Posted on 01/31/2012 10:18:19 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Appearing on Fox News tonight, former half term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin slammed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by claiming that he won the Florida with money and misleading ads (video below).
Palin lamented: “I think that with $17 million purchasing some ads and some false narrative it was very, very difficult for Newt Gingrich and the other candidates to counter that bombardment of advertisements"
“$17 million spent in one state, that purchased a lot of darts and arrows that were flown in one direction and then a lot of darts and arrows were flown back and you know a lot of that negativity sure didn’t paint the party and the cause in very attractive colors. I think that hurts the electorate and ultimately diminishes the energy necessary to move forward in the general election.”
Palin also expressed her continuing support for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “As it stands obviously it’s Romney and Newt are closest to be the front-running candidate, and so I would continue to vote for whoever it is to allow the process, and at this point it looks like it still is Newt. You have to kind of continue to level the playing field with your vote.”
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Their is not a dime worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.
I’m generally a supporter of Gov. Palin, but she is totally out to lunch here. People shouldn’t vote in primaries for whomever will ‘allow the process to continue’ and to ‘level the playing field’. They should vote for whom they they think the is the best candidate and perhaps the best candidate with a chance to win.
That was George Wallace, not LBJ.
Have her ‘flown’ in...
Anybody? Well, that's the idea pushed by the party. As long as their offering is marginally better than Obama, then your choice is (supposedly) clear, vote for the lesser of two evils.
That system serves the interests of the politically-connected class as a whole, at the expense of those who have only the vote.
I agree with the rationale that you prefer, which is voting based on the candidate's stated governing principles, with an eye toward being able to persuade people to accept that package of policies. I think what Palin was trying to convey was to avoid a rush to conclusion based on the few primaries already conducted. If one candidate wins all the primaries, then the outcome of the process is clear, and people lose interest in the message - "the electable" one has been chosen. But we don;t have an environment where one candidate has won all the primaries.
I am not sure what she means by "level the playing field," unless that is a reference to an unfair or inaccurate public impression left by one or another of the campaigns. In this race, all that would boil down to as her caution against adopting Romney by dint of the media (and pundits, and openly purchased political ads) presentation. The presentation is lopsided, and it'll take time for that to sink in to a gullible and fickle public.
So telling people to ignore the anointing of Romney and vote for who THEY want is ruining her career? You certainly don't know Sarah Palin then.
And a house divided? Bunk. The GOP divided the house when it decided BEFORE THE PEOPLE who they wanted to be the candidate.
You can fall in line behind the big R all you want.
I refuse.
Not really. Because if you were to believe the MSM, Romney has already won, which makes all the primaries after Florida irrelevant, including (yes I'll say it) disenfranchising millions of voters. With Romney already chosen by the MSM and GOP, the process has come to a screeching halt.
Rage against the machine, and let the GOP know that WE THE PEOPLE pick candidates, not the MSM.
Well, play it out in your mind. What would be the ultimate end result of a level primary playing field?
I don't know what a "level playing field" is. If that means all the candidates tell the truth, and the media reporting shows no favoritism, I think the ultimate result could be a confused public. Or, it could be an informed public that will choose based on something more than platitudes.
And if she had run and won 2 of the first 4 races, FL by such a margin, should people have started voting for someone else just so “the vetting” can go on?
I’d pick Newt over Mitt, though they’re both bad choices, but she’s giving an idiotic rationale for voting.
Not really a valid question - FL is a very expensive market because of size and diversity. Secondly, seems likely that Mitt will not have to spend as much in the states that in the states that he won last time. Finally, as long as he has access to it, what limit do you think he has in mind for spending other people’s money?
Romney will run out of campaign funding soon, he cannot buy every single delegate across America, why?
Because now that he has fed the bear so to speak the bears now want a glass of milk.
When one candidate has most of the money, establishment, and MSM behind him, the playing field isn’t level. This is what Sarah was referencing.
“Wonder how that will work out for him if he makes it to the general election.”
We’re all told it will work out just fine because, as always, those recalcitrant conservatives with run back to Romney’s arms come the general election.
The powers-that-be really do NOT get it.
Well yes Governor.
That, and the fact his strongest competitor, for some reason didn’t run.
One of those...
Stopped reading right there.
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.