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.
I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."
You have no argument.
You win.
Hey! As far as I'm concerned that last election is over and Obama won, for whatever reason... so now I'm backing Sarah Palin and wanting her to make a difference in some future political office that she may run for -- for conservatives...
So, no matter how it happened that Obama won, I'm looking forward to what is to come, in the future.
Can you imagine the things that would have been said about her if she campaigned for JD in the primary???
She would have been pummeled by holier than thou screeds about loyalty and how she doesn’t have any.
In effect, the entire election would have been framed as McCain vs. Palin and would have been a drive-by media wet dream.
By the way, isn't it just a tad ironic that the theme of the McCain/Palin campaign was Country First?
I’ll bet on the political horse called Sarah Palin, thank you... :-)
Lulz - who's invalidating any support of Sarah Palin?
You clearly haven't been paying any attention; I HAVE been positive. It is John McCain who is the source of ANY "negativity."
I and others are perfectly within the bounds of sanity to be holding our noses while Palin "supports" McCain; We are HOPING against hope that somehow there's a pot o' gold at the end of this rainbow instead of a surprise sack of doggie-poo.
You have no argument.
And you've presented no argument for me to be against Sarah Palin... sorry... classic fail here... :-)
It's a good thing that our illustrious leader on this board understands these things better than you do...
I and others are perfectly within the bounds of sanity to be holding our noses while Palin "supports" McCain; We are HOPING against hope that somehow there's a pot o' gold at the end of this rainbow instead of a surprise sack of doggie-poo.
Well, you coulda fooled me, since the title of this thread is --
Stuff happens.
So you're really excited about Palin helping McLame get re-elected? Raising big money in an effort to eliminate JD? Just giddy, huh?
>> By the way, isn’t it just a tad ironic that the theme of the McCain/Palin campaign was Country First?
Now, it’s Personal Loyalty First - and that’s okay, but not free.
Yes, but only their affliction seems to have surpassed the GOP's lately - and it's getting worse for them. If only we can stop the bleeding long enough to tear into their Veto-Proof majority...
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.
Isn't it beautiful spectacle? This is why we've got to hold on just a bit longer and be selectively judicious in engaging in RINO-hunting.
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...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.
I'm with ya all the way, Betty. Good rant that was well stated.
We may be turning the corner after Hussein and the Leftist-Progressive Elites have caused us to hit rock-bottom. We do need to perform some housecleaning with the GOP - its RNC-elite globalist leadership needs to be ferreted out.
I just don’t think we should pay attention to the “nattering nabobs of negativity” — that’s all... LOL...
Go Palin!
:-)
“I thought she had more integrity than to support someone just because they did her a favor.”
How does it demonstrate integrity to give the back of your hand to a man who, eighteen months ago, did you (and, I might add the entire country) a favor by picking Sarah Palin. I do not support McCain and would vote for Hayworth if I lived there. But to accuse her of a lack of integrity is blindness. Ronald Reagan would never have behaved that way, and he wouldn’t care whether anyone approved of it or not. Loyalty and gratitude are great virtues, especially when they cause you to take political hits. If Sarah Palin was a calculating politician(like, for example, Mitt Romney)she would weigh the political pros and cons of endorsing McCain. Or, as you suggest, she would use an issues scorecard, and it would be a mathematical formula. Instead, she takes a decision based on the good old fashioned virtues of loyalty and gratitude, no matter the political consequences, and you say she lacks integrity.
She is exactly the kind of President I want. I would not always agree with her choice. I did not always agree with Reagan, as in the case of the appointment Sandra O’Connor and the selection of Bush 41as VP in 1980, but he was a man of integrity who acted conscientiously. He campaigned for Bush in 1988 and in 1992, even after Bush had purged all the Reaganites and hiked taxes, an anathema to the Gipper. Why? Bush had been loyal to him.
Loyalty and gratitude, without regard to the consequences, is rare in anyone. it is practically nonexistent in politicians. That is why Sarah Palin is special.
Yes, Sarah Palin is a RINO.
And again - disgust with McCain has exactly WHAT to do with support of Palin?
Are you actually claiming that Palin supporters MUST accept McCain as penance?
The pierced nose. The tatoo. The middle-aged baby boomer businessman with the earring. Such conventional ways to say "Hey -- I'm unconventional!"
“Now, it’s Personal Loyalty First - and that’s okay, but not free.”
Actually the accurate Loyalty would be Political Loyalty. The Rino McCain, fortunately, picked Palin for VP, giving her her national political opportunity.
That’s serious stuff, not some hallow personal loyalty.
The conservatives making hay of this (i don’t include the nuisance Paulistas or the Romney bots)...are either clueless about a National Political Campaign or just really with another agenda.
And again - disgust with McCain has exactly WHAT to do with support of Palin?
I have no idea... you might want to ask the people who post these threads, though.... LOL...
Did BobJ write this?
Well, just as long as you acknowledge that it’s “stuff”.
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.