many votes Jd made that enabled the growth of government under Bush. JD voted with Bush and his big government agenda the majority of time. Same as McCain. You will not change Washington by voting for the people that were part of the problem I wish there was a third choice in the election. There isn't. You have smeared J. D. here, but you haven't given one specific instance of something J. D. actually did. Then you drifted off into some rah rah election blather that a nine year old child would see through. You've got nothin! You're an ignorant blow-hard. You want John McCain, and damn what he is and has always been, you want him and rationality is not going to stand in your way. John McCain is a turn-coat to our cause. And so are you.

Palin's endorsement of McCain was a matter of loyalty and a political calculation on who would help her push her conservative agenda more when in office. As I reminded you the other day, John McCain wasn't loyal to Reagan, Bush1 or Bush2. And when he did disagree with them, it was on Leftist principle, not Conservative principle. And as long as you continue to try to mislead people on this matter, I will continue to shove the facts in your face..

thinking any other tin foil hat reasons is stupid. I don't have to come up with a reason. There is no rhyme or reason to it. You're either a Conservative or you're not. You're either able to support a Ted Kennedy type for office or you're not. Sarah has shown that she is able to. I don't need to say anything more than that.

If you want the conservative agenda to pass at the national level attacking the only conservative talking conservative ideas and policy at the national level is not the way to get it passed. So far you have taken a great deal of time to support John McCain's return to Washington, D.C. to serve in the U. S. Senate for another six years. Then you lecture me on Conservative ideals and who is the best person to get that agenda passed.

For damn sure it isn't a man who could do this. And I don't think it's anyone who could back him in any way shape or form.

It probably is a man like J. D. Hayworth, who despite being compared to McCain in terms of him being no different, still has no list of specific things he has done to imply otherwise.

You are wasting both of our time. You're getting nowhere, and you're coming off as a complete ass. I can't stop you. And I know you're killing those you say you supprot, so keep it up if you like.

LOL....

So you admit the only way devore could have won in deep blue Ca is a Palin endorsement. I'm surprised you give her that much power. Personally I think Palin has power but I don't think Palin was the only reason Carly won. It helped alot but the 2 million ad buy also helped and that was something Devore never had.

Palin endorsed Carly because unlike you Palin does not tilt at windmills. Palin understood devore had no chance even with her endorsement. he ran a terrible campaign and lost by 40pts I doubt if Reagan came back from the grave and endorsed Devore he could have won

LOL....

So you admit the only way devore could have won in deep blue Ca is a Palin endorsement. What I actually said was this, you stated DeVore couldn't win, and I responed, "We'll never know. If Palin had backed him, and he lost, you could say DeVore couldn't win." So I didn't say Palin could have won him the election. I merely said we will never know if he could have won with her help or not. There's a real difference.

I'm surprised you give her that much power. I didn't.

Personally I think Palin has power but I don't think Palin was the only reason Carly won. It helped alot but the 2 million ad buy also helped and that was something Devore never had. I'm not sure if it was the reason Fiorina won either. I will say that every percent Palin was responsible for pulling over to the Fiorina side, was a percent not avilable to DeVore.

If Palin pulled in an additional 10% to Fiorina's cause, that meant that DeVore had to pick up an additional 10% plus from somewhere else. You know, even a five percent tilt can create a 10% spread. If Palin was responsible for 10% going to Fiorina, that's actually a 20% tilt. I say this, because when Fiorina gets 10%, that 10% has to come from somewhere. Fiorina's total goes up by 10%, and DeVore's total goes down by 10%. That's 20%. If they both start out at 50%, they would wind up 60/40. If they start out 60/40, a ten percent swing to DeVore could put them even.

I'm not going to say Palin cost DeVore the election, but it is possible she did.

Palin endorsed Carly because unlike you Palin does not tilt at windmills. You can parse it any way you like, but another way of looking at it is that it doesn't matter to Palin who she supports, as long as she supports someone who can do her a favor later on. Obviously that meets your standard as a Conservative. It doesn't meet mine.

If it was a good standard, it would be the greatest thing in the world to support Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Spector, and a myriad of other Leftists in our ranks. How do you get good policy then? They vote against you. And now, Carly Fiorina may get that chance. She can vote against us for six years.

If you talk the talk, walk the walk.

Palin understood devore had no chance even with her endorsement. he ran a terrible campaign and lost by 40pts I doubt if Reagan came back from the grave and endorsed Devore he could have won

0,398,742 21.6% Tom Campbell
0,354,854 19.2% Chuck DeVore
1,044,637 56.6% Carly Fiorina
0,016,107 00.8% Tim Kalemkarian
0,034,461 01.8% Al Ramirez

Saying that DeVore ran a terrible campaign against Fiorina is like saying a person like Palin could actually run a reasonable campaign against Donald Trump. It's just obnoxious, to make the assumption.

He lost by 37.4%, almost to the degree you mentioned. Palin would have had to endorse him, spend some time in California, cut commercials hawking him in the local Conservative talk radio markets for months on end, and appear with him on FoxNews a few times. Hell, she wouldn't do that for anyone would she.

In Southern California we have radio station KFI. These guys aren't always on our side, but they have been very good to fiscal Conservatives. And I am certain they would have championed DeVore. They may have. I know they blistered Campbell. With her endorsement, this guy could have gotten traction. Her endorsement could very well have turned this around.

BTW, John and Ken have folks on as guests. When they do they shower them with praise and compare them to the other people running, very favorably.

Could DeVore have won with her endorsement. We'll never know.

We will never know? Not even Palin could make a 40pt(37.ish) swing. I support Palin but I know she isn't a Goddess. geez we are talking about 37ish pts here. Devore could not win. If Palin would have moved into the state and changed her name to chuck Devore she still would have not been able to make up a 37pt swing in CA.

Now maybe in a red state (like Sc) or even a purple state like Minn she might have moved the needle by double digits but 40pts? not in CA.

Devore had no money, he had no statewide campaign, he never connected with the base. He kept his small voter base and never broke out from that.

If not for the Carly endorsement it could very well be Campbell vs Boxer and how well would Campbell advance ANY part of the conservative agenda. he was pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, cuddle islamists. anti-isreal, pro spending, higher taxes. etc..

the risk was too great to allow that possibility to occur. I wished devore would have taken off he didn't. reality is a bi*ch at times.

We will never know? That's right. We'll never know.

Not even Palin could make a 40pt(37.ish) swing. I support Palin but I know she isn't a Goddess. geez we are talking about 37ish pts here. Devore could not win. If Palin would have moved into the state and changed her name to chuck Devore she still would have not been able to make up a 37pt swing in CA. When you're down 37.4%, you don't have to make up 37.4%. You have to make up half that. If you're at 20% and the other person is at 60%, you only have to take 20% to be tied. I know people who were convinced if Palin was backing Fiorina, then Fiorina was a solid Conservative. The same would have been true if she had backed DeVore. And BTW, the name is DeVore, not Devore. I don't belive you've gotten it right once during this discussion.

Now maybe in a red state (like Sc) or even a purple state like Minn she might have moved the needle by double digits but 40pts? not in CA. Look, we're talking primary time. Red or Blue state, we're talking about Republican votes.

Devore had no money, he had no statewide campaign, he never connected with the base. He kept his small voter base and never broke out from that. He never broke out of that because somebody with broad recognition and a lot of trust, came into the state and backed a Leftist. Let's see if you can guess who that could have been. What follows success? Why donations. Who would have known that? LOL Look, backing a Leftist was a self-fulfilling endeavor. Back her and who was going to risk support for DeVore. If DeVore were closer to Fiorina, which would have happened if Palin had stood on principle, who knows what could have taken place? That's all you're going to get. We just don't know what would have happened if Palin had given DeVore two months of high visibility.

If not for the Carly endorsement it could very well be Campbell vs Boxer and how well would Campbell advance ANY part of the conservative agenda. he was pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, cuddle islamists. anti-isreal, pro spending, higher taxes. etc. Yep it would have been terrible to have Campbell do what Fiorina is going to do. Fiorina is a Leftist. When are you going to get that through your fat head? She has always supported Democrats. Do you have a clue what the Democrat agenda is these days?

the risk was too great to allow that possibility to occur. I wished devore would have taken off he didn't. reality is a bi*ch at times. I wouldn't toss around terms like that, because the reality in this election cycle could very well have involved one. One who made a critical thinking error that may have cost my state a decent hard working Conservative in the U. S. Senate.

That is the reality of it.

well its nice to see non Palin supporters give her so much credit. I guess since her endorsement means so much and she can changed the entire makeup in a CA primary then she is shoe-in for the GOP nomination.

Palin intentionally waited to give her endorsement until the final weeks of the campaign. She waited until it become very clear that devore was stuck in last place and not going to move. she waited as long as she could for Devore to catch on. when the risk of Campbell extended his break-out become a risk. Palin weighted in.

I love how the Palin-haters now want to blame devore’s loss on Palin. they forget that Devore had more than a year to close the sell to the voters. that Palin gave him every chance to catch on in the primary before endorsing Carly in the final weeks of the campaign only after Campbell surged into the lead and threatened to run away with the election. If Devore would have did his job for the last year and connected with the voters Palin wouldn't have had to weight into the campaign. If Devore would have raised and spent his campaign funds wisely and had a warchest of millions like Carly maybe Palin would have picked him. Yet Devore had no warchest left in the final weeks of the campaign and couldn't challenge Campbell with ads like Carly.

DeVore lost because he sucked as a candidate. I liked his positions but as a candidate he sucked. He lost because he could never close the sell with the voters and in the end when the chips were down, he lost because he was broke and unable to challenge Carly or Campbell in ads, get out the vote efforst etc.

Yes Palin’s endorsement of Carly sealed his doom. But his doom had been written for months before Palin weighted in.

well its nice to see non Palin supporters give her so much credit. You know, your responses often drift into the ethereal. Anotherwords, they include poetic imagination. I have said we don't know if Plain could have helped DeVore or not. She didn't back him, so we will never know if she could have made the difference or not. So what do you do, you try to make the case that I said she could have made the difference. That's an untruth, but the truth hasn't been too much of a concern for you during our exchanges here.

I guess since her endorsement means so much and she can changed the entire makeup in a CA primary then she is shoe-in for the GOP nomination. Plain may be a shoe-in. I haven't made a comment on that up until now. I am not convinced that would be a good thing. Her expressed indifference to McCain's actions in the U. S. Senate cause me more than a small amount of concern.

Palin intentionally waited to give her endorsement until the final weeks of the campaign. Plain waited until it was too late to provide the support that might have helped DeVore win. We both agree on that.

She waited until it become very clear that devore was stuck in last place and not going to move. she waited as long as she could for Devore to catch on. when the risk of Campbell extended his break-out become a risk. Palin weighted in. Plain weighed in when it was too late to help out. That's not what leaders do.

I love how the Palin-haters now want to blame devore’s loss on Palin. I have consistantly said that we will never know if Plain could have helped DeVore win. So here you go again into the ethereal.

they forget that Devore had more than a year to close the sell to the voters. DeVore was the best person for the job. That is what you look to when you decide whether to back a person or not.

that Palin gave him every chance to catch on in the primary before endorsing Carly in the final weeks of the campaign only after Campbell surged into the lead and threatened to run away with the election. Once again into the ethereal. Tom Campbell never came close to taking the lead.

0,398,742 21.6% Tom Campbell
0,354,854 19.2% Chuck DeVore
1,044,637 56.6% Carly Fiorina
0,016,107 00.8% Tim Kalemkarian
0,034,461 01.8% Al Ramirez

If Devore would have did his job for the last year and connected with the voters Palin wouldn't have had to weight into the campaign. LOL, look Sparky, if DeVore had taken the lead on his own, why would he need Plain's support? You're being nonsensical.

If Devore would have raised and spent his campaign funds wisely and had a warchest of millions like Carly maybe Palin would have picked him. I have no reason to believe he didn't run a good campaign based on the funds he was able to raise. Please feel free to provide any information you can dig up to show he acted in some maner displaying malfeasance.

Yet Devore had no warchest left in the final weeks of the campaign and couldn't challenge Campbell with ads like Carly. Carly is a very wealthy woman. She didn't have to raise money. She could spend her own. She didn't raise big sums either.

DeVore lost because he sucked as a candidate. DeVore lost because he didn't have the funding Fiorina did. He may have lost because Palin didn't come out for him early on. He didn't lose because he sucked as a candidate. He didn't lose because his values are inferior to Fiorina's based on Conservatism.

I liked his positions but as a candidate he sucked. He did not suck as a candidate.

He lost because he could never close the sell with the voters and in the end when the chips were down, he lost because he was broke and unable to challenge Carly or Campbell in ads, get out the vote efforst etc. Campbell had the draw of an incumbent, and Fiorina had her own funds. He did not have the funding either of them had. He got 19% of the vote, and that's not too shaby considering he didn't have adequate funding. Without funding you can't execute get out the vote efforts.

Yes Palin’s endorsement of Carly sealed his doom. But his doom had been written for months before Palin weighted in. Yes, Plain did wait too late to endorse the right man. And backing another Olympia Snowe is not a good thing for California or the nation. Sadly, Plain doesn't quite have the tools to grasp this.

Leaders take a stand on principle. Immitators take a stand once they know which way the wind is blowing, so they can look like a sage for picking election winners.