Posted on 09/13/2011 7:06:06 AM PDT by Clyde5445
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. I take it from -- a little bit from your discussion -- I don't mean to read into it. You can speak for yourself, obviously -- but that you -- that you are -- that you're pleased with at least with the field tonight or with the way that they answered. Is that correct?
PALIN: Yes, I was pleased. I was very happy with it. Let me go back to that issue with Governor Perry. I was governor of Alaska at the time that that issue came down, and I told our health and human services department Alaska was not going to mandate immunizations for our teenage daughters.
And there had to have been something to that whole issue because it just didn't sound like Governor Perry. Governor Perry was, you know, the proverbial anti-government type of maverick there in Texas, and yet on this issue, he decided that he was going to know better than a parent was going to know in terms of what the health care or health benefit would be for their teenage daughters. So I knew there was something to it.
And remember when the media went a little bit crazy and demanded to see my 25,000 e-mails that I had written during my term as governor. In those e-mails, there is proof of there that the issue arose while I was governor of Alaska. And the e-mails reflect my -- my principle there was, No, government, stay out of the lives of family decisions like that, and do not tell a parent that their daughter must be immunized. ....... And it was a -- it was kind of an illustration or a big of evidence of some crony capitalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why yes she is the only one that has not sold out.
LLS
I agree, she is not electable. She has a small, devout following but that is it. The dems will run one ad against her, it will show the clock at 3am, the phone will be ringing and the voice over will say, “Pres. Palin can’t answer, she quit.” Done, end of the race. Excuses as why she quit don’t matter, the bottom line, she didn’t finish her term, walked out on the citizens of Alaska.
Which is why Merck hired the guy. They pay him to get favors from government. And that's where Governors Mayors and Presidents need to step up and tell their former employees, "I'm sorry, but you'll have to go through the regular process." No shortcuts.
I could be way off, but I sense a growing alliance developing between Palin and Gingrich. They sure have wonderful things to say about each other. I don't know if Newt has any "crony capitalism baggage."
Palin/Newt? Newt/Palin?
So you side with Palin having bad judgement? You don't endorse and buddy up with a man you think is corrupt and part of the problem. If she had questions on the issue of Perry and HPV, wouldn't you think she would have looked into it prior?
Spin it anyway you want. Palin admits to knowing about this prior to the endorsement yet went ahead. There is no law on the books that says an ex Gov HAS to endorse anyone in an election. Especially if they go against their principles.
It’s not like Sarah Palin was above trading donations for positions in state government.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?c=429967&si=20061
How dense can you be?
She knew only part of the story, and a corrupt Perry is probably still a better gov than a corrupt KBH.
Uh, so where is the part in the email about Merck and Perry's Chief of Staff and any contributions?
The email referenced his judgement (which could have been honest after all) that this vaccine mandate was necessary and she was disagreeing with THAT, not crony capitalism, since there was no evidence (at least in the email) of her knowledge at that time of the Merck link.
"....and now we're finding..." means she did not know of the Merck link before.
Of course. Lobbyists are hired because of their track record and/or contacts. That's how the game is played. But I have seen failure many times. They can count on access, but not necessarily success every time.
Newt has so much personal baggage, any crony capitalism stuff would pale in comparison. He's always the smartest guy in the room, but he's unelectable.
If you're going to withdraw every candidate that gets demonized, then the Democrats will choose the GOP candidate. Perry has not been demonized [outside of Texas], and the press and Dems will wait until everyone else drops out, and THEN HE will be demonized..
Recall that in the Spring prior to the 2008 election, a poll showed that Sarah's approval was at 89% in Alaska and that a majority of Democrats approved of her work. Then she got the VP nomination and the Democrat leaders pulled out all the stops to re-create her as a she-devil. They will do the same with Perry.
If you're going to withdraw every candidate that gets demonized, then the Democrats will choose the GOP candidate. Perry has not been demonized [outside of Texas], and the press and Dems will wait until everyone else drops out, and THEN HE will be demonized..
Recall that in the Spring prior to the 2008 election, a poll showed that Sarah's approval was at 89% in Alaska and that a majority of Democrats approved of her work. Then she got the VP nomination and the Democrat leaders pulled out all the stops to re-create her as a she-devil. They will do the same with Perry.
So you are saying that even though she knew there was a serious issue here that could come back and hurt her with her Perry endorsement, she decided not to look into it and do it anyway. All this just to get a corrupt POS in elected office. Spin it any way you like.
No Palin, no peace!
Hint: The presidential election is in November 2012 and NOT November 2011.
So, you're willing to allow the media to win? Stop yakking and get out and do something about it.
The loons has became unhinged.
Yeah, and she ran with McCain too.
No, she expressly said she didn’t know what was behind his actions, though they didn’t fit with his supposed conservative ideology.
If she and we didn’t back any compromised Republicans in 2008 we’d have a purely Marxist country already. As she has said, crony corruption is all-too-common business as usual in both parties. My guess is that in the toughest calls, where she didn’t have confirmed ethical issues, she went with the ideologically superior candidate (Perry, O’Donnell), and where she thought there was sufficient confirmed ethical concern she went with the less ideologically pure option (McCain).
BTW, you’re supposed to be a Santorum guy and Santorum endorsed ol’ Arlen—I don’t think you should be nitpicking any of Palin’s endorsements!
Perry, for all his faults, is more of a real conservative than Sarah Palin. For one, she never had to pass the tough cut-spending budgets he did.
He said he took 5,000. Is there anyway to check that. I read somewhere else it was more like 30,000; and I read somewhere else that the said the Executive Order the very same day that they gave him some big campaign donation. I’ll bet there is hundreds of thousands donated to him in hidden ways if anyone can figure it out.
Actually, she did, I remember reading about how she pared down the budget in her book.
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.