Palin supports McCain '100 percent' [Palin pushes back at TMZ 'disprespect' meme]

Politico ^ | Dec. 16, 2009 | Mike Allen

[Al B.]

Declaring that she “was honored and proud to run with him,” former Alaska governor Sarah Palin pushed back hard Wednesday against a report that she had disrespected Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by blacking out his name on a sun visor she wore on vacation.

The website TMZ accused Palin of “a frontal attack on Sen. John McCain” during a Hawaii vacation this week: “Sarah chose to wear a visor from her campaign -- a visor that was emblazoned with the former presidential candidate's name ... that is, until Palin redacted McCain's name with a black marker.”

But Palin said in a statement to POLITICO that she was just trying to “be incognito” -- to go unrecognized and shield her children and husband, Todd, from paparazzi.

The hotel where she was staying had to chase away five photographers, a friend said.

Palin said in the statement to POLITICO: “I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago. So much for trying to be incognito."

The Palins were taking a break from a three-and-a-half-week book tour for her million-copy-selling memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” Palin has signed more than 59,000 books -- an average of 1,750 per stop -- and has traveled more than 19,000 miles by plane and bus. She has spent 115 hours -- or 4.8 days -- signing books in 33 cities in 25 states. Her stops have included five military bases.

[Lakeshark]

Rabs has been very clear about his positions, if somebody (now Sarah) isn't 100% pure with HIS ideology, he posts against them, and intensely criticizes anyone who supports them.

He gets pretty damn nasty about it too, along with a lot of his posse.

You can pretend it's not so, but it's quite clear, he (and he pings his posse to help him) lashes out against those who disagree with him; D1, you don't do that at all from what I see.

Rabs and a few others need to back off their 1%er stuff IMHO and their pack mentality of attacking those who disagree.

[Lakeshark]

Because the left is generally between the polls of ignorant and evil, leaning towards the latter more every day.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

If she must support a man willing to endanger US cities with a wide open border, I hope she does it halfheartedly and low-key at least. Better yet, she should announce that her loyalty forbids her from supporting the better man.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not going to participate in a grand scale put-down of Sarah Palin. If she starts supporting flawed policy, I’ll have to address it. If she starts supporting the likes of McCain, I’ll have to address it.

I’ve seen people take on McCain, but McCain has spent the better part of the last 26 years grinding his own name into the ground. (most of his life, if you really get down to it)

So I don’t mind so much a guy like John getting skewered. Palin hasn’t been in the position to harm this nation that McCain has. So if she goes south, I won’t be able to support her. I won’t be trying to destroy her. I will be trying to let folks know, if that’s my take on it though, and that we shouldn’t support here. I’m along ways away from that, I can assure you.

I don’t like the pack mentality, although every member of this forum is to one extent a member of a pack. We absolutely detest the policies of the left here. We’re of a mind on that.

You and I share an aversion to watching folks swarm here. I try to fight my own battles and refrain from calling others in. I actually prefer that I be left alone to fend for myself. It bothers me when people swarm to support my position. A kind word is one thing, but going after folks who are disagreeing with me is not something I appreciate.

We don’t need to get nasty with one another here. We don’t need to travel in groups.

I will say that if by referencing the 1%er mentality, that you think Rabscuttle is too tough on McCain, I’ll have to come down on the side that he’s not tough enough on him.

McCain has sold us out more times than McDonalds has sold quarter-pounders.

I don’t expect total purity, but when it comes to core principles, more of our party needs to get it. That’s not leveled at you at all. It’s just the recognition that we as a party are not being true to our calling.

That really has to stop.

I think Rabscuttle knows I appreciate his posting here. I also think he probably knows I want him to respect others the way I wish I always did.

I thank you for your comments. We’re on the same team here. We need to pull together. We’re not always going to completely agree, but we have a lot more to gain by pulling together towards a return to a Constitutional Republic than we do fighting each other instead of the left.

[Kimberly GG]

“Palin supports McCain ‘100 percent’ “

Why am I not surprised?

[Lakeshark]

Fwiw, I am not a McCain supporter at all, I probably dislike him as much as you do. I was really distraught by our candidates last year, very upset to the point of derangement at times. I never lost sight of how evil Obama was, and the damage he would bring, in spite of McCain's idiocy.

The only good thing Mccain did in the past decade was bring Sarah into the limelight.

I think she's the real thing, but like you, if she doesn't truly represent conservatism, I'll see it, and I'll change my mind. Her fealty to the one who brought her into the limelight doesn't bother me like it does you. We'll see where that goes, I'll be watching too.

[DoughtyOne]

Couldn’t ask for anything more LakeShark. Sounds like a sound point of view to me.

Take care.

Thanks for the comments.

[Bokababe]

"Not to knock the thread off course, but I would suggest that you have a sit-down with Bokababe sometime. She is a brilliant and well reasoned spokeswoman for the civil libertarian folks..."

Roamer, you are too kind! You must have figured out it was my birthday ;)

In all honesty, the debate with Roamer was the best one I have ever had on FR -- no egos, just respectfully arguing issues with reason and insights. We agreed on most of the goals, but had different ways of getting there. I bookmarked the thread here.

Roamer arrived on this thread as the intelligent, calming voice of sanity in what was otherwise a political mudslinging free-for-all.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

I am SOOOO anti-Romney and his slick campaign staff, like you would NOT believe. Oye, and Meg Whitman wants to be Governor of my state. *sigh*

[CondoleezzaProtege]

I need to do some research. Whether it’s all the frivolous ethics lawsuits they pounded her with or all the media smears and anti-Palin propaganda that showed up even on Fox News— I want to know who’s more behind the attempt to tear down Palin— the Obama machine or the Romney machine.

[DoughtyOne]

I’ll check out the tread in the next 24 hours, and make some comments.

I may do it sooner, but I have some other things to do so I’ll simply say within 24. Take care.

Thank you.

[Victoria Delsoul]

There is nothing that bothers me more than seeing a gang jump on a poster because he or she happens not to be a 100% conservative purist. I find that position to be totally immature, too theoretical, and the product of limited life experience. Not even Reagan was 100% conservative to all people.

We are looking for sound, reliable conservatives, but there are always going to be issues where we might not totally agree. They might say something or support someone we don't like. However, I notice some of these posters are so negative that they seem to be looking for any excuse to beat up a poster who dares to disagree with them.  This is soon followed by name calling, and off with their heads!

The purpose of this forum is for conservatives and like-minded individuals to gather and share their thoughts and ideas as to how to promote and spread conservatism, to work for a common cause that ultimately will help and benefit conservatives in all areas of government. The idea is to grow conservatism, gain and maintain political power, and advance the conservative agenda.  Running around from thread to thread calling people a RINO and crying for a RINO purge because they don't agree 100% with them doesn't advance the conservative goals I just outlined.

That's not how you win converts or win elections. Being so intolerant as to insult and resort to name calling might satisfy the “all or nothing crowd,” but all it is doing is alienating people and prompting them to contribute to another site.  That is not conservatism, but it is a form of tyranny and not much different than the Left's tyranny.

[rbmillerjr]

“Yeah, if I can stomach Hunter endorsing Huck and DeMint endorsing Flipper than I can cut her the same slack, despite her over-enthusiasm”

As much as we conservatives despise McCain, he is the one who put Palin on the map. Without him, we don’t have a new fresh conservative leader.

Now, my memory for McCain’s contempt of conservatives on key Senate votes will have me deriding him as long as he stays in office and I hope he is defeated by a conservative.

However, Palin, is showing political savvy by showing him political respect for what he did for her. Look at the polar opposite of her statemtn. If Palin comes out and says she will never support McCain, the press would have her cover on every magazine, print and television, in the country. The story would be about how petty and overly emotional she is.

I will abide her support for McCain for practical reasons. I would even abide an endorsement (as long as she is smart enough to get one in return).

It is obvious her positions on issues are at direct odds with McCain on a multitude of policies.

So, do I like this? No.
But I’ll give her a pass since he put her on the national stage.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Unfortunately, Simcox is probably too weak of a candidate to actually win, while JD will be strong enough of a candidate to actually win, if JD does decide to officially run.

[jla]

it is my fervent prayer that some distance clearly develops between her own naturally conservative positions and McCain's liberal tendencies as time goes by.

She has been, and will continue, doing just that.
I aver that I support Palin 100%. Though I do certainly not expect her to always pronounce beliefs I entirely agree with. This is not a paradox but a realization that we can support people and trust them despite any differences of opinion.
Sane people fully support, 100%, their parents, spouses or children. No extra motivation needed to do likewise for Palin.
As you state, she's a natural.

[rabscuttle385]

And this is all anybody on this forum needs to know about you.

Ain't it funny how you omitted the cogent reasons I gave, in order to make me look bad?

I'll repeat them again, highlighting them in bold red and in a larger font size, for your benefit.

If Jim Robinson wants to support Sarah Palin, that is his own right.

However, I can not in good conscience support her, for three reasons: one, her deeply questionable interview with Univision last fall; two, her PAC's contributions to McCain's primary and general election accounts, especially since McCain's 2010 campaign donated $142,950 to The Tarrence Group (see post #28), which conducted a recent push poll on behalf of a GOP organization linked to McCain supporters in which McCain attempted to smear J.D. Hayworth, even though he is not even a declared candidate in the Arizona 2010 Senate GOP primary at this time; and three, this article, in which she is on the record as supporting McCain's re-election "100 percent."

Chunga, what you are is a plain fool.

Every single post of mine contains not a single attempt at rationally rebutting the facts I present but rather attempts at attempting to discredit my message by personally attacking me, largely due to my age.

Now, since in one of your many past posts to me--I don't remember which--you claimed to be much older than me, I'm going to put this very bluntly.

On 30 June 1948, likely when you were my age or younger, the U.S. public debt totaled $252,292,246,512.99.

That's two hundred and fifty-two billion, two-hundred and ninety-two million, two hundred and forty-six thousand, five hundred and twelve dollars, and change, in nominal 1948 U.S. dollars.

On 30 September 2008, just over fifty years later, as the "compassionate conservative" Bush was nearing the end of his administration, the total U.S. public debt totaled $10,024,724,896,912.49.

That's ten trillion, twenty-four billion, seven hundred and twenty-four million, eight hundred and ninety-six thousand, nine hundred and twelve dollars, and change, in nominal 2008 U.S. dollars.

During those fifty or so years, the Republican Party controlled the 80th Congress (+6 Senate/+58 House) from 1947 to 1949, the 83rd Congress (+2 Senate/+9 House) from 1953 to 1955, the 97th Senate (+7) from 1981 to 1983, the 98th Senate (+8) from 1983 to 1985, and the 99th Senate (+6) from 1985 to 1987.

From 1995 to 2007, the Republican Party controlled the entire Congress (104th +4 Senate/+26 House, 105th +10 Senate/+19 House, 106th +10 Senate/+12 House, 107th tie Senate/+9 House, 108th +3 Senate/+24 House, 109th +9 Senate/+29 House) with the exception of part of the 107th Senate after Jeffords effectively defected to the Democratic Party caucus.

So the spending can't entirely be blamed on Democrats.

Oh, and before you castigate me for citing Wikipedia, those figures are taken originally from the official Web sites of the United States Senate and of the United States House of Representatives.

As for George W. Bush, for a "compassionate conservative," he--and a Republican Congress--nearly doubled the national debt in nominal dollars over the first seven of his eight years in office.

On 30 September 2001, just over nine months after he took office and nineteen days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the total U.S. public debt was $5,807,463,412,200.06.

On 30 September 2008, as he, Paulson, and McCain were busy joining with the Democrats to roll out a bipartisan bailout of greedy New York bankers, the total U.S. public debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49.

The oft-cited conservative argument that the Bush tax cuts increased Federal revenue actually makes Bush look even worse, since the increased Federal revenue was spent before the Bush administration, coupled with a Republican Congress from 1995 to 2007, started borrowing like rabid squirrels that only realized a need to hoard for the winter the day before the first December snowstorm was to begin.

Under no Republican executive, post-FDR, has the total U.S. public debt EVER decreased.

In fact, the last Republican executive to preside over a decrease in U.S. public debt was Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan's hero.

And before you try to hide yourself behind Reagan, note this: at least he was facing a Democratic-controlled House, the margins of Republican control in the Senate during his administration were slimmer than under that of Bush, and his administration actually had to rattle sabers with a REAL foreign power, not a bunch of kooks in the desert who have weapons because the U.S. either armed them directly (as a means of jabbing the now-extinct U.S.S.R.) or indirectly (through payment for energy resources obtained within their lands because the U.S. was too much of a p*ssy to exploit its own resources).

Now, the fact of the matter is that you go around FR pushing the Republican Party when it hasn't done a damn thing since Coolidge to actually reduce the Federal debt, Federal spending, or Federal subjugation of the States and of the individual American, asides from occasionally posturing or reciting platitudes about doing so.

The Republican Party had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity from 2000 to 2007 to make good on its promises to America and to actually uphold its "certain fundamental beliefs" but instead, it chose to turn into Democrat Lite.

The Republican Party squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return America to its libertarian conservative roots, betrayed the various States and the People that make up this Republic...and for what? Nothing!

So whenever you or the rest of knee-jerk partisan RINO pushers want to hurl invectives and blame me for the Republican Party's troubles today, why don't you look in a mirror first? After all, you've been around far longer than I have and the majority of that U.S. public debt was incurred on YOUR watch and long before I even turned eighteen and acquired the right to vote.

As for Sarah Palin, if she wants to throw in her lot with the traitorous Republican Party establishment, including crooked bastards like McCain, then let her explain to her children why she feels the need to defend, apologize for, and promote the very same people who enslaved them.

Because that's what the U.S. public debt is.

It's an obligation placed upon future generations of American taxpayers WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT by their forebears.

And involuntary obligations are otherwise known as...SLAVERY.

And the Republicans who for years have claimed to fight for a smaller and Constitutional Federal government, yet idly stood by the Democrats kept expanding it, or even joined in with the Democrats, or even dare to attempt to whitewash history by defending, apologizing for, and promoting those Republicans, are just as guilty as any of the Democrats or the Republicans who directly perpetrated slavery upon future generations of Americans.

In conclusion: you can take your RINO Party mugs, your witless insults, and your sliced cheeses and meats and shove them all right where the Sun doesn't shine, because if you think I'm going to support by default the very same party that just betrayed me...

YOU'RE WRONG.

[jla]

But suppose many here had their dreams come true and Palin becomes a candidate in 2011 for 2012. So the theme would be "Vote for me to oppose Democrats for four years"? I dont buy it!

A pathetic attempt to misrepresent Palin and those who wisely support her.
Your use of quotation marks around the citation that you fabricated shows what utter liars you people are.

So Palin loses the 'white trash Republican' vote a/c her remarks about McCain. I doubt she is worried about that.

[rabscuttle385]

Oh, and for the record, as well as for the informational purposes of all, including Chunga, being pinged:

There was a very curious fact that I overlooked.

Like George W. Bush, Calvin Coolidge faced a Republican-controlled Congress during his entire term from 1923 to 1929.

The Republican Party controlled the 68th (+9 Senate/+118 House), the 69th (+14 Senate/+64 House), and the 70th (+1 Senate/+42 House) Congresses, from 1923 to 1929.

And, the U.S. public debt decreased from $22 billion in the summer of 1923 to $17 billion in the summer of 1929, after Coolidge had left office.

These figures, in addition to other verifiable facts about Coolidge's administration (like the fact that he and the Republican Congress cut taxes three times--in 1924, 1926, and 1928--in addition to spending cuts and debt retirements...in the middle of the Prohibition, i.e., the 1920s equivalent of today's War on Drugs), speaks volumes.

YES, VOLUMES.

And, it only serves to bolster my claim that

The Republican Party squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return America to its libertarian conservative roots, betrayed the various States and the People that make up this Republic...and for what? Nothing!

[bamahead]

Not you too Rabs?!!! ;)

Anyway, I’m not as quick to judge Sarah Palin. Maybe you need to bring me up to speed on all of this Tarrence stuff...but I take it as she feels a loyalty to McCain because he brought her out on the national stage.

I haven’t seen anything McCain’esque from her yet that has turned my nose to her as a RINO. If she’s giving him money, it’s that loyalty. I simply can’t fault her for it just yet. Maybe I’m too soft :o

If she starts mirroring his behavior, well that would be different...completely.

[rabscuttle385]

See 436 and 438.