Palin defends GOProud participation at CPAC (misleading headline)

Hot Air ^ | 2/7/11 | Morrisey

[pissant]

No great surprise here, really; Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees:

[allmendream]

Where does this 3/5ths of a person garbage come from?

Nobody in our nation was ever counted as 3/5ths of a person other than for apportionment. And it had to do with if you were a participant in the system (count = 1), a slave of the system (count = 3/5ths), or not of the system (Indians not taxed; count =0).

Free Blacks and Indians who were taxed were ALWAYS counted as a full person, for purposes of apportionment of political power.

Now whose interests would it have served to have slaves count as a full person for apportionment of political power?

[Mr. K]

bite me pissant

Sarah is NOT for the homo agenda- you are promiting her here AS IF she is.

I would more readily believe you are for the homo agenda with, because you are always here demoralizing the troops

[pissant]

Uh huh.

Note the contrast in tone amongst the palinistas to this thread:

Bachmann Will Be the First Potential 2012 GOP Candidate to Speak at CPAC

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2669209/posts

[Mr. K]

bite me pissant

Sarah is NOT for the homo agenda- you are promiting her here AS IF she is.

I would more readily believe you are for the homo agenda with, because you are always here demoralizing the troops

[pissant]

She’s just for homos serving openly in the military. OTher than that, she’s a regular conservative, almost.

[investigateworld]

What is her position on Amnesty?

It's the 'acid test' for RINOS

[BigSkyFreeper]

Go pound sand Mr. K. You don’t know me all that well.

[longtermmemmory]

Palin has yet to prove herself. She has been kissing up to the beltway establishment since ...always.

[altura]

Yeah, right. Who else are we gonna send packing and refuse to allow into our little clique?

The Rino republicans (fewer now, Thank God) don’t want to let the spam sucking wal-mart playin on the banjo types in, but they got in anyway.

I’m for letting any conservative in. If we start trying to find the one without sin, we’ll be a party of one.

I’m not a gay hater. I despise the actions of many of them and loathe the lifestyle, but there are plenty of good homosexuals with conservative lives and views.

I just know too many of the good kind to engage in the all too prevalent hate around here by some.

Apparently DADT is the biggest issue for some people. Get some perspective. We’ve got a war, a disastrous economy, a ghastly health care bill, an EPA stifling energy policies that would make us independent and people are hung up on DADT.

This is a very minor issue to me. I think it is unlikely to affect the military at all.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

The Palin cult on this forum is not open to any further statistics or facts that contradict their sycophantic worship of her.

What track record does she really have? She was a 3 rd place Miss Alaska, she quit her controversial Governor seat after only 2 1/2 years, she has never held a Federal level office of any kind.

Therefore, all this zeal and mindless enthusiasm of her is astounding! She is frequently paralleled with Reagan, who in comparison, is in a league she would not even come close to matching, in regards to political accomplishment or actual on the job experience.

Yet, in spite of her extremely negative public image, (95% recognition rating with a 22% approval) it clearly shows that she is VERY well known among the Public and that image is NOT at all good!

She is absolutely the wrong candidate to be rallying around. The MSM and the Public will tear her apart, because there is much TO tear apart. She has very little in her past that can prove them wrong, or counter their biggest accusation that she is UNQUALIFIED.

Which leads up to my biggest and most important point; America is now aware of the consequences of “TRAINING” an unqualified President. They are not going to be willing to take that chance again for a while. Which is why there has been a recent resurgence of Reagan enthusiasm.

[trisham]

?

[r9etb]

Here's what she (apparently) actually said:

Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

It's tough to see how Mr. Morrisey could have extracted anything from that wall of words....

[trisham]

I know, which is why, imho, Bachmann is just a pawn.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Right. She’s establishing herself as your typical run-of-the-mill Beltway Insider while pretending to be an outsider. If she’s against DADT, then say it. Otherwise, making generalized statements will not sit well with most Conservatives who are grounded on common sense principles and are not afraid to take principled stands on any given issue even if it’s unfashionable to do so.

[Bigtigermike]

Oh I know what you are saying! I’m being a little rhetorical...heh!

Btw....this interview was out yesterday at least in transcript form and nobody referred this statement by her as meaning anything much, it’s just that Ed seem to infer a lot here.

[K-Stater]

Palin defends GOProud participation at CPAC

Palin defended GOProud's participation in CPAC but refused to participate herself?

[BigSkyFreeper]

I saw the interview clips on David Brody’s blog. BTW, who the hell is Ed?

[Clyde5445]

Here is the reference comment and link.

---

To: 1rudeboy
Unless the last name is Thatcher, slim chance I’d be pushing a chick for prez.

11 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 1:17:04 PM by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

To: 1rudeboy
Since I don’t think they should even be able to vote, what makes you think I’d want one as CIC.

13 posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 1:20:02 PM by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2557810/posts?
page=13#13

---

PS: pissant don’t bother replying I pinged you as a courtesy as you name appears above.

[altura]

Just a joke. Lighten up. Not in the loafers, just lighten up.

This NOT, repeat NOT, the most important issue facing us.

[kevkrom]

She retweeted Tammy Bruce's support of the repeal.

Um, no she didn't. She "retweeted" a comment to the effect of "there are a lot of hypocrites out there" that in and of itself, had nothing to do with DADT.^*

In "PDS world", this is en endorsement of a DADT. Just like a statement saying something to the effect of "we shouldn't be afraid to listen to (and debate against) views that we don't agree with" is "defending/endorsing GOProud".

To normal people who don't try to shoehorn everything into a preconceived narrative, neither means what some are claiming they mean.

---

^*By the way, since when has it been the "conservative" position to defend DADT? That was a Clinton-era enabling of homosexuality in the military -- and the pro-homo lobby celebrating its repeal I think are engaging in a pyrrhic victory, since when the current lot of socialists are drummed out next year, a new administration will set new "guidelines" for how to handle the situation, and it won't necessarily be to their benefit.