Well, then your whole point is incorrect.
Palin didn't claim that McCain fights big-spending colleagues. She said he fights big-spending colleagues who don't prioritize for our military's needs. That is true.
Likewise, Palin didn't say that McCain fights against Obama. She said that McCain fights to remind Obama that a strong defense is the government's first priority, that McCain has carried part of our message of opposition to Obama, and that McCain has been steadfast in demanding the truth about the Benghazi cover-up. All of which are true.
Palin summed up her entire point with the following sentence.
Despite our differences on some other issues, there is no questioning Senator McCain's dedication to national security in spite of the White House's agenda.You applied your own context to Palin's statements by turning them into very broad generalizations, which she never implied, and then said that she made blatantly false claims. In my opinion, you made the false claims not Palin. That said, I make no claims or assumptions about your intentions.
Unless you're spending money that you don't have; in which case it's just true it's stupid.
You applied your own context to Palin's statements by turning them into very broad generalizations, which she never implied, and then said that she made blatantly false claims. In my opinion, you made the false claims not Palin. That said, I make no claims or assumptions about your intentions.
I've said, essentially, that her striving to make McCain the "good guy" (in what and how she said it) that she is essentially placing herself in their camp. Like cops who do not act to being "bad cops" to justice aren't good cops, but bad cops because they are allowing the evil to continue. — It would be one thing if she didn't comment, or if she found one thing to praise that wasn't bull (and McCain calling for truth is bull, just like Issa and investigating
Fast & Furious) I could accept that. But to so blatantly speak glowingly of this enemy-of-liberty is not something that should be ignored, IMO.
Maybe you're right and I'm reading too much into it. Or maybe she's become used to having a fan-base and is trying to do what the GOP tried with Romney: take the "conservative vote" for granted and pick up "moderate" and "liberal" votes.
It's quite important to do so to get the whole picture.
You obviously read it...
:> )