Posted on 02/18/2011 2:18:06 AM PST by pissant
I think American voters would do better to think about the influence political leaders exert by their words and actions, instead of treating their speeches (not to mention their sound bites and 60-second spots) as evidence of anything but what they think we want to hear. This came to mind last week as I read the report about Sarah Palin's non-appearance at this year's biggest conservative non-event (or should that be biggest non-conservative, pretending-to-be-conservative event?). She released a statement intended to keep her distance from the individuals and organizations whose non-appearance was meant to convey disapproval of CPAC's trendy surrender to the homosexual lobby.
Why, you rightly ask, would someone touted as the maverick spokesman for the pro-life, pro-family tea-party grass roots of the GOP be anxious to make it clear that she had no problem with the push to make GOProud an icon of conservative legitimacy? "Palin suggested that conservative groups had more important issues to worry about than which groups were attending the conference. 'There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us. You know, we'd better be concentrating on what is really important here. …'"
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yo, chickensh** - defend that thread. You posted it, defend it.
And so that justifies you posting a discredited anti-Palin hit piece from a liberal anti-Palin blogger.
Do you think Bachmann or Cain would approve of that, arsewipe?
Instead, Palin consistently defends the decision and the pro-abortion judge in question, including her book, Going Rogue:
"I had just appointed a well-qualified woman [Morgan Christen] to serve on the highest court in the state, and now I got a call at midnight from the pastor of a large ministry in the Lower 48. I had never met this man but he told me that he had been at a conference when he received a message that threw the conferees for a loop. The problem? I had appointed a judge who [sic] this pastor didn't think was pro-life enough. ... 'How could you have done that? ... I can't tell you how disappointed we are.' ... 'Sir, with all due respect, let me tell you what the circumstances are."
Sarah Palin, Going Rogue, 2009, 349-350
Palin also openly supports the morning-after pill being legal, undermining efforts to protect human life from conception to death.
And, if you want to keep going on the issue, Dirtbag, we'll keep going all night long.
Palin did not nominate that judge, asswipe. You lie like the sack of sh** you are.
What did Palin do? She praised and defended the pro-abortion justice.
Palin consistently sells out conservatives. She had no problem with DADT being repealed while Michele Bachmann was out fighting against and while Herman Cain said he'd repeal it.
She vetoed legislation that would have banned same-sex partners from receiving handouts from the taxpayer.
I'm not sitting back and watching Obama get a second term because people like you get a hard-on over someone that isn't that principled and nearly unelectable.
Again, it is one excuse after another to ignore Palin's compromising and the fact her negatives are frighteningly high.
Again, I'll go all day and night long proclaiming Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are better candidates.
You truly are a sack of sh**. You keep moving the goalposts. Kiss my pasty rump, troll.
BTW, more on how unprincipled Palin really is:
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/18/1711185/ex-aide-rips-palin-in-leaked-manuscript.html
Bailey was sympathetic to the Alaska Family Council, an anti-abortion group fighting Christen's appointment. Bailey wrote that Palin turned on Alaska Family Council head Jim Minnery, and later backed out of an event with him to promote a ballot measure aimed at making it illegal for teens to get an abortion. Bailey speculated that Palin didn't come because she was working on her book.
"When Sarah turned on Jim Minnery and his/their cause, for the sole purposes of making money and causing him embarrassment, I saw how blind I'd become. Finally, Sarah Louise Palin's petty ways and butchered priorities would set me free," Bailey wrote.
Uh, no, I'm not. I just realize when d-bags like you are channeling liberal arsewipes. So stuff it.
If Palin thinks homos in the military is unimportant, she is not socially conservative. I have not heard anything she’s said about the repeal of DADT other than (before the vote, long before IIRC) something like “it’s not time for that now” or words to that effect.
I want to hear her views on social conservative issues.
Her own words, clearly.
Haven’t yet.
http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=10172003#page:showThread,10172003
But, in Bailey's telling, the reality was nasty. Minor slights became obsessions, according to Bailey, demanding revenge and if possible, destruction of the opponent's reputation.
"We set our sights and went after opponents in coordinated attacks, utilizing what we called "Fox News surrogates," friendly blogs, ghost-written op-eds, media opinion polls (that we often rigged), letters to editors, and carefully edited speeches," Bailey wrote.
You can blame me all you like for posting all this but that doesn't change the fact that there are serious issues involving Palin's character, how principled she really is as well as her electability.
Cain and Bachmann, to name two candidates, are infinitely more principled, have more character and are more electable.
Silence on important issues often times tells the story my FRiend. While it's not time to totally condemn Sarah Palin, we social conservatives who know what threat the homosexual agenda poses on America, have grounds for suspicion.
From the link you posted: “DataLounge get your fix of gay gossip, news and pointless bitchery.”
Gay gossip? You are posting from a GAY site to make your case? Words fail me - at least words that can be posted on this site.
Once again, words that can be posted here fail me.
You post a link to a gay gossip website as proof. As you linked to a liberal blogger before that.
Only trolls pull that crap on FR.
There is no chance - none whatsoever - that the nominee will take any position that could be portrayed as “anti-gay”, except that the nominee can oppose gay “marriage” that’s called “marriage”.
And what is it exactly that they want to do politically? Just why is there a political gay group called GOPride? They must have some plans to plan the way the laws or the government works. Just what are they planning to change and how will that affect the rest of us.
Some questions for GOPride: Do you approve of the teaching of homsexuality to little kids in school? Do they want to force gay “marriage” on us? What about the rest of the ever-increasing gay agenda?
One day the mob will howl for your head loud enough and Jim will give it to them.
We all saw how the rabid dogs attacked NY gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino for saying that he did not want his children "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality" was "an acceptable option".
Failiing to speak the truth will put whichever nominee gets the Republican nomination on the side of evil, and I've never been one to side with evil.
If you continue posting from liberal sources in an attempt to tear down our conservative candidates, your account here gets the zot.
Mods: you have the green light to take this turkey out at his next infraction.
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.