Michele Bachmann denies benefiting from government aid

latimes.com ^ | June 26, 2011 | Richard A. Serrano

[Berlin_Freeper]

...Bachmann and her staff declined to talk to about the government assistance for the L.A. Times article. But asked about the issue on "Fox News Sunday," she insisted that she and her husband had not benefited at the expense of federal and state taxpayers.

"First of all," she said, "the money that went to the clinic was actually training money for employees. The clinic did not get the money. And my husband and I did not get the money either. That's mental health training money that went to employees."

As for the farm, she said it belonged to her father-in-law. "It's not my husband and my farm," Bachmann said. "And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm."

As the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday, however, in financial disclosure forms, Bachmann reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.

[Once-Ler]

She has also not repudiated the majority of AZ GOP primary voters who proudly rejected JD and his Government Free Money infomercial by 30 percentage points 59-29.

You do realize that Arizona's Republican primary is an open primary, don't you?

JD should have done better...rats love free government money. The rat AZ primary was a contested field of 4 rats, but you believe huge numbers ignored their own primary to vote against JD? Even though the polls showed JD had no shot at beating McCain? Interesting.

[DoughtyOne]

:^)

[DoughtyOne]

The state was moving more Left. As I understand it his reapportioned seat left him without a base. As for him losing because of his own campaign failures, he couldn't get Republicans to come out and make appearances with him. They were dedicated to making sure the Lion of Arizona would return with his seniority, so he could do more damage with it. Being ignorant of that dynamic isn't very flattering to you.

And the fact you can't face the reality that the man LOST because people simply didn't like him is pathetic. Once again, why didn't Hayworth win re-election?

Not true.  I'll address this again down below.

Here you go trying to dismiss Palin's part in McCain's victory. How can you look yourself in the mirror and obfuscate like that? And then you go on to say you actually feel sorry for me. LOL

Look, honey, you're the one giving Palin all this 'power' and 'influence' over the people of Arizona. If freepers are smart enough to see why Palin made one campaign swing for McCain, surely the people of Arizona are. And if voters are so heavily influenced by Palin, then you're giving her far more power than she deserves- and back-handing the people of Arizona for being dupes. Again, why is it so hard to accept people just didn't want to vote for Hayworth? Wow.
<>Link: 03/18/2010 Hayworth Within 7 Points of McCain (Rasmussen)
Link: 03/21/2010 Poll Shows Hayworth Pulling Within 7 Points of McCain (Same Rasmussen poll, different source)
Link: 03/26/2010 Palin Campaigns for McCain (CBS)
<>Link: 04/30/2010 McCain Leads Hayworth in New Poll of Republicans Only (10 points) (Public Policy Polling)

There you go.  Palin had no impact on the race at all did she.  /s  Another poll from April the 2nd showed the overall spread to suddenly be 15%.  That was an 8% change in a matter of days.  I'm not providing a source for it, because it was from a bad source.  I am only mentioning it, because the April 30th poll from what I believe to be a reputable source seems to show pretty much the same thing.  If McCain suddenly had a 10% lead among Republicans alone, the overall spread including Democrats was higher.  When did that big change take place?  Directly after Palin's involvement in the state.  (Again, I mention the Democrats because the McCain/Hayworth primary was an open one, one that Democrats could vote in.)

Okay, you keep pounding on the idea that the Republicans hated Hayworth.  Let's look at figures related to that subject.

The link for 04/30/2010 above, takes you that that article, and information specific to your misinformed perceptions.  Specifically, you stated that, "And the fact you can't face the reality that the man LOST because people simply didn't like him is pathetic."  The article addresses poll figures on Hayworth's favorability.  And I quote, "Forty percent of (Republican) voters said they had an unfavorable opinion of Hayworth compared with thirty-seven percent who said they have a positive one."  Compare that to McCain's own numbers.  45% of the respondents said they didn't like the job McCain was doing.  Only 44% said they liked the job he was doing.  Of most importance is this figure.  Some folks have been trying to say that Hayworth was a lousy Conservative.  Conservatives in Arizona favored Hayworth by a 46 to 38% margin.  Where McCain's support existed for the most part, was his 60 to 15% lead among Republican moderates.  From years of experience, when someone calls themself a Republican moderate, you can take it to the bank that they're a mis-registered Democrat, you know, like McCain himself.  One can only imagine what the actual Democrat numbers were like.

I don't like seeing people pretend to be Conservative and then obfuscate on Conservative issues. Ronald Reagan got mad about the mcirophone. I get mad too, and this time it's about you trying to dismiss Palin's actions related to Hayworth's loss in 2010. Oh Palin had nothing to do with it. Then why did the McCain campaign pay millions to get her spots on the radio across the state non-stop month after month? Was that because McCain knew those spots were having no impact, but wanted to blow millions on them anyway? Your premise is absurd and you know it.

What's absurd is you blaming Palin for Hayworth losing. (I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings [for you], but I addressed this here.  LINK  You're not being factual.  I don't believe I've ever said she was the only reason he was not re-elected.  I stated, "For me it's not whether she actually got him re-elected (McCain), so much as that she actually went out and worked to get him re-elected.)  And you know it. The fact you can't find any fault, or any objectivity as to what Hayworth would have and could have done better paints an ugly picture of your psyche, bordering on obsessive with McCain.

For a person who doesn't like John McCain, you have very strange way of showing it.  Once again you're targeting me for pointing out what McCain has been up to for the last 70 years.  His character is already on the record, but your comments related to what I found about him, does contrubute to the way folks are going to view yours.  LINK

Yes, we get you hate McCain. Who doesn't? But the level to which you've taken it- and pass it along to others, is ridiculous.

Okay, so now you're on the record with your opinion that it's over the top to document what a bad player on our side has done, and how wrong it was of me to try to get the truth out there so others would know.  How did you put it?  Oh yes, "Yes, we get you hate McCain. Who doesn't? But the level to which you've taken it- and pass it along to others, is ridiculous."  Yes, your dislike for McCain is hard to miss isn't it.

You tried to make the case that others are just as bad.  I explained and proved otherwise, and this is the best you could come up with?  And you probably think you really scored with that insulting comeback.  Nevermind the level of depravity that McCain has stood for his whole life.  It's more important to belittle me than acknowledge what McCain has always been, and always will be.

I should be congratulated for taking the time to look all that stuff up, but no, the good Conservative thing (evidently to you), was trash me for having done it.  Yes, I'm the bad guy for the level I've take this to.  Come on Rintense, that can't make sense to you.

Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Here you go again using the same smear tactics that have been the stock and trade of this thread. If you can't make a strong arguement, you try to destroy the person you're talking to. Good luck with that.

You've done a great job of that yourself, darling. You're the one who set the definition of conservatism and contradicted that with your own words. You've truly perfected the art of circumlocution.

Okay, you can't see the difference between supporting McCain against Obama, and supporting McCain when he's running against a Conservative.  I know you've tried to downgrade Hayworth to fit your claims about the 2010 Senatoral election in Arizona, but even you might be able to discern that Obama and Hayworth are different.  At this point I'm not saying you are, but just maybe.

Once again, you are displaying that you are not willing to discuss matters in a reasoned adult manner. You dismiss things the person you support did. You watch as people slander good Conservatives. And now you have stated directly that I have supported a RINO and thus my Conservative credentials are in question.

Huh? What RINO did I saw you supported? Give me facts, man, not what your perceive. Did you or did you not imply it was OK for a conservative to endorse a RINO in a Presidential election?

Okay, you can't see the difference between supporting McCain against Obama, and supporting McCain when he's running against a Conservative.  For the record, I didn't vote for McCain.  I'll never cast a vote for a man that is that soiled.  NEVER!  I know you've tried to downgrade Hayworth to fit your claims about the 2010 Senatoral election in Arizona, but even you might be able to discern that Obama and Hayworth are different.  At this point I'm not saying you are, but just maybe.  Are you?  It would be interesting to know...  just sayin'.

Whatever it is, it's sure better quality stuff than you've been pulling out of yours. You stated that Hayworth had baggage going into 2010. Baggage in this connotation is generally accepted by people to mean something bad he had done. Losing a prior election is not something that is typically thought of as baggage. So the inference is that Hayworth had done something wrong, but when called on it you could claim you only meant he had lost an election. You're playing games here. Either that our you're in over your head discussing this political matter.

And I'll ask you for the umpteenth time: Why did Hayworth lose his own seat?  You don't have a browser?  You poor thing.  LINK

His district had been rural prior to the 2006 election cycle.  During reapportionment, he lost his old district and was placed in a new one.  It was located in the suburbs of Phoenix.  At the same time he was smeared for taking some sporting event tickets from Abramov.  No wrong-doing was assessed, and no charges were brought against him.  It was much the same thing with Tom Delay.  Both were smeared by Leftists, both in the Democrat party, and the "moderate" wing of the Republican party.  A few Arizona Republicans leaders actually endorsed the Democrat candidate over Hayworth in 2006.  We've never seen Lefty Republicans do something like that before. /s  McCain actually gave an quazi endorsement of sorts to Barack Obama a month or so before the general election.

So the problems were associated with redistricting, a smear campaign, and Republican leaders who jumped ship to back a Democrat over a good Republican.  If you want to blame Hayworth over this, it will effectively show your dedication to our cause is about as good as those Republican leaders in Arizona, who thought a Democrat majority in Congress would be much better than having an innocent Hayworth still on the job.

I'm addressing reality, and you are dismissing it as hysteria. As far off the mark as you are here, you're the one reaching the level of hysteria, trying to defend the defenseless comments you have made.

Oh? I'm not the one screaming about Palin being the reason Hayworth lost.

This is the only statement I made about Palin actually getting McCain elected.  You may want to read it again, since the post was addressed to you.  LINK

For me it's not whether she actually got him re-elected so much as that she actually went out and worked to get him re-elected.  This man was a fellow traveler of Soros, Kennedy, Kerry, and some of the worst Leftist groups this nation has ever seen.

If you can find a place where I stated she got McCain elected, I'd like to see it.

You have stated numerous times, or have inferred numerous times that Palin's actions on behalf of McCain didn't accomplish anything. So what we're left with, is the fact that you cannot deal with the reality that Palin came to the state and campaigned for McCain. You can't deal with the fact that she misrepresented McCain from the platform of Tea Party events. She also created spots that McCain played on the air throughout the state for months on end. So let's do be clear. You are dimissing the impact of Palin in the state, yet stating that you did not approve of her doing it. Then why try to deminish what she did, what she contributed to, the efforts she went to, the constant persence in the state on behalf of McCain aired on media outlets?

If you don't support something, you don't try to demish what it was that took place. You admit to what took place, acknowledge the damage it did, and cease trying to shift that damage onto other innocent people. Palin sold out you and I and Hayworth. That is not Hayworth's fault. His loss was most certainly not even close to being exclusively of his own doing.

Ok genius. Show me concrete numbers, percentages, etc. that prove your theory. Show me what percentage of people voted for McCain because of Palin, and then show me the percentage Hayworth would have won by had Palin not endorsed McCain.  Once again, for the third time, I have not said that Palin was the sole cause of Hayworth's loss.  It was eye opening to me that she could campaign for a guy like him with a clear conscience.  I wouldn't toss that 'genius' insult around to much, if you can't discern if I've actually stated that Palin was the only reason McCain won or not.  I didn't.  She did have impact on the campaign, and as you point out, it's impossible to quantify exactly how much she did contribute to Hayworth's loss.  I do believe it was more significant than you do.  McCain simply would not have paid out millions in fees to have her endorsement played over and over in state media outlets if his polling numbers weren't showing them to be effective.

Aren't you woman enough to impress folks by using your intellect instead of your abilty to destroy people?

Ah, so now tossing the 'woman' card out there. I am plenty woman enough to spot someone who deflects truth and casts blame. Destroy people? Wow, now you're assigning me power you've given Palin. Unreal.  Yeah, I'm sure you're just shocked to see someone address the fact that you can't address reality, without bringing in gender specific and quasi sexual related insults.  And if someone calls you on it, they're the problem, not you.  Rintense, fail!

What associations I have here is none of your business. I conduct myself in a fairly decent manner, and I expect you to do the same.

Yes, because you're a model citizen on FR ('You're an ass'). And a bit testy too.  Okay, you're entitle to your opinion.

You are one dilusional individual. I entered this thread because I was fairly certain Bachmann would be attacked here. I objected to what I saw, and I confronted people on point. Michelle Bachmann is a good person. She does not deserve to be treated the way some FReepers have found it reasonable to treat her here. She is a respectible person, and she deserves respect on this Conservative forum.

And yet, you've been on the sidelines while the same thing happens on a daily basis to Sarah Palin,...  As a matter of fact, I have participated in far more threads to defend Palin than to say bad things directly about her.  I defend her by name.  Outside of this  thread, I have almost exclusively criticized her actions without using her name.  Addressing the matter in another manner, there are literally hundreds of people on this forum defending Palin from every little slight imaginable.  What point would there be to me restating what has already been said on any given thread for the eleventh time?

...and then change the narrative to attack her for endorsing McCain.  One of the issues I have addressed here, was the charge that Bachmann had endorsed Romney.  That charge was accompanied by a photo with and expression on Bachmann's face, as if she was experiencing addoration for Romney, just prior to endorsing him.  Later it came to light, this wasn't true at all.  It was quite fitting to mention the actual endorsement by Palin compared to the non-factual endorsement attributed to Bachmann.  I merely mentioned what was the criticism of Bachmann the day before.  I mentioned it here first.  LINK  Are you seeking to state that I can't address a trend, and list something that took place just yesterday, if it is part of a trend as I see it?  Why yes you are.  Nice.  /s

Change the narrative?  If you'll note, Bachmann was criticized heavily here.  I merely addressed the sorts of things she has been charged with, while another candidate has gotten a complete pass from her supporters for actually doing what Bachmann was mistakenly charged with.

How utterly liberal of you.

No, Liberalist, and more accurately the Leftist tactic in today's climate, is to use the Alinsky tactic of attacking someone for something that isn't true.  The Leftists smear someone for something they didn't do, to reduce their influence, and make sure they can't threaten their candidate.  Whose supporters whooped it up about that supposed Bachmann endorsement of Romney?

[rintense]

Go read the link I posted to Redstate. Even more damning of Hayworth. But keep blaming Palin.

Public Policy Poll?? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

[DoughtyOne]

Link: 04/30/2010 McCain Leads Hayworth in New Poll of Republicans Only

Okay, you keep pounding on the idea that the Republicans hated Hayworth.  Let's look at figures related to that subject.

The link for 04/30/2010 above, takes you that that article, and information specific to your misinformed perceptions.  Specifically, you stated that, "And the fact you can't face the reality that the man LOST because people simply didn't like him is pathetic."  The article addresses poll figures on Hayworth's favorability.  And I quote, "Forty percent of (Republican) voters said they had an unfavorable opinion of Hayworth compared with thirty-seven percent who said they have a positive one."  Compare that to McCain's own numbers.  45% of the respondents said they didn't like the job McCain was doing.  Only 44% said they liked the job he was doing.  Of most importance is this figure.  Some folks have been trying to say that Hayworth was a lousy Conservative.  Conservatives in Arizona favored Hayworth by a 46 to 38% margin.  Where McCain's support existed for the most part, was his 60 to 15% lead among Republican moderates.  From years of experience, when someone calls themself a Republican moderate, you can take it to the bank that they're a mis-registered Democrat, you know, like McCain himself.  One can only imagine what the actual Democrat numbers were like.

[rintense]

You don't appeal to replace a DC insider with a former DC insider who got voted out. It typically doesn't work out well.

100% right. Hell, I begged Hayworth to hire me (albeit on FR) to help him reshape his image. It makes me sad because if he had the right strategy and team, he would have made it a race.

[DoughtyOne]

Hayworth self-destructed, and by contrast McCain was pristine as the driven snow.

Debate is pointless with you on this. Where did I say McCain was pure as the driven snow? I didn't.

Why do I have to explain this to you?  You're an adult, at least I credit you with being one.   Prove to me that you can communicate with the understanding of an adult.

This is what you stated:

"Hayworth destroyed himself. How he could even contemplate running for office in the Tea Party era, knowing full well that the government money informercial was out there, c'mon."

You brought up an infomercial by Hayworth, then mocked him for attempting to run for the Senate from Arizona.  You honestly thought that bringing up one scandle like that, was going to fly without me bringing up this?  LINK  I dont' expect you to post here like a grand master, thinking ten steps ahead, but it would be advantageous for you to at least think one move ahead.  McCain's whole life has been one scandle after another, year after year after year after year...  You didn't think I'd mention it?  Really?

As for Hayworth's concern for the Tea Party endorsement, are you really trying to state that McCain deserved that endorsement over Hayworth?  Really?

But Hayworth was a poor choice to take him on. The informercial was just the final nail in the coffin - and it started with the Abramoff scandal, which, contrary to the opinions of some, was a real issue with real stink, and that stink was all over Hayworth.  Honestly DirtBoy, this is more of the same from the same people who drove Tom Delay from the House.  You should know that.  John McCain got $13.500 dollars worth of travel related perks from Keeting.  He didn't get caught for seven years, years in which he failed to report any of it.  Did he get kicked out of the Senate? No.  Did it cost him an election? No.  I probably wouldn't approve of what Hayworth did, but did it reach the level of preventing him from returning to government over McCain?  That's preposterous.

The point is, you take Hayworth to the woodshed, and say bupkiss about McCain's sordid history.  Why is that?

You don't appeal to replace a DC insider with a former DC insider who got voted out. It typically doesn't work out well.  Hayworth's district got redrawn, from a rural to a suburban disctrict, and moderate Republican leaders from Arizona actually went across the isle to endorse Hayworth's Democrat opponent.  Yep, they actually thought it would be a great idea to bolster the Democrat majority, rather than back a guy that had been rock solid on may issues over the years.  Was he perfect?  No.  I never stated he was.  Was he better than McCain, there's simply no question about it.

[DoughtyOne]

The LA Times article came out yesterday, but you're convinced that Bachmann has destroyed herself because she has not responded as of this moment.

And you miss the point. Bachmann filed her disclosure about income from the farm how long ago? And wasn't ready with a statement that matches that disclosure when the inevitable questions arose? Smart campaigns anticipate these issues - and when they come across one they didn't anticipate, they have a rapid response team ready to quickly jump on them.

That assumes that Bachmann did something wrong.  If she didn't do anything that was wrong, why would she develop a white sheet response for it?  You're being silly.

Bachmann is not running a smart campaign so far. The signs are there, and more and more people are realizing this. Sadly, about the only ones not realizing it are ... the Bachmann camp.

According to you and a few others DirtBoy.  And you folks have expressed a willingness to adopt the LA Times stance on this matter within moments.  That being the case, why should I or anyone else extend credibility to you on this matter?

Let's let folks know what I was reponding to below, just for the chuckles.  Hope you don't mind.

She has to know full well that a disclosure form is out there saying she got money from that farm - a simple denial just isn't going to cut it.  But go ahead, blame the critics with Bachmann just like you're blaming JD's self-immolation on the critics.  End result will be the same.

Sounds to me as if you're praying nightly for it. Sad...

That's pretty pathetic and slimy.  Actually, I think it's a rather obvious conclusion.  It may not in fact be accurate, but man does it sound like it could fit like a glove with your expressed views.

I saw Bachmann as a logical 2nd choice to Palin (who I think will probably NOT get in the race). But in a very short time, Bachmann has soured me on her prospects.  Look DirtBoy, I've been paying attention for years when Bachmann would make a statement.  I've never heard her say something I didn't agree with.  Perhaps you can refresh my memory, but right now I can't.  You're asking me to believe you seriously considered her, but your perception was totally destroyed by her activity over the last few weeks.  I find that very hard to believe.  It may be as true as can be, but it really doesn't build my confidence in you to stand by your convictions and see how things play out over time.  In time I may not back her either, but I can't imagine me totally scratching her off over things that have taken place recently.  I can't identify with your Bachmann related angst at all.

I am hardly praying for her to fail. But so far she has been underwhelming in being able to manage a national campaign - probably because she never has run for anything larger than a Congressional district to datei.  DirtBoy, what's your explanation for the Iowa Caucus poll?  Bachmann trailed Romney by one point, 22 vs 23%.  This is the real rubber meets the road guage of how effective she has been IMO.  Your vision of her campaign doesn't seem borne out by that.  Frankly, I was quite surprised.  I know she comes from the general region, but Romney has been considered to be the front runner.  Now she appears (at least in one race, even though it's early on) to be right up there with him.

Where to begin on this idiotic stance of yours?  Well, in light of what I just posted, you might want to give your question a bit more thought than you would have a moment ago.

I have not repeated any issues that were not buttressed by actual facts. If that automatically puts you into a defensive posture, that speaks more of the problems with your candidate than it does about me.

You have repeated things that have been raised, but that's not proof positve that they are facts.  Things get spun.  There's generally more information to follow.  What bothers me about your stances, is that you have judged each one of them by the most anti-Bachmann stance possible.  And yet you state you were honestly considering backing her.  Wow, that's rather fickle IMO.  Doesn't that sound fickle to you?

[DoughtyOne]

Rintense, Palin’s backing of McCain stands on it’s own.

I’m sorry you can’t understand that.

This is the record of the man she endorsed for return to Washington, D.C.

On the other hand, Bachmann DID NOT endorse Romney.

http://www.hotr.us/mccain/mccainagain.html

[DoughtyOne]

Are you stating that the Public Policy Poll had reason to fudge the figures in order to support Hayworth, or are you trying to make the case they fudged them for McCain. Strange isn’t it that other polls express pretty much the same outcome.

[rintense]

No, she endorsed McCain in 2008. As did a bunch of other conservatives.

[factmart]

I said like And I’m telling you that if you are Conservative, you like Palin and Bachman! Don’t have to vote for them!

[rintense]

Public Policy Poll is liberal operated. That’s why I’m laughiing. Did you go look at the figures on Redstate?

[DoughtyOne]

Well, so far you still haven’t evidenced any understanding of why someone would support a man against the likes of Obama, vs the likes of Hayworth. Perhaps you think Hayworth was just like Obama.

I believe I asked you to provide a list of Conservatives that had endorsed John McCain in 2010 several times. I’m still waiting.

That would be a very good place to start, if you’re tying to exonerate someone else who did.

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, I didn’t know that. Do you believe the figures would have to be inaccurate, if that were true?

Did you provide a link to what you wanted me to review?

[rintense]

Well, so far you still haven’t evidenced any understanding of why someone would support a man against the likes of Obama, vs the likes of Hayworth. Perhaps you think Hayworth was just like Obama.

And so far, you've just killed your own definition of conservatism. If you don't compromise beliefs, how and the world do you justify supporting McCain?

You have your list, darling. Where have I denied that Sarah Palin supported McCain? Where's my explanation as to why Hayworth couldn't win re-election? Or the name of a conservative who has NEVER endorsed a RINO? Of, I forget, McCain is the gosh darn devil, a puppet of Soros.

You see, you're stuck on that election, and in the process, you've bastardize YOUR definition of conservatism by parsing beliefs in a Presidential election versus Obama.

You said:
Rintense, what you are defending goes against everything I believe as a Conservative. You are buttressing the idea that it's perfectly okay to support a man that would do harm to your nation, rather than support a man that would be better.

Now tell me, who do you think would harm the country more?

Based on your own words, I'd bet you'd vote for McCain again over Obama.

I wouldn't.

Let me ask you this, and its a fair question:

Do you believe that those who support Palin are not conservative?

[rintense]

Yes, its up thread.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a dem poll fudge numbers in McCain's favor. He's their guy, after all.

But back to endorsements... here are some conservatives who endorsed McCain in 2010:

"It's an honor to serve with my friend John McCain in the United States Senate and I believe he is the right man at the right time to represent Arizona's conservative values in Washington," said Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl in a statement.

Reps. Jeff Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg also added their support in the statement released by the McCain campaign.

Flake is surprising because he was seen as the best conservative challenger to McCain.

[rintense]

Look, DO. I like you and (most) of your posts. But I simply do not see how Palin was the difference maker in that election. Even if you credit her with a 10% vote swing- which is shockingly high for someone who was coming off a raping by the media, Hayworth would have still lost. Not even prominent conservatives in his own state endorsed him. That’s troubling, regardless of whether Palin had an effect or not.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, so far you still haven’t evidenced any understanding of why someone would support a man against the likes of Obama, vs the likes of Hayworth. Perhaps you think Hayworth was just like Obama.

And so far, you've just killed your own definition of conservatism. If you don't compromise beliefs, how and the world do you justify supporting McCain?

Okay, so you do think Hayworth is identical to Obama.  No problem, I just thought we should get that on the record.  Thank you.
<>You have your list, darling.  Please link me to the list you provided showing all the Conservatives who endorsed McCain in 2010.  Since you say I've already been provided with that list, this shouldn't take you long.

Where have I denied that Sarah Palin supported McCain?  Didn't say you did.

Where's my explanation as to why Hayworth couldn't win re-election?  In your previous posts, which were shot down in part..

Or the name of a conservative who has NEVER endorsed a RINO?  "Hey D1, I've fallen and I can't get up."  Rintense, I have never endorsed McCain over anyone.  Period.  I said I could understand why some folks would vote for McCain over Obama.  Hayworth is not the same as Obama, no matter how many times you try to infer it.  There was no bonified reason to take a pass on Hayworth in deference to McCain.

Of, I forget, McCain is the gosh darn devil, a puppet of Soros.

Your attempt here to dismiss McCain's connections to the worst of the worst of U. S. Leftists, causes me to wonder why you would think this was a subject of levity.  Any idea who financed the McCain/Lieberman global warming campaigns, all three of them?  George Soros.  Are you aware that McCain set up a political action group with Soros, Teressa Heinz Kerry, and the Tides Foundation?  Are you aware McCain's campaign staff was hired on there for six figure salaries?  Is this really that funny to you?

You see, you're stuck on that election, and in the process, you've bastardize YOUR definition of conservatism by parsing beliefs in a Presidential election versus Obama.

No, I've defended people who recognized a Leftist who was more than willing to dismantle our nation in the persuit of increasing Islam and Middle Eastern terrorist states.  I stated that if they wanted to vote for McCain against Obama, I wouldn't join them, but I could understand.

Unless you think Hayworth is the same as Obama, which so far you must, there is not a valid comparison to be had here.

So far, you have played dumb to keep your clueless claims in tact.  It's not working.

You said:
Rintense, what you are defending goes against everything I believe as a Conservative. You are buttressing the idea that it's perfectly okay to support a man that would do harm to your nation, rather than support a man that would be better.

Yes Rintense, that's what I said.  Against McCain people could reasonably conclude that Obama would do more damage.

And yes Rintense, that's what I said.  Against Hayworth, McCain would be the one who would do more damage to the nation.

So far you're unable to grasp that. It's actually a very simple concept.

Now tell me, who do you think would harm the country more?

Based on your own words, I'd bet you'd vote for McCain again over Obama.

Once again, I will never vote for the likes of John McCain.  Are you reading my responses to you?

I wouldn't.

Okay good.  Then why are you defending someone who pushed to get McCain re-elected?

Let me ask you this, and its a fair question:

Do you believe that those who support Palin are not conservative?

I'm not going to sit here and make some all encompasing comment about Palin's supporters.  I have seen what some of those supporters have been willing to do with regard to other Conservatives.  Frankly, that does raise some questions about that segment of her supporters.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, its up thread.  If I missed this up thread, then I appologize.  It was not intentional to infer that you hadn't provided it, if you had.  I would encourage you to post a link to where you did, to clarify the matter.  If I missed it, that should be clear to people.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a dem poll fudge numbers in McCain's favor. He's their guy, after all.

Okay, but if you'll take note, McCain's negatives were huge.  45% of them thought he was doing a bad job, compared to 40% thinking Hayworth would do a bad job.  McCain's favorables were 44% vs Haywroth's 37%.  Now that may have resulted in not everyone knowing who Hayworth was.  His name recognition in the state was only 75%.  I guess that's not totally unreasonable, considering his own districts constituents would be the ones likely to know him.  McCains numbers added up to 89%.  Hayworths only added up to 77%.

When I read figures from a suspect source, I try to look at the numbers to see if they have been jobed.  If it looks like they have, I will dismiss them altogether.  This liberally sourced data, didn't look to have been jobed, since McCain's negatives were so prominent.  I didn't know the source, so I did take a look at the numbers before I linked them.

But back to endorsements... here are some conservatives who endorsed McCain in 2010:

Okay.  Thank you.  And after thanking you, I'm going to have to appologize to you somewhat.  It's fair for you to list these people as Conservatives, because they have been represented that way, so this isn't directed towards you.  I still have a hard time thinking these folks are true informed Conservatives.  And I'm afraid my take on someone else would be close to this.

"It's an honor to serve with my friend John McCain in the United States Senate and I believe he is the right man at the right time to represent Arizona's conservative values in Washington," said Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl in a statement.

Reps. Jeff Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg also added their support in the statement released by the McCain campaign.

Flake is surprising because he was seen as the best conservative challenger to McCain.

From your description, my take would be similar.

It took me some time to look up that information about McCain.  I'm just a duffer looking for information.  I didn't realize there was a wealth of it out there, to the degree that it was.

It seemed to me, that it wouldn't take all that much time to begin to develop a serious concern for who he really was, and who he had always been.

I don't think this is entirely unfair.  I think we all have to do our due dilligence.  I don't see that having taken place.

I know it seems like I'm the hammer on this issue.  In truth, I can understand in part how this took place.  I can't dimiss all of it.  There was way too much of a wealth of information out there IMO.