Posted on 02/01/2010 10:34:39 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
1) Palin obviously realizes that not every person she endorses will have platforms that necessarily line up with her views 100%.
2) When you look at some of the candidates's views and records individually, some will most definitely have major weak spots.
3) However, when you look at the sum total of the people she supports, I think what you'll find is that their strengths complement each other's. For example, one candidate may be strong on foreign policy and social issues, another, like Rand Paul is for border security, fiscal discipline, and Constitutionalism.
4) Sometimes the people with the right stances or seemingly perfect records, might not have the best character. I think Palin takes that into accuont as well.
*PING*
I second that.
I LIKE HOW SHE BALANCES HER SUPPORT OF "TEA PARTY" CANDIDATES WITH MORE "ESTABLISHED" CANDIDATES. SHE CLEARLY WANTS TO STRENGTHEN THE GOP OVERALL AND NOT CAUSE POLITICALLY UNECESSARY AND UNPRODUCTIVE DIVISION.
She’s got a few too many open borders stooges she is endorsing, including Mccain, Perry, Grassley, & Hatch. N
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Already, many here have virtually stoned Palin for her loyalty to McCain — irrespective of her stance on real issues.
This ideological purity got us obama and a democratic-controlled congress that is 1/4” away from making us Venezuela/Cuba light.
And these same so-called Conservatives congratulate themselves for their Pyrrhic success. I am sure their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank them when they put their faces to the wall and ask “why does the government take all my money and make my decisions?”
The answer: “I was pure.”
Btphttt!
Do/would we do the same for any other politician?
Her response on issues are her response, she owns them.
Is she going to own others issues that are contradictory to her views, maybe just because they’re the best of the worse?
Slippery Slope.
well then they were being hypocritical if they supported Scott Brown because he is in no way “pure.” Would it have been better that he lost? That’s what I would ask.
yes well Rand Paul is as closed-border as you can get...and so is Michelle Bachmann.
Could it also be said:
Don’t Judge NEWT’S Endorsements Individually, Look at them as a WHOLE
Yeah that would fly here. I like Palin and dislike Newt, but this messiah-like behavior torwards her is ridiculous. It’s just how the democrats were with Obama.
Does anybody here actually think Palin could out debate someone like, say, Michelle Bachmann?
or Martha Coakley. As I’ve said repeatedly on this thread, Scott Brown was by no means some perfect purist conservative. Does that mean we should not have supported him?
Palin sees the BIG PICTURE and she looks at each candidate on a case by case basis and how each would contribute to the GOP and conservative movement overall. And guess what, sometimes she may just like the person or trust their sincere patriotism. I trust her judgment and do NOT doubt her conservative credentials for a second.
They’d have nothing to debate over, both her and Bachmann agree with each other on everything.
Newt caves into the establishment 100% of the time. Palin does not cave in to any single “group” mentality. She’s split her support up pretty evenly between Tea Party types with more established people she admires and trusts as leaders.
then maybe Palin should never have joined McCain on the
08 ticket...since they didn’t agree full hook, line, and sinker on everything.
Her and Bachmann have nothing to debate over, they agree with each other on everything.
Newt caves into the establishment 100% of the time. Palin does not cave in to any single “group” mentality. She’s split her support up pretty evenly between Tea Party types with more established people she admires and trusts as leaders.
No, the lack of purity is being used against us. How can republicans who supported the prescription drug bill and lots of other Bush spending now cry indignation when Obama also wants more govt health entitlements and spending? How can Republicans oppose Obama’s bailouts and immigration reform and capping carbon emissions when McCain and Palin were in favor of it?
Palin was not in favor of the bailouts...There were some things that yes, as 2nd in command, she had to stand with McCain on during the campaign...but she is her own person now and although she maintains support for McCain—it does not mean she agrees with him on his handling and stances on all the issues.
But notice that she is also endorsing fiscal discipline hawk, Rand Paul. That was the point of my post. Not every candidate will be a carbon copy of the other...it doesn’t mean she’s making a mistake in judgment.
“They’d have nothing to debate over, both her and Bachmann agree with each other on everything.”
I don’t think Bachmann expressed support for capping carbon emissions, the bailouts and a road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Palin has.
“Palin was not in favor of the bailouts”
that’s what she said during the Hannity interview.
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.