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?