A couple more things. As I said originally, I am very pro Palin. A review of my posting history will reveal just how big a Palin fan I am. However, I do not see her as an infallible goddess who has never made a mistake in her life. I believe her primary endorsement here in GA promoted a strongly pro-Planned Parenthood candidate over a solid, clean, established conservative with a stellar pro-life record. That is a shame. She did affect our primary outcome, and not in a good way. For me to say that does not make me a liar or, as you so ickily stated, a slimer. You truly do owe me an apology, but I’m not holding my breath. You seem to find it easier to sling mud (at me) than to admit a mistake and move on.
1. I said stop using a strawman: I didn’t say Palin is infallible. SHE’s definitely not, You’re definitely not, I’m definitely not.... and even the pope is also human and not infallible (I’m a progressive Catholic).
So who said that Palin is infallible? YOU used it as a strawman.
2. Okey. I take back my initial assessment that “you lied”.
Why? Now, you gave us (FR readers) the reason regarding Palin vs. Georgia Election.
Your post:
A couple more things. As I said originally, I am very pro Palin. A review of my posting history will reveal just how big a Palin fan I am. However, I do not see her as an infallible goddess who has never made a mistake in her life. I believe her primary endorsement here in GA promoted a strongly pro-Planned Parenthood candidate over a solid, clean, established conservative with a stellar pro-life record. That is a shame. She did affect our primary outcome, and not in a good way. For me to say that does not make me a liar or, as you so ickily stated, a slimer. You truly do owe me an apology, but I’m not holding my breath. You seem to find it easier to sling mud (at me) than to admit a mistake and move on.
MY TAKE:
You didn’t mention the name. Let me enumerate:
1. Senator Isakson. Incumbent Senator.
He was one of Palin’s prosecutor who mentioned that “Palin is NUTS” for introducing the “death panel” to health care rationing. ISAKSON NEVER BELIEVED IN DEATH PANEL WHEN SUCH IDEA WAS SO UNPOPULAR THEN ... til Palin won the debate.
Not very conservative, eh? Anyone who couldn’t understand the ramifications of “health care rationing” has 99% probability of being “pro-choice” by ignorance.
Reference:
http://www.alternet.org/health/141906
2. Nathan Deal. Incumbent Governor.
Who is Nathan Deal? A former Democrat who signed a pro-abortion “bill” as State legislator in GA in early 1990s and turn-coated into Republican because he would lose in the election so many years back. To be fair, the bill was not passed into law.
Palin’s endorsee was Karen Handel. She lost to Deal in the primary.
Now. Let’s state the fact. See some references below.
Handel was accused of being NOT pro-life because she didn’t sign a pro-life affirmation statement pushed by the Georgia Right to Life. The same statement was not also signed by her opponent the Incumbent Deal btw.
Notice this:
a) The statement as act of State Legislature is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The decision of criminalizing abortion (the intent of the statement) must be passed as a “direct vote” by the constituents themselves (Georgians).
b) Sorry. But Georgia Right To Life was pushing its own agenda in an unconstitutional manner.
c) GRTL was obviously siding with Nathan Deal. Normally, RTL group are really “puritan” and Nathan Deal wouldn’t pass as worthy to support. Hmmmmm....
b) Apparently, to Georgian Republicans, Deal’s signing a pratical “Abortion Conselling Bill” (although didn’t materalize, it was intended to fund Planned Parenthood) and Not Signing the Above statement is more PRO-LIFE than Handel’s Not Signing the statement “only”.
This was the excuse of Nathan Deal:
Explaining his 1993 vote, Deal initially said in an interview with The Associated Press that “a lot of us were not fully convinced of where ... Planned Parenthood was and what they were doing with their money.”
HIS SCAPEGOAT: HE DIDN’T KNOW THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS PRO-ABORTION AT THAT TIME! JUST LIKE ISAKSON DIDN’T KNOW THAT OBAMACARE WOULD EVENTUALLY END UP INTO “RATIONING” AND THUS ...DEATH PANEL. Check out Krugman’s most recent revelation about death panel and VAT.
AND GA CONSERVATIVES BELIEVED NATHAN DEAL BECAUSE THE GA MEDIA TOLD THEM SO. IT’S OBVIOUS THAT GA LIBERAL MEDIA WAS BIASED AGAINST HANDEL. IT PREFERRED THE FORMER-DEMOCRAT DEAL over Handel, WHY? BECAUSE ADMIT IT. NATHAN DEAL WAS A BIG SPENDER! [And Palin must be destroyed by destroying her endorsees!]
[Note: Reagan’s signing a somwhat pro-abortion law almost destroyed him! He was experiencing a mild emotional depression over his own child ... not very far from “Sarah Palin’s dilemma with her son Trig”. Reagan showed his full remorse and contrition about it! NATHAN DEAL DIDN’T! And common! How would feel if you’re barren and infertile like Handel! Attacking her personal stance about “abortion” must be so “excruciating”, don’t you think?]
Ref:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jul/29/abortion-emerges-election-issue/
3. Ray McKinney for U.S. House in GA-12, Palin endorsed in 10/11/10. AFTER THE PRIMARY! Palin didn’t endorse anybody during the primary.
Ref: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=440080678434
IF HANDEL IS 50-50 PRO-CHOICE ... DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT DEAL WAS REALLY A PRO-LIFE? CLEARLY, THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN FAVOR OF DEAL! SO GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
SO WHY ARE YOU AGAINST MCCAIN? NATHAN DEAL IS WORSE THAN MCCAIN!
SO YOU PREFERRED “MEDIA-PROCLAIMED” SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE BUT FISCALLY LIBERAL GOVERNOR THAN A “DOUBTFUL” SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE WITH FISCAL CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM?
So goodluck to that!
NOW. ARE YOU IGNORANT OR ARE YOU A LIAR? OR ARE YOU REALLY A VOTER IN GA? WHICH OF WHICH?
Unsolicited advice: Next time, try to “think” of your candidates as “human”. Check the motives. Don’t dehumanize them.