Posted on 03/06/2013 3:54:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
While participating in a panel discussion Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” President George W. Bush’s former chief strategist Matthew Dowd continued the senseless attacks on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by political elitists on the right .
Dowd was critiquing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for not inviting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), while welcoming Palin, who he said “wasn’t competent enough to keep a Fox News contract,” according to The Raw Story.
“CPAC, to me, has totally diminished its credibility as an organization,” Dowd said. “And you invite Sarah Palin, who wasn’t competent enough to keep a Fox News contract? But she’s invited to CPAC meeting?”
Palin has been critical of the Bush family in the past. In an appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show in November 2010, Palin referred to George H.W. and Barbara Bush as “blue bloods” who were trying to “pick and choose” the 2012 Republican presidential nominee for president....
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Amen! That statement goes with that pic of Trigg perfectly! My heart is happy seeing this. Thanks and blessings to you for posting :)
So true....so dead on.....it sickens me.
I’m a very, very longtime student of human nature. When they start attacking you....they are afraid of you.
Period.
8,658 twitter followers. This guy is really popular. I wonder how few Palin has.
You mean like the GOP-E candidate last year? LOL!
You lost me at cult, pissant.
The rest of your sour grapes complaints followed the uninformed talking points of the other posters suffering from PES.
Wonder what this former Bush aide thought when Fox almost decided not to renew Rove’s contract?
Even if doing so brings harm to her state, constituents and family? I'm surprised so many so-called conservatives fail to see what a selfless, honorable move Palin made by resigning her office. Not to mention it was a masterful strategic move that flummoxed her political enemies and freed her up to "move about the country" taking on those same enemies(in both parties, I might add).
We say we want limited government. We say we want to end "business as usual" inside the beltway. We say the constitution needs to be upheld. We say we are fed up with the feckless political establishment. Yet, when someone comes along who has the guts to take on the establishment, you and others team up to defeat her. Why? Who do you see that is better or more effective? I really want to know.
Or, could it be you are a proud member of the GOP establishment. Not saying that to draw your ire, just trying to understand you, that's all.
"A" is singular. Are you ignorantly stating there was only one "frivolous lawsuit" ?
GREAT website name - so fitting for scum like tokyo rove.
Good luck with the book.
And of course Margaret Thatcher did resign in 1990 when the Euroweenies in the Conservative Party put up a fuss and challenged her leadership.
The Iron Lady thought it was the right time to go.........
He is ignorantly stating so much - including the fact that “frivolous lawsuits” can still cost REAL MONEY. It’s as if HG thinks that frivolous means cheap. It doesn’t. In fact, frivolous lawsuits are brought for one reason, to financially ruin the subject of the suit even though there is no cause. HG ignorantly makes the opposite case, and yet, he has not the capacity to understand it.
As you know from your screen name, there is a perversion in Alaskan law that allows for these kinds of suits that are not applicable to any of the other 49 states. This is beyond the Liliputian mind of many around here....
You seem to have a habit of not pinging the folks about whom you are writing.
Bad form, and rather cowardly considering you’re just talking crap.
Man up, Eddy.
not bad form, rather purposeful, but you didn’t take the hint.
You are always 3-4,5 steps behind. It’s not behind your back. I knew you’d see it. I just didn’t want to hear back from you. THATS the hint. (make it 6 steps).
And as usual, you have NOTHING to add on substance, just your opinion on people’s “form” or “worthiness” - and nothing substantive at all....ever....
Odd.
You seemed to have picked up on the fact that I'm not terribly fond of Palin in spite of that.
Osmosis must be one of your super powers.
Wow, you’re like 8-9 steps behind now. Actually, opinon and substance are not necessarily related. Your anti Palin comments are shallow, facile, sterile and formulaic - not to mention predictable. I would call that a lack of substance as well.
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.