Posted on 03/28/2010 6:05:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of my very favorite bloggers on the Right - Powerline's John Hinderaker - wrote a post earlier today entitled 'Biker Girl Campaigns for McCain'. By Hinderaker's own admission, his sole motivation for writing it was to show a perfectly gratuitous photograph of Palin looking great in a black leather biker jacket on the campaign trail.
No complaints there.
However, I have a bone to pick with the rest of John's comments:
Sarah Palin was in Arizona yesterday, campaigning for John McCain in his primary contest against former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. This was an appropriate demonstration of loyalty toward the man who opened the door to fame and fortune for her. Beyond that, Palin's support McCain is right on the merits and displays her almost unerring judgment in political matters.
Like most conservatives, I sometimes disagree with John McCain, and on those occasions he can be an infuriating opponent. But he describes himself as a "proud conservative," and that's how he votes a large majority of the time. Moreover, while he is an imperfect Republican, McCain is a great man. He is a warrior, one of the staunchest characters ever to participate in politics, a modern-day Andrew Jackson. We need him. If the Republican tent ever grows too small to contain the likes of John McCain, we are in deep trouble.
Moreover, McCain was the party's Presidential nominee just two years ago. The last thing Republicans need to do is to start eating our own, like the Democrats when they drummed Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman out of their party.
Now, Sarah Palin endorsing John McCain per se is understandable. I still don't like it one bit, but I'll cut her some slack. Remember, she threw in with McCain before conservative J.D. Hayworth entered the race. And with McCain expecting only token opposition from the Democrats in the general election, he was for a time the most conservative man in Arizona's U.S. Senate race - if only technically and by default.
BUT...J.D. Hayworth is in the race now. He is a far preferable choice than McCain for conservatives on many issues, particularly immigration. Meanwhile, Palin has transitioned from merely supporting McCain (presumably out of a sense of loyalty) to actively stumping for the guy.
I thought Palin was supposed to be helping elect conservatives - not campaigning against them.
Furthermore, in this instance Palin is supporting the very man who deserves unique (though not exclusive) blame for putting Barack Obama in the White House, for the following three reasons (at least):
1. McCain-Feingold. The effect of this now officially unconstitutional campaign finance 'reform' legislation was to allow 'non-partisan' (read: radical left) outfits like MoveOn.org to thrive and to bestow massive political influence upon filthy rich liberal donors like George Soros. Think that played a role in Obama's victory?
2. Comprehensive Immigration Reform (aka Amnesty for Illegal Aliens). Read this and you'll get a sense of how McCain's convoluted stance on illegal immigration lost him the conservative vote in droves in 2008. Think that played a role in Obama's victory?
3. The Bank Bailouts of September 2008. McCain went out of his way to put himself on basically the same page as Barack Obama when it came to bailing out big banks. In an election year that favored any warm body the Democrats ended up nominating, this gave voters one less reason to not vote for Barack Obama. Think that played a role in Obama's victory?
Don't get me wrong - I'd probably still support John McCain vs. 'unopposed' or 'garden variety Democrat.' Probably. But J.D. Hayworth is a no-brainer for conservatives vis-a-vis John McCain, and one has to assume Palin would be in Hayworth's corner were it not for the fact that she was McCain's hand-picked running mate in 2008.
So I'll ask the question: Does personal loyalty trump conservative principles for Sarah Palin?
:-)
Here’s some of the story of the Emerson case. I’m a little rusty on it, having only seen the beginnings of it long ago.
http://www.ejfi.org/emerson.htm
Three people here have two things in common.
I and CAluvdubya and SoCalPol support Sarah Palin and know she is against amnesty.
I am a third generation native of San Diego (read border town with Mexico) and CAluvdubya and SoCalPol reside there.
And there are lots more.
All right!
The Independent Women’s Forum filed a brief for him, and some of the smaller Second Amendment advocacy organizations tried to help with the case (SAF, CCRKBA, others).
http://www.iwf.org/news/show/18619.html
The Fine Print of Federal Domestic Violence Laws
by Anita K. Blair
January 1, 2000
“The Independent Women’s Forum filed an amicus brief in Dr. Emerson’s appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.”
My ‘unhealthy blind hatred’? Dig far enough back in my posts and I defended here hear repeatedly when people wanted to condemn her for what she’d said in support of McCain’s immigration position in the ‘08 campaign. That seemed preposturous to me and very unfair.
Then I was hopeful a couple of weeks ago when she used the ‘what part of illegal’ rhetoric. But she has also said there are humane ways of dealing with those here, which is politician-code for supporting amnesty (just like ‘must go to the back of line’) while denying support for amnesty. Her vigorous, above and beyond any call of duty campaigning for McCain this past weak—and saying that she backs his immigration policy, however, is enough for me to seriously question her on the issue—and on her support for McCain’s other ‘maverick’ positions.
Then maybe you can answer how you ‘know’ her support is other than what she’s started saying in the press?
It's not changing my position that she's one of our best, if not the best, spokesmen for conservatives. There's no one close that I can see.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
I’ve been a major supporter of hers here over the past year. I’d like her to dig down to more substantive policy answers in her media appearances and I wince when she puts her kids out on tabloid covers, because I’ve been majorly behind her as right in principle and good on the issues. I also see her as a better alternative than Romney, who I can’t believe could topple Obama and whom I don’t respect from my experience backing him in MA.
But this McCain stuff and now backing him on immigration two years after their campaign has me stepping back to look more closely at whether she talks the good rebel game to tea partiers and the base—but is really another McCain/Graham Republican underneath it all.
Looks like ol’ Kay’s been tougher on illegal immigration than McCain:
Click here for 12 full quotes on Immigration OR background on Immigration.
* Voted NO on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
* Voted NO on eliminating the “Y” nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
* Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
* Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
* Rated 75% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Kay_Bailey_Hutchison.htm
Yeah, check her out on her stance for a fence. She’s no better than the rest that you chide.
If you truly supported her once, then you’re fooling yourself with this immigration thing. She’s said nothing but what you agree with on immigration, it’s her support of McCain that has you rattled. Frankly, I’m not happy with it, but it’s not a deal breaker of any kind for me (I’m staunchly anti-illegal), and you shouldn’t let it be either.
What’s your native language?
Yeah, look at 'em! Ain't they something?
She still retains the title, just as male politicians are referred to as their former titles.
My point is that she is waaaaay ahead of all other politicians.
“This was an appropriate demonstration of loyalty toward the man who opened the door to fame and fortune for her.”
That’s insulting and she didn’t need him for that. Had she thrown her own hat into the ring, she’d have been noticed just fine.
In fact, it’s the other way around. He owes HER gratitude and loyalty. Without her on the ticket his defeat would have been utterly humiliating.
But yeah to what previous posters have said. Dead horse. It’s done. Can we stop beating on it now?
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.