Posted on 07/03/2009 6:40:30 PM PDT by taildragger
Like many here, I am a political prognosticator. I followed Sarah Palin here for almost 2 years and told friends last May if McCain only chance is to pick Palin. So what does Sarah Palin's latest move mean?
I’m anti FR for pointing out we’ve got a lot of crybabies here?
C’mon, you’re living proof of that!
I think you’re in for a big surprise. You vastly underestimate her patriotism, courage and determination. She’s not folding her tent.
The “crybabies” are WAY outnumbered by the trolls on FR.
Off topic but worth a mention. Basically correct. The socialists would probably say it means a warmonger who wants to use force to spread Republican ideology on hapless third world countries.
Originally Crystal meant it as any liberal who would intellectually agree with at least one conservative principal.
The left has, alas, co-opted a perfectly good word. But, then, from academia to the press, they own the definers of words .
yitbos
No, you are anti FR for trolling here and constantly working to move freepers to the left.
You have it a bit backwards, actually.
Yes, there are voters and non-voters.
But voters tend to vote for a particular party.
There is a certain ceiling on the number of people who vote, and non-voters are unlikely to be converted into voters. However, it can happen in rare circumstances.
However, voters can become non-voters. These are people who are not inspired by the candidates their party of choice has selected, or not motivated by the issues in the race.
And that is what happened with the GOP ticket in 2008.
Fewer Republican voters came out to vote than had 4 years earlier.
At the same time, more Democrat voters came out than ever had in any election in history. Many of these were non-voters who became voters for the first time. They were not voting for a party or a platform, but for an individual, because they wanted to be part of history by voting for the first black man to run for president. It was a feel good personal statement for them. That moment has passed, history has been made, and so many of them won’t be there for 0bama in 2012.
Hey, you are a Romney guy and a McCain guy we can look at your posting history and see why you are attacking the conservative.
We can also see your constant efforts to move FR to the left, we seem to annoy you.
Doesn’t Alaska already have a third party?
.
Teddy was best with building up the US Navy and inspiring Americans with his cowboy days and Rough Rider days
Unfortunately the history books do not always print a politicians ego and failings in the later years
FDR was a liberal to be sure - but put Obama in his place in WWII
Think about that -
When I talked about the unappeasables on FR, it is known by all who I’m talking about... the Duncan Hunterites, the Alan Keyesters, all the crybabies who say they’re going to pack up their toys and not be team players if they don’t get their no-shot candidate.
I’ll make arguments for and against certain candidates during the primaries, but one the ticket is formed, I’m going to support it over the Democrats. That is how the intra-party political process is supposed to work.
I’m not trying to move FReepers to the left, retard.
I’m trying to move them away from the edge of the cliff.
If you follow Sarah Palin, you take the GOP right over that cliff into the abyss of electoral defeat.
This has nothing to do with her policy positions, to the extent that she has formulated any, it has to do with her proven track record of losing to 0bama.
I listened to him today. He was on for two hours, then they replayed hour one. I thought he said he was going to be back Monday.
[Think about that -]
I leave that to you, lol, I’m just an innocent bystander here - who is heading to bed.
Then, who would you recommend?
Why do you keep lying?
I supported McCain only after he won the nomination.
I supported Romney only after he was the last chance to stop McCain.
Who were you behind in the final stretch? Romney or McCain?
Did you not support McCain over 0bama once he was the nominee?
Your attacks are disingenuous at best, and they are a slap in the face of most FR members, who also took the same tack as events unfolded during the race.
Tell me all of the candidates running in 2012, show me their platforms, and let’s see how they handle the debates and then I will tell you.
Yes, Sarah brings CONSERVATISM to the table, and that is all she needs. Ronald Regan did not need anything else did he?Yes he did.
Which is another way of saying that you are trying to move FR left.
Let’s get Hillarious to start a new party instead of Sarah.
Romney is the most effective advocate for John McCain, and has the sharpest teeth as an attack dog. Plus he is unflappable. That is exactly what McCain needs in a VP. Remember, the VP is a supporting role. He is there to sell the top of his ticket while assailing the other party’s.
Romney was hand-made for the job. I think the reason so many unacceptable names have been floated is to try to keep some element of surprise while lowering expectations amid the persistent speculation it is going to be Romney. Then when Romney is picked over Lieberman, Ridge, and Pawlenty, everyone will breath a sigh of relief and hail the selection.
115 posted on Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:23:03 AM by counterpunch (John McCain - For the LOVE of Country)
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.