Posted on 01/14/2010 9:56:55 AM PST by AJKauf
By attaching herself to this for-profit outfit, Sarah Palin undermines her standing with her very constituents. Many tea party folks are shaking their heads after being the same people to hold up signs supporting Palin. Why not donate time at the Tax Day Tea Party? Why associate with a guy with questionable tea party cred?
And these questions beg a bigger question: Who is giving Sarah Palin advice on these matters? Certainly, it does not seem that people tied into the grassroots organizations are being sought for advice.
Sarah Palin said on Bill O’Reilly’s show, regarding this engagement, that controversy seems to swirl around her. Indeed, it does. She also said that she wouldn’t be making money from the engagement, a sum rumored to be $125,000, but that the money would go to (presumably) her PAC and would help fund conservative candidates. That’s all to the good. Still, I can’t help but imagine that participating in the Tax Day Tea Party being planned in D.C. on April 15 or some other non-profit event around the country would have been more in the keeping with the spirit of the movement....
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I guess the 'concerned' blogger folks and the Keene/Romney/Kessler contingent didn't get the memo on Reagan's 11th commandment. Ironic considering Ronald Reagan put David Keene's CPAC bash on the map.
“On all things SP, FR has simply become to biased a source to be trusted, which is a big loss for the conservative movement.”
Cry me a river.
This is a website that is for conservatives. There is plenty of irrational and emotional anti Palin conservatives and “conservatives” on here.
You’re just outnumbered because FR members strongly support Palin.
Not sure when “outnumbering” became the method for determining the truth.
Not sure where I said that.
Oh, I didn’t.
You seem to think you have “the truth”, when it is merely opinion.
Perhaps it’s “J” for Jack.
That response, to my complaint that there were topics for which you couldn't have a rational discussion because a few freepers are report biased opinion as fact based on whether they rhink it helps or hurts Sarah Palin.
I explicitly DON'T think I have the truth. I want to FIND the truth by delving into the details of the stories. My complaint was that the truth is obscured from me and others here. If I really want to find the unbiased truth through discovery of opinion and thought of the group, I'll have to go elsewhere, because the opinions of too many here are biased, apparently because they love Palin so much.
The phenomena is beyond my comprehension. I mean, I understand the concept of "Lord of the Flies", but I never thought I'd actually live it.
“I’ll have to go elsewhere, because the opinions of too many here are biased, apparently because they love Palin so much.”
Ironically, that is just your biased opinion.
That is my opinion. Whether it is biased, you’d have to decide. I believe it is an objective opinion, in that what little I have been able to check up on does reinforce my opinion that many SPalin freepers here are elevating rumors that support their beliefs, and discounting facts that don’t support their beliefs, as well as responding to similar facts in different ways depending on whether those facts are helpful to their candidate or not.
As to the underlying question, I don’t have a reasoned opinion yet, because I simply cannot determine what the truth is.
I know that people approach “truth” in different ways. For me, when trying to ascertain a truth for which not enough direct physical evidence can be collected (as is often the case in politics, such as in this case, whether it is reasonable to boycott CPAC, and whether it is reasonable to question this event), I count on the considered intelligence of my fellow freepers, who while obviously “biased” toward conservative causes (which in this case is what I want), also generally are willing to acknowledge facts no in their favor, in pursuit of the truth.
SO I can ask probing questions, and get answers, and through those answers, I can use my own logic to determine what is most LIKELY the “truth”. It’s not certain, because it is based on measurements that have obvious errors, but it gives me a relatively rational and objective basis for my beliefs.
However, when the measurement devices (in this case, my fellow freepers) have an obvious measurement bias, they become unreliable.
So when I see a headline with a BARF alert, where normally I could pretty much count on it being something I’d disagree with, when the threads are posted by Palin supporters, it seems often enough that in fact the article is reasonable, it just doesn’t (in the poster’s opinion) make Sarah look good enough.
A great example was a post about an Erickson column comparing Palin to Jesus, which was labelled as a barf when in fact Eric was largely supportive of Palin, and was simply saying things that didn’t make her sound perfect.
Anyway, I hope this explains why I went off about this bias — it’s not that I care if people love Sarah so much that they have rose-colored glasses, it’s that this blindness makes it harder for me to discern the truth about anciliary matters.
Should I go to CPAC? Apparently, the answer to that question is based on whether I ask a person who adores Palin, or not. That shouldn’t be the case — unless you believe that Palin supporters are simply superior in every way to supporters of other candidates.
“However, when the measurement devices (in this case, my fellow freepers) have an obvious measurement bias, they become unreliable.”
Perhaps it is you who are the measurement bias.
“Should I go to CPAC? Apparently, the answer to that question is based on whether I ask a person who adores Palin, or not.”
Have you ever thought of using your own mind to discern whether you should go to CPAC? YOu seem obsesses with Palin supporters. Why would you base any decision on what Palin or a Palin supporter does or does not do?
How do you “know” about CPAC? I can read their web page. But that doesn’t give much information. I can read the mainstream media, but they are biased against conservatives, and never say anything particularly nice about conservative causes. Pluse, most of the complaints about CPAC are somewhat under the radar.
I can read news and understand the primary fact, regarding Keene. But to what extent does that have a connection to CPAC?
My source for information that would inform my opinion on that matter is here. Conservatives who know people, conservatives who have attended. Conservatives who might have knowledge of some behind-the-scenes information, or access to local papers that they read that I don’t.
I “trust” the people who I have followed here for years, and have found to be truthful in things they have said. I also value the opinions of some here who have shown to have opinions based in fact, or which have borne out as being rational, or truthful, in the past.
So, Sarah Palin says she won’t speak at CPAC. But other conservatives are going to do so. Who is right? Or are any of them right? FR is officially boycotting CPAC, I’m told. Normally that would tell me that there is something seriously wrong — but since FR is wildly anti-Romney, and wildly pro-Palin, the boycott could well be about that, rather than an objective view of the facts. I don’t know, and my source for knowledge is the source of the confusion so it’s of little help.
So, has Romney taken over CPAC, or some other organization? Normally, if I read it here, and most people said it was true, and nobody brought up a fact showing it false, I’d believe it— but again, the bias in that matter means I really have no idea if it’s true. I’ve seen many things said about Romney that, when I actually was able to get the facts, were absolutely false, or wildly misleadingly presented. The bias against Romney is something I just learned to live with, even though it meant that occasionally a real story against Romney would come out, and because I read it here I didn’t know to believe it.
Now the same is happening with Palin. Palin may be great, but here I will ALWAYS learn she is great, because that is the only voice that is really supported here. Did Palin make a mistake going to the Tennessee thing? I don’t really know, and I won’t learn it here, because anybody questioning whether she did or not is considered “attacking the country” according to one thread posted this morning.
Since I’m not providing measurements, I could hardly be the measurement bias. I am trying to make a decision, not provide measurements. I haven’t said whether Sarah should or should not associate with this group, because I don’t have an informed opinion.
I do try to have an informed opinion before making statements that sound like measurements for others. I wouldn’t pretend to influence others when I don’t know what I believe myself. I want to believe Sarah did the right thing here.
“The bias against Romney is something I just learned to live with”
There is no FR bias against Romney. He’s not a conservative. This is a conservative website.
If you want a moderate establishment Republican as opposed to a conservative Republican there are other sites available if you want to hear how great Romney is.
Romney is not liked here because he is not conservative.
While i believe there is a significant bias against Romney far beyond just his lack of conservative history (including his Mormon faith and the claims that he is personally responsible for the attacks on Sarah Palin), for purposes of this argument I’ll just note that “being against him because you believe he is a RINO” is in fact a bias.
And it is true that, whenever any person labelled a RINO by this community says something, there is a predisposition to reject it, or to mischaracterise it, rather than acknowledge the possibility that a non-Conservative overall could actually say something right (or a conservative could say something wrong).
The fact of Romney’s non-conservative proclivities does not in any way make stronger or weaker the claims of his personal involvement in things like Sarah Palin’s appearance on Katie Couric, or the bizarre and easily falsifiable claim made by at least one freeper that McCain/Palin was 10 points ahead with just days to go in the campaign before Romney launched attacks on Palin and sunk the ticket.
That last is a great example of how the bias here keeps the “truth” from being agreed to. Everybody who looks at the actual poll numbers KNOWS that the claim is false, but because “Romney=Evil”, a poster can make a false claim about polls, and nobody will say word one to correct it, for fear of being attacked as a Mitt-bot” (except me of course, because i have no fear of what people I don’t know falsely accuse me of).
Of course, since Romney is the face of MassCare, and refused to distance himself from what it became, and therefore has become a tool for Obamacare, I have no interest in defending him either. He has the money and the people to take care of himself. I just use him as an example.
“I’ll just note that “being against him because you believe he is a RINO” is in fact a bias.”
You utilize numerous words to say nothing or very little.
Your above statement lacks logic. He is a RINO because he is not conservative. Freeprs stating that he is a RINO is not a bias. It is an obervation of reality.
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.