Posted on 01/23/2010 10:19:54 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Paul Streitz has decided to call Sarah Palin by her real name, because she endorsed John McCain (who is trying to win a fifth term as Senator) and said she will campaign for him. Fanatic Palinites, such as the editors of the misnamed „conservatives4palin.com” website (they should rename it „liberals4palin.com”), lambasted him and called him a “backstabber”.
“If Paul Streitz’s support of Governor Palin is contingent upon his agreeing with every decision she makes or her selling out her deeply-held values, that’s unfortunate. While all support is appreciated, the governor has never been for sale. Ask the Alaska establishment, who learned that early in her political career.”
Palin has proven that she IS for sale – if one picks her for veep. She’s endorsed a despicable traitor because he chose her as his veep.
Palin is so dishonest (or so ignorant) that she didn’t even tell the truth about why she endorsed John McLame. She claimed that:
“John McCain is on fire to kill Obama’s government takeover of healthcare and that’s what I want to see.”
Which might be incorrect, because McCain favors the SAME policy on socialized medicine as Obama – he just might vote against this particular Act. McCain favors socialized medicine, as proven by Steven Warshawsky:
“McCain’s campaign website [of 2008 – ZM] demonstrates that his thinking on this issue is much closer to Hillary Clinton than Adam Smith. For example, McCain states that “controlling costs” is his top priority, and that “nothing short of a complete reform of the culture of our health system and the way we pay for it will suffice.” This is a recipe for massive government interference in the health care industry. McCain also supports universal coverage, claiming that “we can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens.” Completing the liberal trifecta, at the January 5 ABC NEWS debate, when Romney criticized McCain for “turn[ing] the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys,” McCain replied, “Well, they are.” Plainly, if he were president, McCain would serve as the Democrats’ “useful idiot” for their plan to impose socialized medicine on the nation.”
Also, I’ve heard from a friend that McCain will likely now try to save the socialized medicine bill. So on socialized medicine, McCain and Obama differ only about particular bills, NOT about the merits of socialized medicine itself.
What about the task of protecting the American people? No duty is more important than that one. But on that issue, McCain is also liberal and unreliable. Palin falsely claimed that:
“And his commitment and his leadership on national security to win the war on terror, that’s what we need. (…) national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.”
Palin is flat wrong. McCain is NOT committed to the task of defending the American people, and he’s not a leader on anything except liberal policies. He „doesn’t get it”. He doesn’t understand how to win the Global War on Terrorists, nor does he understand any defense issue or foreign policy issue confronting America now. I’ve written several articles pertaining to this guy, demonstrating what McCain’s specific policies are, and why they are wrong. So I’m not going to repeat those entire articles. Let me comment again on McCain’s policy on the GWOT, though, because that’s one specific issue that Palin mentioned.
John McCain does NOT say that America should attack its enemies before they attack America. He also endorsed Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo, and he opposes “enhanced interrogation techniques”, which are absolutely necessary to gain intel information and protect America.
McCain also buys the PC propaganda about the root causes of the Islamic threat. He believes that these root causes are “poverty, tyranny and despair”, and ignores what terrorists themselves say motivates them: the Quran, which contains several explicit commandments to kill nonbelievers.
In short, McCain doesn’t recognize the real nature of the Islamic threat, and he’s not prepared to combat it effectively. Anyone who isn’t prepared to combat it effectively is a person who doesn’t belong in the Senate. If the GWOT is the most important issue for you, McCain is undisputably the worst possible Senatorial candidate from Arizona.
I did not include McCain’s cretinous, liberal, anti-American policies on foreign policy issues other than the GWOT, even though I could (foreign policy is not limited to the GWOT, although Sarah Palin, as an ignorant person, doesn’t understand that). My articles about McCain refute his idiotic policies, so I just wrote a reply to what Palin explicitly said. She did not comment on McCain’s treasonous policies like nuclear disarmament and the progressive abolition of conventional weapon programs (which are necessary to protect America against China).
The failed 2008 VP candidate also said this about McCain:
“And he is a statesman, and I don’t hesitate at all to say, no.”
Which is not true. McCain is not a statesman; anyone who calls him a statesman insults real statesmen. A genuine statesman fights for the right policies, regardless of ideology; works for his country 24/7; and retires when he should.
McCain has spent the last 9 years promoting destructive liberal policies to punish the GOP for its decision to give Bush the 2000 Republican nomination; he’s been working against the US and for his liberal ideology (together with fellow liberals like Kennedy, Obama, Russ Feingold, and Hillary Clinton); and he has refused to retire – he’s vying for his fifth term as Senator. By comparison, George Washington refused to serve as President for a 3rd term, even though as of 1797, there were no presidential term limits. McCain is running to keep his salary, not to serve the American people, whose opinions are irrelevant for him.
Palin ended her statement thus:
“we do need his leadership, especially on those two fronts: Government takeover of healthcare, he wants to kill it; national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.”
See above. Her claims are false.
Whether she uttered those claims because she’s ignorant or because she knows they’re false and decided to lie for McCain, only Palin knows. Regardless of the answer to that question, she’s not qualified for the Presidency, as she has proven with these statements and other utterances. She embarrasses herself everytime she speaks. Conservatives4palin.com editors claim that she is simply behaving like a loyal person. But one’s own country is supreme to any person and any requirement for loyal individuals. When the choice is “Either the country or the person you should loyally endorse”, a real hero, a real patriot, a real statesman/stateswoman chooses the country, not the person. Palin has endorsed a strident liberal who’s trying to enrich himself with taxpayers’ money.
I was a fan of Palin myself. But I’m now convinced that she’s not a conservative, nor is she a politician qualied for the Presidency of the United States. She’s simply just another RINO endorsing another RINO. No real conservative would ever endorse McCain for the Senate.
A Conservative backing McInsane and his amnesty horsesh!t?
Please!
Come on, Sarah. You should know better than this.
President Ronald Reagan was the greatest, no comparison, in my lifetime. It was a different time, post-Nixon,Ford,Carter, I doubt you can fasten anti-Americanism, pro-Islam, PC to the max, anti-JudeoChristian, TARPing semtiments in our government today onto RR.
RR was the ONLY President who was NOT a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose interests are working toward the New World Order.
Get some fresh air. The sillyweed is getting to you.
Once again you offer anecdotal evidence and no numbers. Show me the data from last years election that proves enough conservatives stayed home to have any impact on the 9.5 million vote victory of Barack Hussein Obama. Come on. There are tens of thousands of pages of data and analysis of last year’s election. Find one single rational article (using facts, not anecdotes) that supports this straw man argument that conservatives who did not vote for McCain cost him the election.
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Anyone?
McCain was a weak candidate who refused to fight and therefore had no chance of beating the overwhelming ignorance of the American voter.
My good friend VRWC, I wish we could flush the above raw particulate matter down the drain tomorrow - especially McCain - but we've got a tiny problem to overcome in the Senate. It's called a a "Vet-Proof" 60-40 Majority.
Until we get a better handle on that I'm afraid we're stuck dancing with the Party Goblins for now until we can afford the purtier ones.
They don't have our best interests in mind--in fact they diss conservatives not only amongst themselves but publicly.
Sarah Palin had best disentangle herself from this Establishment bunch and cast her lot with true conservatives! We will welcome her!
But she hasw been making patriots pretty nervous lately. And disenchanted.
"Remain" cohesive??? The GOP is suffering from the same disease as the Party of the Asses.
Long-time traditional Democrats are freaking out that the hard-core Left Progressive wing of their party is now thoroughly dominant, under the consolidating leadership of TOTUS, perhaps the most famous disciple of Saul Alinsky alive today.
An anecdote from the special election in Massachusetts last Tuesday: At one of Scott Brown's (R) events, about 50 union workers showed up brandishing Coakley (D) signs. They were approached by a Boston talk-radio personality, who asked them why they supported Coakley. They said: "Oh hell, we're not voting for Coakley. We're voting for Scott Brown. But we got paid $50 each to carry these signs."
On further inquiry, basically their beef was the increasing arrogance, unresponsiveness, intransparency, and sheer filthy greed of government, federal and state. [Also they didn't trust 0bama's promise about how they would be exempt from the tax on Cadillac health plans, so they wanted 0bamaKare killed. :^)]
Anyhoot, these union guys would be examples of the "old-time" Massachusetts Democrat — which the Progressive Left of the Party is assiduously trying to kill off. [Ask Nancy Pelosi whether she cares about keeping any of the "Blue-Dog Democrats" around her House. In all likelihood, she regards them as pests.]
The GOP's corresponding problem is they seemingly don't believe in their own values and principles anymore — the enduring heritage We the People received from our Founding Fathers. One senses many of the national Party leaders are embarrassed by the Party's own Platform, and find it increasingly inconvenient — It isn't an instant, knee-jerk vote getter. People have to reason it over and understand it first.
But the party doesn't seem to want to elaborate and defend the core principles that have been at the heart of historical American society, on which its own Platform Planks serenely rest. The attitude seems to be: If the party has to sacrifice some/any of these values and principles in order to attract new voters, then what's the problem?
Looks like a moral problem to me. I left the GOP last October in consequence, in disgust.
Meanwhile, increasingly it is the unaffiliated/independent vote that swings elections. Surveys show they resonate more with the Tea Party Movement than they do with any organized party.
Here's another significant factor: SCOTUS' ruling this past week, reversing a huge part of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing reform on grounds that it hampers First Amendment speech; in effect that for-profit and not-for-profit entities are entitled under the First Amendment to free (unfettered) political speech.
Sounds good to me! I think this ruling actually makes matters political more transparent to the public: Lobbyists (whether the NRA or business corporations) can lobby the government out in the open (via advertising in any medium) right up to election day, rather than in smoke-filled back rooms, in the dead of night, where "nobody" sees it....
Which I suspect is the reason why the Usurper-in-Chief has gone apoplectic over this ruling: He is a man who prefers to work in the dark...
Both these phenomena, to me, indicate there's a huge political realignment going on in our country. It's happening within both major parties, but I think that simply mirrors something more profound going on in the general electorate as a whole. There seems to be a sort of spiritual turning toward a more traditionally American conservative philosophical and moral posture.
At least that's how I'm reading the tea leaves! LOLOL! We'll see.... Oh my, we live in such "interesting times!" :^)
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts, Norman!
Stop sniffing glue. The GOP is expected to pick up Senate seats in November. McDemocrat must be defeated to win the war on Liberalism. Now is not the time to play defense.
Why we're losing what?
Oh... it's nothing much... just the Senate, House, Presidency... :-)
RR was the ONLY President who was NOT a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose interests are working toward the New World Order.
No problem there... these same FReepers would throw the RINO label on him too.... LOL... for appealing to too many other voters, and thereby he's "gotta be a RINO"... doncha know... :-)
Get some fresh air. The sillyweed is getting to you.
Oh..., sorry, you've confused me with some of those "Ron-Paulites" and their "legal drugs for everyone in the country" ideas... LOL...
That's their "bag" not mine... :-)
That’s not what my fellow FReepers are saying in their posts... LOL...
I think that Glenn Beck was rught: that if Juan McCain was elected rather than Obama, the Tea Party movement might not have even started, ‘cuz most conservatives woulda just sat there & accepted McCain’s continuation of the Bush / Obama policies.
If there is anything positive about Obama being elected, it has to be the rising up of the Tea Partiers, IMO.
A Pro-life, pro-America, Pro-military, Pro-drill-here-drill- now, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro tax-cutting RINO?
If that’s a RINO we could use a lot more like her.
Just because Sarah backs McCain doesn’t mean she supports amnesty. In fact, she has stated the contrary. Are you saying a candidate has to agree with you 100% in order to receive your support?
Would we have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE with Juan McLoser as President? Your answer will determine how honest you are.
Then they’ll come whining about how the RINO GOP screwed them. Fools.
Yep.... those who are ragging on Sarah Palin are playing the fools game all right...
Juan McAmnesty is 100% Democrat. His record at backstabbing Conservatives is well document on FR.
Show me the data from last years election that proves enough conservatives stayed home to have any impact on the 9.5 million vote victory of Barack Hussein Obama.
They didn't have to stay at home, all they had to do was not vote for McCain/Palin... and that's all she wrote...
You said it clearly! For those who want to see... ;.}
You do realize McCain is fighting against Obamacare, right?
Besides, how can you call me a “sit at home” conservative when I actually VOTED TWICE (in the primary & general election)...not to mention my going to Tea Party events?
Your ignorance reeks...I suggest you go take a shower.
Would we have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE with Juan McLoser as President? Your answer will determine how honest you are.
Nope, we would never have Obamacare... thank you very much... LOL...
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.