Inquiring minds want to know if the above are Common Sense Conservatives?
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?
“Your analogy of Sarah Palin with one of the greatest military commanders in history is... well...silly.”
You are...well..silly. Don’t put words in my mouth The analogy was to the overreaction to the soldier slapping incident vis a vis the McCain endorsement. Patton was a military genius, albeit one untested until mid-march 1943. the fact that he had performed well in the field and was decorated is commendable but it doesn’t establish his credential as a military genius, anymore than the two iron Crosses Hitler received established him as a military genius.
Sarah Palin is a political genius. She quite likely saved McCain from losing 45 states and drew crowds that no VP candidate, and next to no Presidential candidates , have ever drawn. She accomplished more in 2 and one half years as Governor of Alaska than most governors accomplish in 8. And she has had the single greatest impact on national public policy of an one, in or out of public office, in the last seven months since leaving office. I call that political genius, Plankton. What you call it...well, who cares?
Try to pay attention to the analogy and not to get lost in the details. The analogy was to the overreaction. It takes a little higher brain activity. Work on it.
“According to Omar Bradley’s memoir, A Soldier’s Story, Ike did not remove Patton from command because of the slapping incident.”
Hey, genius, Everything, I posted was factual. Was Patton relieved of Command of the Seventh Army? Yes. Was he involved in any major battles after the incident, before his recall to duty in August, 1944? No. He sat on his duff in Palermo, until Eisenhower ordered him back to England to play decoy for 6 months.
Your source for the outlandish statement that Patton was not relieved Because of the soldier slapping incident: Omar Bradley. The man who stood to benefit the most from Patton’s demotion. Do you really think Bradley is going to say that a soldier slap is what landed him command of Operation Overlord? That would be a knock on Eisenhower, his boss and benefactor.
But everyone this side of the loony bin knows that is why Patton was relieved. I could post the links but your brain could probably use the exercise. Do your own research.
and btw...my uncle was in a recon platoon in the 14th armored Division under Patton (he's mentioned in one of Brokaw's books). He and the whole family despised Patton for his abject disregard for American lives. His cowboy attitude got uncle's ass hung out without fuel or help more than once. You got that wrong too.
“Besides there is that little matter of SP’s loyalty to the oath she took to the people of Alaska...or does that not count?”
As a MittBot, you should know about loyalty oaths.
Romney on Reagan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4
How is one Loyal to an oath? Do you proofread your scribble? Does the Oath say that she swears before God to serve 4 years?
Get lost. You are boring.
One of my relatives served under Patton in the Saar and was killed in 12/44 thanks to Eisenhower’s and Bradley’s idiotic decision in September, 1944 to divert gasoline from the Third Army to Bernard Montgomery and the abortive Operation Market Garden.
Had Patton had the gas (he was alrady in the Saar at that point), he might well have ended the war by October. When he finally got it, the window had closed.
You can take Bradley word, if you want. I will take the word of every historian who studied the period, as well as my common sense, which tells me that having conquered Sicily and North Africa, Patton had done nothing to warrant his removal. Res ipsa Loquitur.
AS for an oath of office...why do we have them, why did SP raise her hand with the other presumably on a Bible if it meant nothing?
Nope, nice try but not good enough.
Inquiring minds want to know if the above are Common Sense Conservatives?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as governor to the best of my ability."
I don't see the qualifier that says..."until it gets too hard".
_______________________________________
Yeah, I think I will take the word of a Four Star General who was there over your un-named "every historian" who "studied" the events....especially given the fact that Ike's own letters of the day support Bradley's telling of the facts.
btw...stating that the thing speaks for itself is not an argument except on Law and Order....more hollywood.
It’s sad that you presume that a disagreement with you should be considered a hack at Palin — visions of grandeur, much?
You ain’t Palin, you don’t represent her (thankfully), and your hubris in suggesting otherwise is duly noted.
Maybe you aren’t a Palin supporter after all.
Well, that is a different tactic, I don’t get it and I don’t see how it covers your posting on this thread, but there it is.
On the other hand, I can't wait to hear your explanation of Sarah Palin calling Ron Paul "cool" (it's on youtube) and endorsing Rand Raul.
In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, elected office is a "sacred responsibility." One does not dream of betraying the responsibility given by the voters; it is a betrayal of the people and of their votes.
You don't get it? Maybe i'm slipping. I had an entire post dedicated to disagreeing with your opinion about the definition of "out of nowhere".
In response, you said "It is nice to see you keep hacking at Palin in any which way you can". As my post was an argument with you, your response suggests that you somehow believe a disagreement with your opinion is the same as "hacking at Palin".
I don't get why you think a disagreement with you should be considered "hacking at Palin" -- I just observe that this is your assertion.
I hope this has clarified that for you. For all I know, you are a strong Palin supporter, but I wouldn't want to presume anything.
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.
Grayson looks soft and Rand doesn’t seem unusual, outside of his name.
Since this is a Senate seat, it means that the entire state is looking at the two, and Grayson can only get 27% support from the GOP voters, also, being endorsed by Steve Forbes, Governor Palin and Dick Armey seems to support the Republican voters take on their choice. It looks OK to me.
Lie-bertarians are well known for running for office as Republicans. Oh gosh, an example would be Rand’s dad, Ron. Hmmmm.
How people can call themselves conservatives and yet embrace libertarians is beyond me.
Among other views held by Rand Paul that are identical with his father’s, is opposition to U.S. war in Iraq. He campaigned for his father in 2008. He looks like a RLC plant to me, and he has other troubling tendencies:
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2010/03/rand-paul-hes-got-some-splainin-to-do.html
Post 195 made sense and let people see the wisdom of the Steve Forbes, Governor Palin, Dick Armey endorsements for the more conservative Republican in the Kentucky Senate race, he leads his more Romney like opponent by 15 points, even though that opponent started the primary with a 15 point lead. Rand Paul seems to be a shoo in for the Kentucky Senate seat.
Your post didn’t really say anything.
Gosh, one would think you are Rand Paul’s publicist, a la Baghdad Bob. LOL.
Sarah Palin is a political genius
I didn't think your posts could get any sillier, but I clearly underestimated you.
That didn’t even make sense, can you try and explain 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.