Posted on 03/09/2010 8:28:51 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
I cannot tell how much of this outrage about Sarah Palin's endorsement of McCain is feigned by those who do not wish her well. It is not principally to those folks that this post is directed.
To those conservatives who are genuinely disappointed by Sarah Palin's decision to support McCain, let me say that I think Rush and Mark Levin understand it and have said that it is a question of loyalty and that loyalty is a virtue. That makes sense to me and, personally, I would be a little put off if she did otherwise, since it would look like rank ingratitude.
But, if you remain unappeased by this explanation, let me give you an historical analogy, based upon the supposition that Palin was wrong to endorse McCain to attempt to put the matter in perspective. In 1943, there was an American General who had taken the Seventh Army from a humiliating defeat at the Kasserine Pass to the conquest of all North Africa and then of Sicily. He appeared to be the overwhelmingly likely choice to lead the invasion of Europe, code-named Operation Overlord. The German General staff viewed him as, far and away, the best field commander in the Unnited States Army, and they feared and respected him enough to follow his every move.
He had no tolerance for shirkers, however. While visiting a field hospital, he saw a soldier suffering from battle fatigue, lost his temper and slapped the soldier, humiliating the man but not injuring him. I think that most anyone would agree that the General was wrong to slap the soldier. He was relieved of command of the Seventh Army and sent back to England. The invasion of Italy was commanded by a mediocre General whose lack of ability cost the lives of many Americans at Anzio and Cassino and the command of the Normandy Invasion forces fell to a less talented commander, who got bogged down in the hedge row country, again with heavy casualties. Just in the nick of time, this General was recalled to active duty, given command of the Third Army and carried out one of the most remarkable military campaigns in history, smashing huge German armies at Saint Lo, the Saar and finally the Ardennes Forest.
That little slap in Sicily cost the lives of many American soldiers and could have altered the war, because the response to it by the General Staff was DISPROPORTIONATE. In the larger scheme of things, it was no justification for removing a commander of this stature. In 1943, many a worried parent would have preferred to know that their son was under the command of this general because their boy's very life was at stake, and they would not have wanted a fracas in a field hospital to interfere with what they regarded as a matter of life and death. Great military commanders are a relatively rare commodity. They don't turn in long casualty lists and they have been known to save their countries.
Political geniuses are no less rare. They too have been known to save lives and to save their countries. The stakes in this upcoming election could not be higher. The Republican party, at this particular point in history, possesses a unique weapon, a political genius who so flummoxes the other side that they devote all their attention to her every move. Yet there are some sincere conservatives who believe that her endorsement of John McCain, a 75 year old Senator likely serving his last term, is so serious as to justify removing her from consideration for the GOP nomination. This strikes me as the political equivalent of "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." The response is, once again, disproportionate.
My view is that the Obama White House would be as delighted to see Palin removed from the scene as the German General Staff was delighted to see Patton relieved in 1943. For the Germans, it was much easier to contend with the likes of Mark Clark and Omar Bradley than Patton. For Obama, it is much easier to contend with the likes of Pawlenty, Romney or Huckabee than Sarah Palin. With our country very likely at stake in 2012, can we as conservatives, even if we sincerely believe Palin to be wrong in this matter, afford to be so disproportionate in our response to it?
Most conservatives that I know DO NOT like McCain, and Palin endorsing him may cost her in the politically arena. She owes John “Let’s just have fun” McCain nothing. In fact, he owes her. I had to hold my nose when I voted for McCain. He needs to go.
Kentucky doesn't think so.
In the senate race, Republican Rand Paul is 15 points ahead of his opponent, moderate Republican, Trey Greyson who looked like the favorite six months ago, Rand Paul also easily defeats his Democrat opponents.
Well, it may have been the 100 million in small contributions that are completely outside the scope of McCain Feingold?
Ya think?
Surely one as astute as oneself realizes that it takes yrs to build up a network of 50 dollar or less donors, yrs the GOP never spent, and typically ideolouges never bother to donate to anyway..the Dhimmis had no such problems...
To put that into perspective,Obamao raised in a day what FR raises all yr long...more or less...so please do stop with the childish “dumb *s*” stuff and consider “how” they managed to do what they did.
ObamAmerica ain’t no fun for anyone but his cronies.
So now your new routine is constantly attacking Palin supporters, your old routine was constantly attacking critics of Mitt Romney, good old dependable Charles.
Because you are one, don’t think everyone else is.
Unfortunately I disagree with you .....the rats have done such a good job of demonizing Sarah that the majority would rather have an anti-American communist than Sarah for POTUS.
>Asked about libertarian Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-Texas) place in the GOP, Romney said “we welcome his participation in our party,” adding “we’re a big-tent party.”>
Mitt doesn’t have a clue, he would need a Circus Tent
for L Ron Paul and his side show of freaks
That right? Based on what, little boy? What have you ever done anywhere, besides nothing? C'mon, don't be shy, tell us right here. Your qualifications please.
Explain how you would have handled fifteen fraudulent ethics complaints with your own money. Easy, right? Pony up about a half million of your own money there, Turdblossom.
Stupid Know-nothing pansy punks.... $$^^*(_)@#^*>>.
“So now your new routine is constantly attacking Palin supporters, your old routine was constantly attacking critics of Mitt Romney, good old dependable Charles.”
These Mittbots remind me of the Terminator, constantly changing shapes to avoid detection and/or the zot.
“Unfortunately I disagree with you .....the rats have done such a good job of demonizing Sarah that the majority would rather have an anti-American communist than Sarah for POTUS.”
You Sir are deranged,and you obviously know nothing about the American people!
She is supporting Republicans as did Reagan. She is speaking everywhere and getting her own media time as did Reagan. In Alaska she got bogged down in defending endless frivolous lawsuits and it was becoming quite negative for her and for Alaska and would have bankrupted her finally (which makes the case for Loser Pays tort reform).
All you need is a sling and a rock and some modicum of faith. Who is fighting your battle? Are we in the end times? Are you on the side of the Living God or are you out there on your own? Chirp all you want.
Not all Palin supporters, just those who denigrate her in the guise of defending her.
I suppose some of them could be closet Paul supporters just pretending to be Palin supporters. But I think it is likely they are well-meaning people who think it helps the candidate to make excuses when none are needed.
If you read my comments in the “Palin went to Canada” thread, you would recognize that my arguments for Palin there are much like my arguments in old Romney threads.
I look at events and quotes, and look for alternative explanations that might better fit reality. While I have seen the media make up quotes, most of the time they get the quotes right, but misinterpret them.
Very good working theory. Here I thought the people bashing Palin for endorsing McCain in Arizona were simply incapable of rational thought. Now I see they could very well be people who are incapable of rational thought AND have an ulterior motive (push Palin aside for Paul or someone else).
We must all say sorry Sarah, but ol’ John’s gotta go, wish her well, and bid John McPain buh bye.
Ditto. McCain will be retired, and Sarah will still win in 2012.
I saw a kind of similarity, you used to attack Romney critics, now you attack Palin supporters, that is different but similar, we love all the attention that you devote to us, well, not really.
I'm not a McCain fan, but by God if he is the candidate in November I pray these people come to their senses.
I’ve seen the polls....and I’m not deranged...nor am I a sir.
BTW, I’d LOVE to vote for Sarah. I think she could save this 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.