Posted on 10/11/2009 8:23:33 AM PDT by Saije
Former presidential candidate John McCain (R-Ariz.) acknowledged on CNN's State of the Union Sunday that tensions flared during his campaign between senior strategist Steve Schmidt and those allied with his running mate, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
"With a high-pressure situation, there's always tensions that develop within campaigns," McCain said in a video excerpt posted online. "And there were clearly tensions between Steve Schmidt and people in the Palin camp."
Schmidt has recently become a vocal public critic of Palin, predicting that a presidential run by her in 2012 would prove "catastrophic" for the Republican Party. McCain did not criticize Palin and called her an overall asset to his campaign for whom he still has affection.
"There are fundamental facts ... that cannot be denied," McCain said. "When we selected or asked Sarah Palin to be my running mate, it energized our party. We were ahead in the polls, until the stock market crashed. And she still is a formidable force in the Republican Party."
"And I have great affection for her," he continued. "Did we always agree on everything in the past? Will we in the future? No."
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
It only took two posts to get the to REAL meaning of this.
Nice work.
So, you believe the economic meltdown crisis (oh my!) occurred six weeks before the election by sheer coincidence?
He is the very essence of everything unholy!
McLame might as well pull a “Jeffords” or “Spector”, as he and Collins and Snowe (and Lindsay Graham) just vote with the Democrats every chance they get.....
If only Paulsen knows for sure, then you shouldn't be using smart assed phrases like: "Geez, you think." I believe things were a little more complicated than you say here.
With Obama - the only virtue is a snapback effect, we get the house and maybe the Senate in 2010, and certainly the Senate in 2012 and maybe the White House. One step back, leads to two steps forward.
Right. Notice how this is all coming out in advance of her book. I’m guessing she lays into the McCain camp (not necessarily McCain) in ‘Going Rouge’.
You are quite the entertainer, Cedric!
As I've said several times in this thread, I don't think the full story is known yet. And I sure don't think you have the full story. There had been talk of the "sub-prime" crisis all year, so all this did not pop up just before the election.
There were some real legal and technical requirements (reserve requirements to support loans by banks and investments by investment firms) that were said to have reached crisis points because of the "toxic assets" represented by sub-prime loans. That's why several Wall Street firms failed. Do you know exactly when the crisis points were reached? Was the information held back by a Republican administration until just before the election?
The explanations for all this is more complicated than attempts at witty one-liners.
Did you clunk your head when you fell off the turnip truck?
When truth and dishonesty meet there are tensions. Maybe even wars.
It was all sarcastic except about the paying off part. What got us to that point is not in dispute in hind sight but the cure sure has got everything all ironed out now hasn’t it. The only groups who benefitted highly in the bailout was Goldman-Sachs of whom Paulsen was the CEO in addition to the politicians who were being lobbied by them.
Haha! That’s exactly what I was thinking! LOL Get AHEAD of the story! LOL
I wonder is Schmidt has a nervous tingle at the base of his spine going... If Sarah is smart, she heaped praise on him and left it at that. That way Stevie is the one who looks like an ass. LOL
Whatcha wanna bet thats exactly what she did?
So, you believe the economic meltdown crisis (oh my!) occurred six weeks before the election by sheer coincidence?
You posts are nonsense, nothing but attempts at witty one-liners that fail miserably. And who could even know what you think you are responding to since you never copy anything from what you think you are responding to.
I've made posts in this thread which specifically contradict some of your silly assumptions in the second of your two inane posts I copied above.
Catastrophic?
Like maybe losing the election and several Congressional seats?
So what happened with McCain that wasn't "catastrophic"?
That’s what I thought...
Get therapy.
“”And there were clearly tensions between Steve Schmidt and people in the Palin camp.””
What is that old adage about a man is known by the company he keeps...and hires in this case? In another article today, another aid of McCain basically blackmailed JD Hayworth for opposing McCain’s amnesty.
I hope JD beats McAmnesty in the next election...we need rid of this guy and his minions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2360034/posts
Hayworth nurses grudge vs. ex-McCain aide [tried to quiet criticism of amnesty by blackmailing him]
“You have to go back even further. If the Republican Party had not nominated fake conservative Bush, but a REAL CONSERVATIVE, there is NO WAY that ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT would have fallen to socialists.”
Until the country club republicans admit that truth we will only see more of the same.
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.