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?
One historical note. It was the Germans obsession with Patton and his phantom army that helped sell the Calais landing, which meant, believe it or not, fewer casualties at Normandy.
I AM in the Palin trenches....but I’m not deluded enough to think that the rats and the MSM haven’t done serious damage....just like they intended. And then there are the RINOs....the rat seat warmers who are even worse than the obvious enemy. The question is - how many Americans, who have been beat down by our economic problems and the guilting over “social justice” “climate change” etc. have the courage to believe in themelves enough to stand on their own two feet? Or would they rather hand over their lives to zero so they can watch American Idol...
Look at all the useful idiots who are popping up parroting Obama’s” insurance companies are evil” BS. Free everything! It’s mind boggling and sickening....unfortunately for me some in my own family believe in all this $hit.
After this, if she does run, and McCain doesn’t endorse her, he is forever tainted. Not by us, he’s already earned that, but by the media that he craves.
Don't know much about Patton, do you? You conveniently left out the Mexican expeditionary raid, his service, and leadership during WWI and his several commands between the wars.
Palin has some accomplishments to be sure, but they pale in comparison to Patton's, even before 1942.
“It was the Germans obsession with Patton and his phantom army that helped sell the Calais landing, which meant, believe it or not, fewer casualties at Normandy.”
True. But that deception could have been carried off while still leaving Patton in overall charge of the Invasion. And Patton remained in England for TWO SOLID MONTHS after the Normandy invasion while the Allies took horrific casualties in the hedgerow country. They let him in for six weeks and he raced across France to the German border, then they stopped him in favor of the Market Garden fiasco. They kept him on a very short leash, which they never would have been able to do but for the PC incident of the soldier slapping. If he had had Bradley’s job, the war would probably have ended in the Autumn of 1944, which proves my point. A disproportionate response (to the soldier slapping incident) set Patton back just enough to prevent him from being in a position of ending the war expeditiously. Fortunately it did not remove him altogether.
“You conveniently left out the Mexican expeditionary raid, his service, and leadership during WWI and his several commands between the wars.”
Patton had not had a Field command, much less a major one, until El Qatar. It was his first time in a genuine engagement since World War I, in which he was a Captain.
And you are not seriously equating his police action fighting banditos in Mexico with facing off against Rommel and the Afrika Corps.
Up until El Qatar, he was untested. Less than five months later he was removed over a soldier slap.
Once in a generation candidate? DeMint has announced?
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.
I can't quantify it either, but there are a lot of hidden agendas in the Palin-bashing. That much I know.
With respect to Palin's endorsement of McCain, I think she's doing her best to save the Republican party the right way, by taking it over and guiding it back to its core principles. It's either that or the party is dead.
To do this, she's got to reach out to the party "leaders" where it makes sense. McCain apparently makes sense to her. I trust her judgment although I can't stomach McCain.
Ronald Reagan did that over and over again, even though the country was in a crisis that he said in 1980 faced "grave threats to its very existence." We all know about his association with Richard Schweiker in 1976 as his VP choice (Schweiker 1976 ACU rating - 16) and his going to the mat for Pete Wilson in the CA Senate race in 1982. Wilson's avg. ACU rating in his Senate years was worse than McCain's.
An even more stark example was Reagan's support of Chuck Percy (1978 ACU rating - 20) in his 1978 re-election bid in IL for the Senate. Percy was a staunch supporter of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty, a treaty Reagan passionately opposed. Percy was up against an unknown but conservative Democrat.
Reagan stood up for Percy, campaigned for him and dragged him across the finish line. Percy is the very definition of "Rockefeller Republican". His daughter, BTW, is married to Jay Rockefeller.
I think Sarah is doing what she can to guide the party back to its roots before it destroys itself. I'm with her all the way.
I totally agree....blood, sweat and tears!
Let me see if I got your analogy correct. You think, after slapping the American people in the face repeatedly, we should continue to show deference to McCain as he hedges and compromises with the enemy on the beaches of Anzio rather than fielding the superior capabilities of the better Hayworth?
Oh. You DID talk of lives lost in your justification.
The only reason you have even invoked the memories of our fellow dead Americans in World War II is to try and score some cheap political points for your candidate, i.e., Sarah Palin.
She can win quite handily without help like that from you. You are to General Palin what Admiral William Leahy was to the Manhattan Project.
How did they raise that money? Was McCain/Palin excluded from raising money in that manner?
If so, why, if not, why not?
One speaks of parroting, I doubt if one has done little more but repeat platitudes about “that darn McCain” instead of actually T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G about how that happened.
Meanwhile:
JD Hayworth huzzah! huzzah!
Please read a biography of Patton.
First, he was promoted to a full Colonel in WWI. Below are some of his accomplishments in that war:
"Impressed by Patton's determination, Pershing promoted him to Captain and asked him to command his Headquarters Troop upon their return from Mexico. With the onset of World War I in 1914, tanks were not being widely used. In 1917, however, Patton became the first member of the newly established United States Tank Corps, where he served until the Corps were abolished in 1920. He took full command of the Corps, directing ideas, procedures and even the design of their uniforms. Along with the British tankers, he and his men achieved victory at Cambrai, France, during the world's first major tank battle in 1917.
Using his first-hand knowledge of tanks, Patton organized the American tank school in Bourg, France and trained the first 500 American tankers. He had 345 tanks by the time he took the brigade into the Meuse-Argonne Operation in September 1918. When they entered into battle, Patton had worked out a plan where he could be in the front lines maintaining communications with his rear command post by means of pigeons and a group of runners. Patton continually exposed himself to gunfire and was shot once in the leg while he was directing the tanks. His actions during that battle earned him the Distinguished Service Cross for Heroism, one of the many medals he would collect during his lifetime.
Your analogy of Sarah Palin with one of the greatest military commanders in history is... well...silly.
i'll stop right there and simply state that 'loyalty' to an ideological enemy isnt virtuous, its either naivete or ignorance...
neither of those are qualities that i seek in a representative leader...
if its something else, it must be a simple sharing of that ideology, which is an obvious declaration of war against my family...
I reserved judgement on the Gov initially, and really liked the words and could accept the face value of her positions while waiting to see if the 'go along' politician would eventually rear its ugly head...it has IMO because anyone who refuses to denounce ole juannys agenda is no ally of mine...
come on dude, youre ruining the botfest...
LMAO!!!
Jim is a good man, no question about it!
I can only keep pointing out that today CharlesWayneCT argues against Palin supporters, as they support the biggest threat to Romney, and for years CharlesWayneCT has argued against Romney critics that were a threat to Romney, some of us see a pattern, regardless of how you want to try and portray it.
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.