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.
And Palin enacted a oil windfall profits tax in Alaska.... your point?
I never said her motives were corrupt - I said her loyalty to him is misplaced. There is a big difference. You are correct - she will never get anything from Juan McAmnesty. He will use her & throw her to the dogs when it suits his purposes.
Hayworth is going to need all the help he can get to beat McCain - how is Sarah supporting his opposition going to help a conservative get elected? Everyone says they will vote for Hayworth, but still support Sarah in 2012. I may still support her then, but no one can convince me that she just might gain some votes for the old creep that she could have sent Hayworth's way.
We finally have a small chance to unseat this man - who has stabbed us in the back so many times - and our number one conservative gal is not onboard with it. That blows my mind.
I don't think saying "what Reagan would be doing" is appropriate in this situation. Times are vastly different now. Obama has changed all the rules. This ain't our parent's politics anymore. Conservatives had better get that through their heads if they truly want to defeat these liberals. They play dirty to win - we've got to play smarter.
Yeesh, I don’t know catfish...you post DeMint 4 Prez on a “Palin is a RINO” thread...I guess I’m calling saying that is BS and calling DeMint out for doing the same thing.
Except that Palin at least had a good reason to do it.
Read post # 269, please.
Enact a windfall profits tax? Do you stand by that statement? Because so does Obama and the democratic party.
No you fricking dumbass...Im talking about Palin supporting McCain vis a vis DeMint supporting Romney.
“I don’t think saying “what Reagan would be doing” is appropriate in this situation. Times are vastly different now.”
That is where I think you are wrong. During Reagan’s era, Soviet communism was on the march and big government was the future. The Dems were just as dirty then as Obama is now. In the context of this McCain issue, recourse to Reagan is appropriate. You and I will not agree with Sarah Palin on everything. I didn’t agree with Reagan on everything. I thought some of his choices were bad, but I TRUSTED him, because he was trustworthy. On those rare occasions when he screwed up, it was a mistake of the head or the heart, but not of the soul (e.g.-malice, ambition, treachery). Palin has that, and it is oh so rare. she lives by the slogan WWJD I pray God that He will protect her.
I don’t know if you saw Jim Robinson’s take on this. His judgment is always sound and, like me, he is old enough to remember Reagan before he was President. He disagrees vehemently with McCain on many, many issues, as I do, but he does not hold this McCain endorsement against Palin. He puts it very well:
“I love Palin’s conservatism and patriotism! She may very well support McCain out of loyalty and I have no problem with that. And I have no problem with whom she supports with her PAC. There is nothing written that says she has to do everything (or anything at all) according to JIM.
Sarah is unabashedly pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Liberty, pro-family, pro-America, pro-constitution, pro-gun, pro-limited government and so am I. And she’s wildly popular among the God-loving, Liberty-loving folks with whom I choose to associate. In short, she’s a refreshing breath of clean fresh air in an otherwise putrid failure of a RINO infested party.”
She represents my interests better than any other viable wannabe at this point and if she decides to run, she will have my undivided support!!”
All I can add to that is dittos.
Do you understand how stupid that makes you sound?
It’s not surprising to me that a person who can’t comprehend simple statements would be confused by the idea of loyalty to a person who gave you a once in a lifetime political opportunity.
So, yes, I understand your error...again.
Still at it, cat? Spreading that lie? DEFINE "WINDFALL PROFITS TAX." If one defines it such that a business is penalized more the more profit it earns, then Palin DID THE OPPOSITE in Alaska.
FReepers, lurkers -- I URGE YOU to do your own due diligence on this. Don't take my word for it and don't take catfish's word for it. Just google "Palin oil windfall profits tax Alaska" or some such mix, and start reading. First you'll come across standard MSM articles, in particular one poublished in the Seattle Times (I think that's the paper), that will give you a general idea -- why, one outraged oil company executive simpers that it's the equivalent of a 75 percent tax! Be sure to read the comments section, where you'll see folks screaming "windfall profits tax!" and other folks coming in and saying, "What the hell are you talking about? Do the math ... the 75 percent figure is horsepucky, and here's why ...." It is very informative.
Then follow some of the other links from the general search, and start reading blog posts from I think it was 2007 or thereabout by folks who present pros AND cons on whether or not it was actually a "windfall profits tax," and what actually went down. These are EXTREMELY informative and have lots of info that catfish would just as soon you not take into consideration.
YOU HAVE TO DO A LITTLE WORK ON YOUR OWN. As catfish knows and counts on your not knowing, negotiating oil leases for state-owned land in Alaska is unique in the U.S. It's a whole 'nother reality in state about one quarter the landmass of the continental U.S., with a geography and climate where the cost of living and infrastructure is by definition much higher than in the lower 48, is complex. He preys on people who will make knee-jerk reactions without doing a little research first.
I urge people to do their own due diligence on this. What Palin did with the oil companies in Alaska boils down to this: after replacing a corrupt old boy Republican state network, some cronies of which went to JAIL for taking money under the table from oil companies for letting them get the best deals in the leases, she told the oil companies: we're going to negotiate the leases on terms that benefit the State of Alaska, i.e. the people, and not the oil companies. Catfish will conveniently forget to tell you that the way Alaska has it worked out, monies raised by the State for lease of its land to oil companies pay out in dividends given DIRECTLY TO THE CITIZENS to spend or save as they please -- they don't get funnelled into more and bigger state government coffers. If you owned property that had oil, would you screw yourself out of leasing fees for oil companies that wanted access to it? According to catfish, if you opted not to, you'd be guilty of your own personal "windfall profits tax on oil companies."
FReepers and lurkers, I urge you to spend a couple of hours to read up on many different angles and takes on this issue. You will learn for yourself how disgustingly catfish misrepresents the truth.
I don’t think this thread turned out the way you wanted it to. :)
A month ago, I asked you directly after listing the exact citation of how this was not defined as a “windfall profits tax”. You continued to evade and never did answer the question. Should I go back and resurrect the thread?
I guess you like Jimmy Carter too I presume.
Will DeMint once again be one of Romney’s earliest supporters? You betcha!
No....I want DeMint to run on his own. He is a conservative warrior.
“Will DeMint once again be one of Romney’s earliest supporters? You betcha!”
I like Demint but his support for Romney is really inexplicable. Romney is a total fraud, not even an American hero and Demint has no loyalty debt to Mitt. Go figure.
...and in DeMint’s letter to his colleagues, explaining his early support for Romney, DeMint specifically mentions the great RomneyCare Health bill that he worked so hard on.
Honestly, I don’t recall very man early supporters of Romney on FR.
DeMint is a great Senator but he is not presidential material and I doubt he will run. I’m not bashing DeMint’s past support of Romney just pointing out how hypocritical it is for DeMint fans to bash Sarah for supporting McCain when Jim supported Romney early on.
Fair comment..... But that is the same opinion I have of Palin. Maybe we can talk Fred Thompson into running (and trying) this time?
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.