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.
PALIN IS DOING 30 SECOND ADS ON ALL THE CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO SHOWS HERE IN ARIZONA.
That’s right, folks......Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al. on the 2 biggest talk radio stations in Arizona.
550 AM Phoenix (powerful station, like KFI in Los Angeles)
790 AM, Tucson (reaches to the border, and to Phoenix)
In the ads, she calls McCain everything but GOD!!
I suspect they will run until the primary.
The SRM would happily exploit any 'wedge' that they could use to hurt the GOP, regardless of who becomes the standard-bearer. So, on balance, SP was right to support McCain. As long as it's just pro-forma lip service, fine, but if she participates in any negative campaigning against Hayworth, she's toast.
Great Post! You deserve a medal for Post of the Day!
I agree with you. I just cannot believe the ampunt of finger pointing that some folks want to do.
My only conclusion is that either a) they have never had children or b) the children have yet to flex their wings
*yawn*
Could not disagree more. And if JD doesn't win it, I'd rather have an Arizona Dim senator rather than six more years of the pro-amnesty, pro-cap and trade, pro-Nanny State, anti-tax cut, etc., backstabbing little weasel Juan McCain. Another Dim senator would cause less harm than six more years of Juan.
Is he a "Maverick" this week or not?
She's loyal to the establishment. Just like John McCain.
She casts herself as an outsider, but she's spent essentially what amounts to a lifetime in politics.
What she's doing is what any skilled politician would do: Throw out some catchy slogans and buzzwords to earn the trust of the voter.
McCain’s RINO pal. I like Sarah but I am starting to wonder. I am sure teh MCCainiacs here will call me a Myth Romney-bot.
Her choices had consequences for her family, but I am not attacking her children. As a citizen viewing her as a presidential candidate, I have every right to judge her view of responsibility and deferred gratification.
And no, I do not want to keep women down and such. But my primary concern is for the children.
I don’t understand what her reason for supporting McCain is, either.
Rather it takes an extraordinary administrator willing to recruit and give authority to other administrators. Just communicate a sense of values; in conservatism's case, citizens assuming responsibility for their own life.
But there is that set of human beings, without internal compass, who need to fawn over and follow a dictator, and vote accordingly. And that set is apparently growing, media cultivated.
The one possible Palin solution is like poster 9? says, McCain as a VP, taking him out of the Senate, putting him in the sycophant seat, which is the extent of his values anyway, and replacing with a legitimate conservative in AZ.
She seemed to do pretty well while she was mayor and then governor. She had tons of help from family, and was able to arrange for the kids to be with her in the office and such at times. (Have you read her book? She talks about that kind of thing.)
As Bristol shows, Palin could not do so.
I've known stay-at-home moms whose teenaged daughters ended up pregnant or into some other trouble. Being a stay-at-home mom doesn't guarantee your kids aren't going to mess up.
As I said, we apparently differ on what "social issues conservative" means.
Had Palin not supported McCain it would have been an open invitation for the national news media to portray her as a selfish, manipulative, ungrateful *itch. And they would have pounched.
If y'all are going to wait around for the "perfect" candidate - the country is going to suffer through more Obamas first - if it survives. (Although I hope she doesn't run in 2012 - when does the next Alaskan seat in the Senate come up for election?)
Straw man alert!!!
You’re kind of jumping the gun in assuming only Sarah, Huck and Mitt will run.
But if Sarah alienates the conservatives, she has no base. She is not admired among the RINOs, Beltway sorts and country clubbers and Rockefeller Republicans. If she becomes strongly associated with Juan McCain RINO Republicanism, she's finished as a potential national candidate.
Sarah is a politician who is enjoying her moment in the sun and making money for her family while the gettin’s good. Most of all Sarah is loyal to Sarah. Once 2012 is over if she is not the GOP candidate or if she is and gets soundly defeated her 15 minutes are up. Right now she is a media star the Right likes her the Left hates her but nobody can stop talking about her. I don’t blame her for going for the gold while it is there to be had.
It’s simple, while Palin is supporting McCain, the ex McCain staffers keep their mouths shut about Palin. They are not going to trash someone important to McCain’s re-election. When the 2012 election is over, the back story from the 2010 will have diminished in impact and the ex McCain staffers will be toothless.
Note the number of negative stories originating form ex staffers circulation prior to her commitment to the McCain campaign and the lack of stories since. Practical is as practical does.
Wow—by NY and Columbia standards you’re an outright caveman!
And by the time a woman’s children are raised and she starts in politics and the clock ticks along, I suppose only a woman without children could reasonably become president. Apparently even a full-time dad like Todd and millions of dollars of income isn’t enough for Palin to multitask. But for men it’s just fine, almost de rigueur, to have small children at home while running for office.
I’d go with a Palin family that’s a little rough around the edges but not wound up tightly in an impossible image of perfection—rather than the slicked-back Romney family with the dog on the car roof.
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.