Posted on 01/10/2010 5:35:37 PM PST by writer33
Palin critics always resort to lies and half-truths when it comes to attacking Palin because they can’t do so factually.
Of course, the MSM is more than happy to pass along the lies and a gullible, misinformed and ignorant public buys it without question.
Correct.
ANOTHER good reason not to consider Pawlenty.
I'm with you. I'd like specifics. If there were any facts to back up this round of Palin bashing, I'm sure we'd hear all the evidence to support their claims. Instead, it's another round of mud slinging just like the charges that she's getting divorced, not the mother of Trig, and that she likes to ban books before they're written.
IN A NUT SHELL! Cue Meghan McCain ...
(no links)
In New Shake-Up, McCain Campaign Shifts Managers
New York Times, The (NY) - Thursday, July 3, 2008
Author: ADAM NAGOURNEY
EXCERPT
He has been at the center of some of the most politically significant Republican operations of the last 10 years. In working with Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Schmidt has become immersed in the use of data-driven methods to find and turn out Republican voters.
He also ran the Bush campaign’s war room, which was responsible for capitalizing on mistakes of opponents. Mr. McCain ‘s advisers said that one sign of Mr. Schmidt’s increasing influence in the campaign’s rapid response operation was the quickness with which it seized on a remark by Gen. Wesley K. Clark questioning whether Mr. McCain ‘s experience as a naval aviator shot down over Vietnam had qualified him to be president.
Mr. Schmidt ran the successful re-election campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Republican who won in a Democratic state by embracing moderate positions on issues like the environment and gay rights.
//
GOP should heed analysis of campaign
Advocate, The (Baton Rouge, LA) - Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Author: LANNY KELLER
“Had Senator McCain not been the nominee in 2008, I’m convinced we would have lost Arizona.”
That is a striking statement from McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt and it has been overlooked in the discussion of the speech where he talked about the lost race.
Schmidt’s speech made national news because he called for the Republican Party to rethink its hostility toward gay marriage and other issues involving homosexuality.
Schmidt’s sister is a lesbian .
Schmidt said the party is on the road to further losses because of the large and growing tolerance for gay citizens among younger people.
Social conservatives, he said, remain an important constituency but should not exercise a veto over efforts to reach out to bring more votes into the party.
Fair enough, and probably right.
The comments about the McCain campaign - irrespective of the social issues, or at least the gay issues - are what concerned Republicans ought to focus on.
Schmidt’s quick analysis of the 2008 campaign noted the Republican nominee had battled almost to even with a strong Democratic nominee. The collapse in the stock market was an event that sealed the campaign’s fate.
Further, Schmidt noted, predictions of long-term trends are tricky in politics. Events, such as the stock market crash, can alter political outcomes drastically and suddenly.
Nevertheless, his unsparing analysis of the GOP’s structural problems in the nation is worthy of note.
Predictions of a long-term political realignment “are premature based on the results of two elections (but) I would rather be in the Democrats’ shoes than ours,” he said.
“Their coalition is expanding. Ours is shrinking. Their vote share is increasing among voter segments that are growing. Ours is not.”
The Hispanic vote in the Southwestern states is one enormous problem.
Democrats’ gains “could soon cost Republicans the entire Southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of their vote,” Schmidt said. “It’s very hard to see how we put together 270 electoral votes without the Southwest.” That is the vote needed to elect a president.
Younger voters were not a larger percentage of the turnout but Democrat Barack Obama crushed the McCain campaign among voters under age 30. “President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance,” Schmidt said. “And maybe as those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government, fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense. That has happened in the past.”
Even if true, Schmidt predicted that the same would not be true of the socially tolerant views of younger people, particularly on gay issues.
(snip)
>> McCain should have
McCain should speak up now, but I doubt he will.
This would be a good issue for J.D. Hayworth to comment on.
You think of and post the best stuff, kcvl!
Thank you so much. Puts everything into the right perspective, doesn’t it?
Agreed.
I am not an advocate of Romney on any level, but that someone would spend all that time adding the keywords there is just creepy.
Someone needs to back away from the keyboard for a while.
“Steve Schmidt is a schmuck.”
You’re being WAY to kind!
No, onyx. I so wanted him to be gay. It’s not fair. It’s just not fair. That ruins the entire satire I was going to do. LOL!
Him again?
Sigh, I guess we have to pull the file out. We try to abstain from these methods, but oh well.
Oh for goodness sake, he lies every time he opens his mouth.
People give him scripts to read. He reads them.
They don’t fly. They give him other scripts. He reads them.
They don’t do so well. Back to the drawing board.
The nouthingbuuger comes out again, this time told to do it with feeling. He follows instructions.
This is what we have.
If he had any integrity he would step in and stop this nonsense dead in its tracks.
I'm not holding my breath.
Tim Pawlenty has Schmidt in his employ? For sure?
He’s a non-starter for me anyway, but he doesn’t know that.
RINO Jerky?
Yes, they’re definitely afraid of Sarah Palin.
Pull the file out. LOL!
OK, the big “lie” was that an ethics report out of Alaska “completely exonerated” her, whereas this guy says it didn’t.
First, I recall all teh ultimate reports on Palin exonerating her. Second, she’s be a damn idiot not to accentuate the positive.
And finally, Schmidt ends up saying:
“I believe, had she not been on the ticket our margin of defeat would’ve been greater than it would’ve been otherwise,”.
Content-free accusations are always the safest, aren’t they Schmidty?
Good points, Williams. Thank you.
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.