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?
McCain is bad enough. But her endorsement of Rand Paul frankly stinks. And that stench is going to extremely hard to just wash off.
Get a clue. MCCAIN-Feingold helped elect a Dem Congress 2006/2008 and Obama 2008 - FACT. Helped by the Liberal media/news demonizing Bush and the Repubs.
The Dems screamed when SCOTUS struck down McCain’s abortion.
can anyone tell me what happened to drill baby drill....?
Hyperbole?
Sadly unsurprising, the Dhimmis outperformed the GOP at every turn, they had more enthusiasm, they had more money, they had better issue messaging on social networks, they understood and developed internet fundraising tactics.
To say McCain Feingold caused the GOP to be swept from office is naive at best, misplaced dogmatism at worst.
More than a few people here have no clue how bad Juan McCain is and how so many conservative have a visceral dislike for the traitor.
The man stabs Republicans and Conservatives in the back. He is up for election and now he is the nice MCCain. He is Obama’s lap dog, he threw the election and took a dive or ran the worst campaign in history. McCain is worse than Charlie Crist.
Mr. Amnesty McCain held over $22 million in 2008 election funds instead of fighting to win with Steve Schmidt a Dem running his camoaign and probably a Soros goon.
We have Obama, Reid and Pelosi in large part because of McCain-Feingold and McCain running in 2008. He is a digusting person. Another Arlen Specter and Palin is an idiot to back him.
I wonder....of all those Conservatives who are pissed at Sarah for endorsing McCain, how many of them voted for McCain in the ‘08 Presidential Election. Or did they vote for Obama?
If they voted for McCain, then they need to SHUT UP!!! To keep running their mouth makes them hypocrites.
If only they were the rubber room crowd...lol.
They’re foaming-at-the-mouth malcontents.
“of all those Conservatives who are pissed at Sarah for endorsing McCain, how many of them voted for McCain in the ‘08 Presidential Election.”
Probably most of them. He was good enough to be President, but they want to throw her under the bus because she does the personally honorable thing and endorses him.
McCain is not that important. Most of the people who keep bringing this up do not like Sarah Palin and are working for someone else. They tend to be the same ones who call her “quitter” etc. This post was directed toward those who really did disagree with her on principle in her endorsement of McCain.
“As far as her resigning the Governorship,she accomplished what she set out to do.”
Tax Cuts, spending cuts, ethics reform, natural gas pipeline (which had been stymied for 20 years.) all in 2 and one half years.
Romney had 4 years. His legacy: Romney Care and Gay marriage.
Bottom line: Failure.
Uh, FYI
There is a famous study that was finished up in 2007. It ranked the authority of the governor’s office by state. The first chart lists the institutional power and the second lists the personal power of governor, by state. You will note that Alaska has one of the strongest governor’s offices in the United States. A few states are equal to Alaska’s 4.1 ranking; only one gives it’s governor more power and that’s MA.
This may not format correctly, so I’ll include the direct links in a second post:
Table 7-5 Governors’ Institutional Powers 2007 6/18/07
SEP TP AP BP VP PC TOTAL SCORE
GIP
______________________________________________________________
AL 1 4 3 3 4 2 17 2.8
AK 5 4 3.5 3 5 4 24.5 4.1
AZ 2.5 4 4 3 5 2 20.5 3.4
AR 2.5 4 3 3 4 5 21.5 3.6
CA 1 4 4 3 5 2 19 3.2
CO 4 4 3.5 3 5 4 23.5 3.9
CT 4 5 2.5 3 5 2 21.5 3.6
DE 2.5 4 3.5 3 5 3 21 3.5
FL 3 4 2.5 3 5 4 21.5 3.6
GA 1 4 2 3 5 4 19 3.2
HI 5 4 2.5 3 5 1 20.5 3.4
ID 2 4 2 3 5 4 20 3.3
IL 3 5 3 3 5 4 23 3.8
IN 3 4 2.5 3 2 3 17.5 2.9
IA 3 5 3 3 5 4 23 3.8
KS 3 4 3 3 5 2 20 3.3
KY 3 4 4 3 4 2 20 3.3
LA 1 4 3.5 3 5 4 20.5 3.4
ME 5 4 3.5 3 2 4 21.5 3.6
MD 4 4 2.5 5 5 4 24.5 4.1
MA 4 5 3.5 3 5 5 25.5 4.3
MI 4 4 3.5 3 5 2 21.5 3.6
MN 4 5 2.5 3 5 2 21.5 3.6
MS 1.5 4 2 3 5 2 17.5 2.9
MO 2.5 4 3 3 5 4 21.5 3.6
MT 3 4 3 3 5 3 21 3.5
NE 4 4 3 4 5 3 23 3.8
NV 2.5 4 3.5 3 2 3 18 3.0
NH 5 2 3 3 2 4 19 3.2
NJ 5 4 3.5 3 5 4 24.5 4.1
NM 3 4 3 3 5 4 22 3.7
NY 4 5 3.5 4 5 3 24.5 4.1
NC 1 4 3.5 3 2 4 17.5 2.9
ND 3 5 3.5 3 5 4 23.5 3.9
OH 4 4 3.5 3 5 2 21.5 3.6
OK 1 4 1 3 5 3 175 2.8
OR 2 4 3 3 5 4 21 3.5
PA 4 4 4 3 5 3 23 3.8
RI 2.5 4 3 3 2 1 15.5 2.6
SC 1 4 2 2 5 4 18 3.0
SD 1 4 2 2 5 4 18 3.0
TN 4.5 4 4 3 4 3 22.5 3.8
TX 2 5 1 2 5 4 19 3.2
UT 4 5 3 3 5 4 24 4.0
VT 2.5 2 3.5 3 2 2 15 2.5
VA 2.5 3 3.5 3 5 2 19 3.2
WA 1 5 3.5 3 5 4 21.5 3.6
WV 2.5 4 4 5 5 4 24.5 4.1
WI 3 5 2 3 5 3 21 3.5
WY 2 4 3.5 3 5 1 18.5 3.1
50 avg. 2.9 4.1 3.0 3.1 4.5 3.2 20.9 3.5
SEP - Separately elected executive branch officials: 5 = only governor or governor/lieutenant governor team elected; 4.5 = governor or governor/lieutenant governor team, with one other elected official; 4 = governor/lieutenant governor team with some process officials (attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor) elected; 3 = governor/lieutenant governor team with process officials, and some major and minor policy officials elected; 2.5 = governor (no team) with six or fewer officials elected, but none are major policy officials; 2 = governor (no team) with six or fewer officials elected, including one major policy official; 1.5 = governor (no team) with six or fewer officials elected, but two are major policy officials; 1 = governor (no team) with seven or more process and several major policy officials elected. [Source: CSG, The Book of the States, 2007 (2007): forthcoming].
TP - Tenure potential of governors: 5 = 4-year term, no restraint on reelection; 4.5 = 4-year term, only three terms permitted; 4 = 4-year term, only two terms permitted; 3 = 4-year term, no consecutive election permitted; 2 = 2-year term, no restraint on reelection; 1 = 2-year term, only two terms permitted. [Source: CSG, The Book of the States, 2007 (2007): forthcoming].
AP - Governor’s appointment powers in six major functional areas: corrections, K-12 education, health, highways/transportation, public utilities regulation, and welfare. The six individual office scores are totaled and then averaged and rounded to the nearest .5 for the state score. 5 = governor appoints, no other approval needed; 4 = governor appoints, a board, council or legislature approves; 3 = someone else appoints, governor approves or shares appointment; 2 = someone else appoints, governor and others approve; 1 = someone else appoints, no approval or confirmation needed. [Source: CSG, The Book of the States, 2007 (2007): forthcoming].
BP - Governor’s budget power: 5 = governor has full responsibility, legislature may not increase executive budget; 4 = governor has full responsibility, legislature can increase by special majority vote or subject to item veto; 3 = governor has full responsibility, legislature has unlimited power to change executive budget; 2 = governor shares responsibility, legislature has unlimited power to change executive budget; 1 = governor shares responsibility with other elected official, legislature has unlimited power to change executive budget. [Source: CSG, The Book of the States, 2007 (2007): forthcoming and NCSL, “Limits on Authority of Legislature to Change Budget” (1998).
VP - Governor’s veto power: 5 = governor has item veto and a special majority vote of the legislature is needed to override a veto (3/5’s of legislators elected or 2/3’s of legislators present; 4 = has item veto with a majority of the legislators elected needed to override; 3 = has item veto with only a majority of the legislators present needed to override; 2 = no item veto, with a special legislative majority needed to override a regular veto; 1 = no item veto, only a simple legislative majority needed to override a regular veto. [Source: CSG, The Book of the States, 2007 (2007): forthcoming].
PC - Gubernatorial party control: The governor’s party - 5 = has a substantial majority (75% or more) in both houses of the legislature; 4 = has a simple majority in both houses (under 75%), or a substantial majority in one house and a simple majority in the other; 3 = split control in the legislature or a non-partisan legislature; 2 = has a simple minority (25% or more) in both houses, or a simple minority in one and a substantial minority (under 25%) in the other; 1 = has a substantial minority in both houses. [Source: NCSL webpage].
Table 7.4 The Personal Powers of the Governors, 2007 8/21/07
State EM AL PF GP GPP
Alabama 5 3 3 5 4.0
Alaska 4 3 5 5 4.3
Arizona 5 5 3 5 4.5
Arkansas 5 5 5 na 5.0
California 5 5 3 4 4.3
Colorado 5 5 5 na 5.0
Connecticut 5 5 5 5 5.0
Delaware 5 5 1 4 3.8
Florida 4 2 5 5 4.0
Georgia 5 3 3 4 3.8
Hawaii 5 2 3 5 3.8
Idaho 4 3 5 na 4.0
Illinois 4 3 5 3 3.8
Indiana 5 5 5 3 4.5
Iowa 4 5 5 4 4.5
Kansas 5 5 3 5 4.5
Kentucky 4 5 4 2 3.8
Louisiana 3 3 4 2 3.0
Maine 2 3 3 3 2.8
Maryland 4 2 5 4 3.8
Massachusetts 5 1 5 4 3.8
Michigan 5 5 3 3 4.0
Minnesota 2 3 5 4 3.5
Mississippi 4 5 4 4 4.3
Missouri 2 5 4 3 3.5
Montana 3 5 4 5 4.3
Nebraska 5 5 5 5 5.0
Nevada 3 1 5 2 2.8
New Hampshire 5 1 5 5 4.0
New Jersey 4 2 5 4 3.8
New Mexico 5 3 3 5 4.0
New York 5 3 5 3 4.0
North Carolina 3 5 1 4 3.3
North Dakota 4 1 4 5 3.5
Ohio 5 5 5 4 4.8
Oklahoma 5 3 3 5 4.0
Oregon 4 5 3 4 4.0
Pennsylvania 5 2 3 4 3.5
Rhode Island 2 1 3 4 2.5
South Carolina 4 3 3 4 3.5
South Dakota 5 3 3 5 4.0
Tennessee 5 2 3 5 3.8
Texas 2 5 5 3 3.8
Utah 5 1 4 5 3.8
Vermont 5 5 5 5 5.0
Virginia 3 1 3 5 3.0
Washington 2 2 4 4 3.0
West Virginia 5 3 4 5 4.3
Wisconsin 4 5 5 3 4.3
Wyoming 5 1 3 5 3.5
50 state average 4.2 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.9 [196.6]
NOTES:
EM - Governor’s electoral mandate: 5 = landslide win of 11 or more points; 4 = comfortable
majority of 6 to 10 points; 3 = narrow majority of 3 to 5 points; 2 = tight win of 0 to 2
points or a plurality win of under 50%; 1 = succeeded to office. [Source: Author’s data - www.unc.edu./~beyle ]
AL - Governor’s position on the state’s political ambition ladder: 5 = steady progression; 4 =
former governors; 3 = legislative leaders or members of Congress; 2 = substate position
to governor; 1 = governorship is first elective office. [Source: Individual governors’ websites in each state and author’s data].
PF - The personal future of the governor: 5 = early in term, can run again; 4 = late in term, can
run again; 3 = early in term, term limited; 2 = succeeded to office, can run for election;
1 = late in final term. [Source: CSG, The Book of the States, 2007 (2007): forthcoming and author’s data.]
GP - Gubernatorial job performance rating in public opinion polls: 5 = over 60% positive job
approval rating; 4 = 50 to 59% positive job approval rating; 3 = 40 to 49% positive job
approval rating; 2 = 30 to 39% positive job approval rating; 1 = less than 30% positive
job approval rating; na = no polling data available. [Source: Author’s data]
GPP - Governor’s personal powers’ index score, the sum of the scores for EM, AL, PF, GP
divided by 4 and rounded to the nearest .#, except for those states without a governor’s job performance rating where the sum is divided by 3 and rounded to the nearest .#.
You just answered the question in your post dumb*s*. The Dems had more money? How did that happen? What law helped them and hurt the GOP.
Oh yes and to think of what she could do leading this country.These idiots who whack her for endorsing McLame need to grow up and grow a pair.I class these folks as summertime patriots,who when the going gets rough they get out of town.Great post by the way.I enjoyed your analogy,being a history buff and all
Because she told a nice story in Canada about how her family went to Canada to get health care, and because the left twisted it, some of her supporters tried to deny she ever said it, and claimed it would be politically stupid for her to say it.
But she did say it, and Palin’s never avoided saying things just because the left could twist her words.
Critical thinking goes out the windows with some Palin supporters. I even had to explain on that thread how they could both rush her brother to Canada for emergency care, and also take the ferry to Jeuneau(sp?). Some of her supporters, who couldn’t figure out how both stories could be true, insisted the news media was lying about one of the two stories.
It’s funny that the more I learn about Sarah Palin from her book, the more I think some of her supporters never bothered to read the book. I feel like randomly quoting her out of the book, to see if they insist I’m lying about her.
“Bottom line: Failure.”
Bottom line: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 1/20/2013. Madame President. Get used to it.
If you were to make a wild azz guess as to why Sarah Palin could’nt finish her job for “some reason” what would it be?
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.