Posted on 04/07/2010 1:32:58 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Conflicting loyalties seem to have resulted in some surprising political decisions by Sarah Palin.
On Monday here at NewsReal Blog I argued that Govenor Sarah Palin’s active support of John McCain’s Senate reelection campaign makes no sense. Palin, after all, doesn’t owe McCain anything. Whatever debt she might have owed McCain she paid off during the 2008 presidential campaign.
In fact, if anything, it seems to me that McCain is indebted to Palin. This because his ‘08 campaign really did her a disservice, and also because McCain staffers have since betrayed the former Alaska governor with malicious and disparaging leaks to the media.
Many of the commenters to my post don’t disagree. However, they write, there is one laudable reason why Palin is actively supporting McCain: loyalty.
Fair enough. Loyalty is important. But it seems to me that Palin has competing loyalty obligations; and that she chose to be loyal to McCain when she just as easily could have chosen to be loyal to other people and other principles instead.
For example, Palin knows that some of her most steadfast supporters in the conservative and Tea Party movements have very profound and important differences with McCain.
These Palin supporters believe that on too many critical issues — including free speech (aka “campaign finance reform”), military modernization, and illegal immigration – McCain is a liberal wolf in a conservative sheep’s clothing.
What about loyalty to these people? What about loyalty to their issues and concerns? Why does loyalty to one man, one politician, outweigh loyalty to millions of dedicated conservative and Tea Party activists?
And why does personal loyalty to a man (McCain) outweigh loyalty to a set of conservative political principles?
No one’s saying that Palin had to actively oppose McCain. That might, indeed, have been awkward and ill-advised given that she was his vice presidential running mate.
But why did Palin have to go out of her way to actively support and campaign for McCain? Why couldn’t she have praised both McCain and his challenger, Rep. J.D. Hayworth, while remaining neutral in the Arizona Senate race?
I can think of two possible explanations offered up, respectively, by journalists Conor Friedersdorf and Matthew Continetti.
Friedersdorf says that Palin simply may not be the conservative her steadfast supporters think she is. She may, in fact, be a John McCain Republican. This would mean that she is liberal on some issues, moderate on others, and conservative about a few things.
Continetti notes that since being thrust into the national limelight, Palin has “become incredibly rich.” It may be — and this is me speaking, not Continetti — that because of her newfound riches, Palin feels an understandable debt, literally and figuratively, to Sen. McCain.
If true, that’s fine. Making money to support one’s family is honorable. But that’s a different type of loyalty, I think, than many of the governor’s defenders have in mind.
John R. Guardiano is a writer and analyst in Arlington, Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter: @Guardian0.
Further, the word, “gratification” to describe her career? Bad choice.
And what would you call running for office?
If I had a dime for every stay at home mom who's teen screwed up, I'd be a rich woman.
Have you read Proverbs 31 yet? :)
How about you, rab? Do you believe in the war against those that will have us eliminated? Do you believe in protecting our country against Muslim terrorists as President Bush did?
Blaming Bristol's very bad choice on not having a stay at home mom is making a huge stretch.
Kids make their own choices, and pick their own friends. You pray for them, teach them right from wrong, and they sometimes goof up.
It's not like Sarah was going to follow her around on her dates.......you know what I mean?
(I was a stay at home Mom and never once went on a date with my kids. :)
Tell the men to stay home and take care of their children.
Why not a socialist commune while you are at it? Or make our mammary gland functional.
As for McCain, nothing would shake up the Party and allow us to transcend the Bush years more than McCain losing.
That's part of why he hates President Bush - just like the anti-war left does.
Fact is, JD did a great job in DC, the only thing he did wrong was stand up to McCain and that vicious old f*rt arranged to have his district redrawn so the liberal Harry Mitchell could take it from him.
What has he done to Arizona? Look around you. The state is on the verge of bankruptcy because of his open borders stance.
JD has been a consistant conservative and has been rated higher than McCain by every single conservative group. You don't get that by being a "windbag".
“Hayworth is a windbag. McCain hasn’t done anything detrimental to AZ,”
Thanks, you’re done ;-)
I’m not married. However, my point was not a general attack on Palin but the more general proof that she is not as conservative as many would assume.
False premise
Incommensurabilities
Pretzel logic
Palin is backing(every day on the radio) the most powerful and evil RINO in the Republican Party.
Therefore, Palin is a RINO.
If you are pro amnesty for illegals, pro cap and trade, oppose tax cuts for economic stimulus, oppose enhanced interrogation of terrorist, want terrorists in US prisons, want Gitmo closed, and love someone who constantly undermines his own party, then Juan McCain is definitely your man.
Which was you favorite major legislation cosponsored by Juan: McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, or McCain/Lieberman?
Or maybe he's going to save us all by constantly harping on that $20 - $30 billion in annual earmarks while proposing legislation that will add hundreds of billions to our budget over five to ten years?
I’ve lived in AZ for over 20 years. I can remember JD Hayworth as a sports tv analyst on local Phoenix TV.
Hayworth was for pork. There is a huge population of American Indians in his congressional dist which he lost to Mitchell. Every spending port spending bill that benefitted that population Hayworth voted aye. I’m not
saying I’m against that he was representing his dist but lots of pork went to them. Its not a secret.
And Hayworth comes across as a know-it-all windbag. I don’t need politicians like that telling me what to do; even if they are a member of my party.
So because a traditional role does not work 100% of the time it should not be held up? What leftist BS is this. Empty homes statistically lead t far worse results, but to point this out is considered an attack.
Its not just me saying it. foxnews had an article in another Hayworth thread where even they reported it.
Has anyone actually bothered to PUT the question to Sarah? About whether she sees this campaign partnership with McCain ending with either his primary loss or the November elections whichever comes sooner?
Her Facebook communiques show a side of her that is clearly more conservative than McCain’s.
I'd rather be safe with Bush and fight him over illegals and spending than be....dead!
but rab supports the anti war, 9-11 truther, Ron Paul so I guess he'd rather be dead.
Thank you for this post. I believe that conservatism is on the brink of a big win in November; BUT that could be turned into a huge loss by a couple of nasty traits we are seeing exhibited.
In This case, it is an example of the: “If an otherwise conservative politician does something with which I disagree, then that person becomes the enemy — an utterly vile person, who can do nothing right!”
From an earlier post:
Reagan campaigned for:
Harry Truman
Hubert Humphrey
Helen Gahagan Douglas
Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Goldwater
“many people he didn’t agree with...”
George Bush, Sr
Ron Paul??
“on behalf of the strongest candidate against Communism...”
Gerald Ford (after Ford had beaten him in the primaries!)
...And many others not mentioned.
DG
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.