Posted on 02/18/2010 6:59:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
Rush Limbaugh on the Tea Party movement the Republican party and the conservatives Sarah Palin her Daytona beach appearance and McCain. Rush Limbaugh says that Sarah Palin is not a Tea Partier , she is a republican first and foremost, Rush Limbaugh believes that Sarah Palin owes McCain the fact that she is what she is today and that it is a payback time for her to McCain , it is an obligatory payback says Rush Limbaugh.
Or it could just mean this.
“Try to get Man50D to name the party that he wants you to vote for, he won’t say their name, but he does know that he doesn’t want anyone voting Republican.”
there is no “leader” of the TP and thats probably a good thing
“Btw, you need to get your facts straight. Richard Schweiker was a Pro-Life Republican, champion of the unborn and one of the first supporters of a Pro-Life amendment to the Constitution.”
How artfully you change the subject from whether the Schweiker pick was a “black mark” (as you put it) against Reagan to whether Schweiker was prolife and therefore desirable as a running mate. The vast majority of the GOP was prolife at the time, and there were more than a few cosponsors for the HLA. (Even BOTH Democrat Nominees for VP four years earlier, Eagleton and Shriver, were prolife!) McCain is prolife. Roe v. Wade was only three years old.
There was no time for Schweiker to have done all the great things you claim he did for the prolife cause BEFORE Reagan sslected him). He represented a Cathoic, heavily prolife state. He was prolife. Big deal.
I have my facts very straight, my friend, becasue I lived through the Schweiker pick, recall the circumastances vividly and it caused real problems for Reagan in the southern delegations. Schweiker, at the time of the pick, was a northeastern liberal especially on economic issues. He was big spender, big government, big union man who was friendly to big government social policies. His selection caused shock waves through the GOP. Jesse Helms, who had saved Reagan from political oblivion in the North Carlina primary a few months earlier, mutinied (so outraged was he by the Schweiker pick) and led a movement to have James Buckley’s name placed in nomination at the 1976 convention to try to deny Reagan the nomination because he thought Reagan had betrayed conservatism. NBC News reporeted from the convention:
(Kansas City) Head of Buckley movement is Reagan delegate North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms who doesn’t like Schweiker Vice President pick. He says now Reagan forces mad at him. [HELMS - says he’s getting hard looks from some of Reagan people. Notes Reagan’s reaction.] Richard Rosenbaum says if Buckley doesn’t stop, he might lose state party’s enthusiasm for Buckley’s Senator reelection. [ROSENBAUM - told Buckley to withdraw.]
REPORTER: John Hart
http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=489475
Richard Viguerie (who I know is a crank, but had a large following at the time)was so enraged that he abandoned Reagan altogether in favor of Phil Crane in 1980.
My facts are straight. And so is my point. Reagan’s selection of Schweiker (who would be classified as a RINO by today’s standards) was considered a betrayal by conservatives in 1976, even more than Palin’s is, becasue Palin is . Denying it won’t wash. I remember it because I felt betrayed at the time. (BTW, nice try on citing the fact that Schweiker grew more conservative AFTER his association with Reagan. What exactly has that got to do with his selection when he was a dyed in the wool liberal according to the 1976 standards?)Reagan faced an outright revolt over his pick, because it placed someone who had been voting a pretty solid liberal line since he entered Congress in 1960 one heartbeat from the Presidency. And he did it for political expediency, not for any apparent altruistic motive.
Palin’s decision to support McCain will not hurt her, any more than the Schweiker pick hurt Reagan. But a helluva lot of conservative (myself included) felt a kick in the gut when we heard about it. I felt nothing of the sort when I heard Palin had endorsed McCain, both because it is much less of a big deal and because her motives in doing what she did are more selfless and purer than Reagan’s were in picking Schweiker. I say that as a huge fan of Reagan(and Palin). But on this comparison, the Gipper comes off worse than the Governor. and those are the facts whether you like them or not.
Does an endorsement for McCain means she dislikes Hayworth? No.
McCain put her on the big stage. She is repaying McCain. If you read her book, you know she will be very loyal to those who are good to her. MCCAIN was good to her.
McCain’s campaign staff? My guess is she is waiting for the day to tell those losers to drop dead.
“McCain put her on the big stage. She is repaying McCain. If you read her book, you know she will be very loyal to those who are good to her. MCCAIN was good to her.”
Right. the one thing I took away from her book is that hse is a virtuous person who lives by a moral code. That in itself is rare in a politician.
Please tell my how to ping the Palin list. I admit, I am ignorant.
Thanks for the civil discussion, Man50D.
I want Sarah to succeed in whatever God has chosen her to do. If it's being President, I'm with her. If it's not, I'm there too, because I respect her.
She's an admirable person, and like all Americans, has the right to her own opinions based on her own solid conservative values.
She's the real thing, and real conservatives should appreciate her for that.
(The abuse button thing is a total fabrication. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I don't believe in wasting the mods time......or mine. :)
>>>>>How artfully you change the subject ... I have my facts very straight....
Artfully? Me? I didn't raise the issue of Richard Schweiker, YOU DID! I didn't attempt to change the subject either, YOU DID! And on top of that, you got your facts wrong about Schweiker. Period!
>>>>>Reagan’s selection of Schweiker (who would be classified as a RINO by today’s standards) was considered a betrayal by conservatives in 1976, even more than Palin’s is, becasue Palin is.
For what its worth, I didn't see Reagan's choice of Schweiker as a betrayal in 1976. And I don't see Palin's endorsement of McCain as a betrayal either. There are some FReepers today, who consider Reagan a Rino by todays standards and by yesterdays standards too. LOL I don't pay attention to that BS.
The truth is, Schweiker started his political rebirth about the time Reagan chose him to be his running mate. Schweiker's Pro-Life credentials were always rock solid. His last 5 years in the Senate, saw Schweiker evolve from a moderate Republican to a pretty reliable conservative Republican, as evident from his ACU ratings.
Some conservatives weren't always satisfied with Reagan. So be it. That included Jesse Helms and Richard Viguerie. BFD! Today, Viguerie is viewed as a nut job. Which is really what he was back in the 1970`s. Sort of like the nut job Ron Paul. Paul supported Reagan in the 1970`s, but by 1988 called Reagan, a "failure".
>>>>>But on this comparison, the Gipper comes off worse than the Governor. and those are the facts whether you like them or not.
Stop the revisionism! You're so far off base, its pathetic. Reagan's choice of Schweiker didn't hurt him at all. After all, Reagan almost beat a sitting US President for the GOP nomination in 1976. An historic event of the first magnitude.
Like I told you the other day. Palin may be a Reagan conservative, but comparing her to Reagan or criticizing Reagan to make Palin look better, does her a disservice. Let Palin be Palin and let the cards fall where they may. What are you afraid of?
“This entire thread is composed of one group of people who want Palin to succeed and others who think Palin is standing in the way of their the success of their pet politician.”
I don’t know which side is which, but I would say Palin should stick to principals. She got picked as VP by a Progressive who wanted to Fool the base. The base was not fooled. She is great, but McCain isn’t. McCain messed up. Both must now deal with consequences of their choices.
Palin was put between a rock and a hard place and now she must try to not do anything else to crash her chances.
It is a sad turn of events.
Agreed. But there are those who consistently endorse TP candidates, and consistently and boldy support the cause. They are the ones to be admired and respected for remembering that government is to be of The People and by The People and for The People, and NOT of the Party, by the Party, and for the Party.
Well, I’m no fan of Palin, but I’m voting for McCain.
That is a unique demographic.
Good post. Your point is right on target.
Ok...I voted McCain in 2008. Only to stop Obama. I am deeply divided with Palin’s decision. By endorsing him, McCain will probably get more votes in Arizona. I just know that whatever she did was going to create a problem for her. So It would have been better to stay out.
Now the chess pieces are on her side. If she makes the wrong moves, she might offend a whole lot of people pulling for her. I’ve been uneasy since she made the endorsement. I’m not happy about it.
You can be. Fine. But to me, I feel McCain tanked the 2008 election on purpose or if not that never did a thing to win and never used any conservative ideas to fight back.
So America really didn’t want anyone running. And it gave fuel for people to just vote Obama. And that is my feeling.
Only Palin was the only thing going there and she did what she could. Then the progressive tanked the race anyways by suspending his campaign, going to Washington to broker a deal nobody wanted and voting for the bailout.
That 2008 presidential race was the worst race in history. Nothing historical about it.
bttt
No, allow me!
By your definition of integrity, specifically definitions 1 and 2, Palin fails, contrary to your claim at post 234. One, despite claiming to hold conservative principles, Palin is supporting McCain, a man who holds decidedly NON-conservative principles, if any at all. One can not firmly adhere to a set of principles yet help someone who is actively working against those principles; that is not "firm adherence," i.e., integrity. Two, if, as many Palin supporters like to claim, she is merely acting out of loyalty to McCain, then she is clearly impaired with regards to her commitment to the conservative cause insofar as such commitment is dependent on "firm adherence" to conservative principles. Of course, one could argue that the ends might justify the means, but I won't buy that argument, and neither will the millions of Americans murdered at the hands of illegal aliens so that McCain's "friends" can have cheap lettuce (we can discuss the missing strawberries another time).
As for the third definition, it makes no sense in the given context and as such I see no need to address it.
Any more issues I can clear up for you, aside from your unyielding devotion for RINOs and fair-weather conservatives?
Boy, I just really ripped her didn’t I? That’s the problem with you huffers. If anyone thinks she’s not the best choice, for any reason whatsoever, the mob shows up to tell us how ignorant we are. Just like the old fredheads. It’s going to be a lively place around here next year.
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.