Posted on 02/18/2010 6:59:52 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
Rush Limbaugh on the Tea Party movement the Republican party and the conservatives Sarah Palin her Daytona beach appearance and McCain. Rush Limbaugh says that Sarah Palin is not a Tea Partier , she is a republican first and foremost, Rush Limbaugh believes that Sarah Palin owes McCain the fact that she is what she is today and that it is a payback time for her to McCain , it is an obligatory payback says Rush Limbaugh.
:-)
The main two points:
1. Her own loyalty to the one who chose her as VP candidate.
2. Had she NOT supported him, the media would have been all over her 24/7.
It's a no brainer. The ankle biter 1%ers are caught up in their own fury over a perceived slight of THEIR HATRED of McCain, and are being myopic at best. They've been at this for weeks now, everytime someone explains the obvious, or tries to reason with them, they just send spittle all over their own monitors for us all to see.
Yep. Once a golfbag watercarrier, always a golfbag watercarrier.
The same one-percenters would have jettisoned Reagan when he did far worse by choosing Schweiker.
It's one mistake so it's off with her head, right?
What a RINO.
:-)
LOL!
Post to me some time when you're able to stand on your own, OK? You can even say the same words you did here, but without the gang ping.
btw, I've done more to get rid of RINO's that you ever have (and maybe ever will), so don't give me that garbage any more either.
If you want to have a civil discussion as fellow conservatives (which I believe we are......at least I know I am), I'm all for it.
Let me know when you're ready to get rid of the training wheels, and we'll talk.
I'd especially like to discuss the concept of integrity with you.
They say they support him, but they either have forgotten, or never heard that he wasn't the god-like image now portrayed.
A wise, intelligent, thoughtful, strong conservative leader. But not up to their standards of perfection. Mostly because he was unabashedly a Republican.
As I said before when it comes to the perfect conservative.......there ain't no such animal. And even if there were, some of these guys would find a reason to bash him or her.
Seems impotent, doesn't it. I think most would be embarrassed to do such a thing.
It's the wierdest thing I've ever seen on FR.........and as you well know, there's been plenty of wierd stuff going on around here. ;)
Duhh....
I wanted Huck because I could trust him on abortion.
I voted for McCain for Palin.
I would not vote against Palin because of McCain
I would never vote for McCain because of Palin again.
If I lived in AZ I would go see Palin campain for McCain and I would carry a Hayworth/Palin sign.
Palin can't win the campaign for McCain. Conservatives are smarter than that.
Thanks for the info.
If you think she would’ve been the frontrunner in 2012 without being McCain’s running mate you are out of your mind. People in the lower 48 don’t pay attention to Alaska and only political junkies like us had ever heard of her until McCain picked her. Even some of my friends who I consider to be fairly well informed had never heard of her. Without name recognition, it’s impossible to win a primary.
You are incapable of finding the right balance between realism and idealism. Also, I find people who are constantly saying how principled they are to often times be pompous, self-righteous blowhards. Our main principle should be stopping and destroying Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. Victory over these bastards should be our principle.
“Looks like I struck raw nerve.”
You struck nothing but the air. The fact is that you made a statement about Palin’sensorsement of McCain as being a “black mark”. I simply identified one of Reagan’s flawed decisions (which led many to question his conservative bona fides) and you treed to paint it as a virtue. I lived through that. I was for Reagan long before you were, I’ll wager...BDVD, if you get my meaning. Calling yourself Reagan Man doesn’t make you the arbiter of all things Reagan. You don’t know what you are talking about with Schweiker. Reagan probably alienated enough delegates in the Mississippi and Louisiana delegations with the Schweiker announcement that it actually COST him the nomination. It was wildly unpopular with conservatives and if you don’t know that you either weren’t paying attention when it happened and only read about it after the fact or you are too young to have lived through it.
“Some conservatives weren’t always satisfied with Reagan. So be it. That included Jesse Helms..”
Huh? Against you don’t know your history. Let me help you with the “Reader’s Digest version:
“Defying expectations, Ford narrowly defeated Reagan in the New Hampshire primary, and then proceeded to beat Reagan in the Florida and Illinois primaries by comfortable margins. By the time of the North Carolina primary in March 1976, Reagan’s campaign was nearly out of money, and it was widely believed that another defeat would force Reagan to quit the race. However, assisted by the powerful political organization of right-wing U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, Reagan upset Ford in North Carolina and then proceeded to win a string of impressive victories, including Texas, where he won all 100 delegates.”
Helms, far from not being satisfied with Reagan, SAVED him in North Carolina. He was one of his two Reaganites in the U.S. Senate at this time. And the pick alienated Helms, caused a huge backlash at the Convention, quite possibly cost him the nomination and in any event did nothing to help him. It was ill-conceived, and the only good thing about it is that it did him no lasting harm. It was apolitical mistake.
“After all, Reagan almost beat a sitting US President for the GOP nomination in 1976. An historic event of the first magnitude.”
Really? I know. I helped him. Also in 1980. In fact, Reagan was favored to beat Ford in the 1976 primaries and his losses in Iowa and NH led to a string of defeats that almost led to his withdrawal (which would have meant political oblivion for him and some other screen name for you, buckeroo.). But old Jesse, who was never satisgfied with him, saved the day.
“Stop the revisionism”
I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think you do, either. Reagan made a calculated political gamble in picking Schweiker, who was a LIBERAL in 1976. It was a compromise that alienated some of his base and did him no good. Palin, on the other hand, endorsed McCain BEFORE Hayworth ever got in the race and she had what most rational people would agree was a obligation to him. Ergo, I think her motives in the McCain imbroglio were purer and less tainted by politics than were Reagan’s in the Schweiker fiasco.
“Let Palin be Palin and let the cards fall where they may. What are you afraid of?”
Listen. Palin can take care of herself. She does not need me or even Rush to defend her. Conversely, Reagan does not need you to defend him. His legacy can take care of itself. I have been a supporter of his for over 40 years, and he was the greatest President of the 20th Century and one of the three greatest of all time. But he made a mistake with the Schweiker gambit, which was not even Reagan’s idea but was foisted on him by John Sears, his campign manager, who was no conservative
From Time:
“By persuading Reagan to announce that Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker was his choice as running mate, Sears confused the Republican delegate picture sufficiently to stanch the flow of support to Ford and keep Reagan alive. But the move—by outraging some conservatives—may also have guaranteed Ford’s nomination. Whether Sears’ greatest gamble was shrewd or foolhardy will not be entirely clear until after the Republican presidential nominee is selected next week.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914525,00.html
(BTW, in case you did not know it-since you apparently don’t know a lot about Reagan- Sears was a big time RINO who almost cost Reagan the 1980 nomination with his mushiness and bad tactical decisions in Iowa, and purges of Lyn Nofziger, Deaver and finally Ed Meese, at which point Reagan fired him and overcame his early loss (engineered by Sears) in Iowa and won NH and the nomination). Had Reagan continued to pursue iterations of the Schweiker strategy in 1980, as confected by John Sears, he might very well have lost the 1980 nomination.
Couldn't agree more.
Thanks. He put out a little more misinformation in post 391 so I had to give him another history lesson on Reagan, which is at post 417, if you are interested.
Sorry. I really don’t know. I think Virginia Ridgerunner is on it.
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.