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.
What year was that?
Which conservative in America is a bigger voice than Governor Palin?
Whining and not being able to name who is a bigger conservative leader than her, is not very convincing.
Actually, Rush Limbaugh, based on pure numbers, eclipses Sarah. :)
“What year was that?”
1795 over the Jay Treaty. Now, remember, this was the Father of the American Revolution viewed by much of the country as a genuine hero - and even His Excellency was hardly immune from vitriol. I know you think history began last week, but just because you experience something now, doesn’t mean it has never happened before or that it has never been as “bad” before.
“Whining and not being able to name who is a bigger conservative leader than her, is not very convincing.”
I’m not convinced she’s a conservative.
So far, I’m only convinced she’s a Republican.
It takes more than words and to lead, for a conservative to overcome all the obstacles put in front of them by the media, it takes a genius in political skills, that is why we never get conservatives advanced through the primaries.
With the possible exception of Reagan, we have never had a conservative positioned this well, this strongly, for winning the Presidential primary, ususally we are supporting some barely known guy that we all know will never emerge the winner, and he never does.
I won’t disagree. But more need to emerge. It can’t, nor should it be, just Sarah.
I asked you the date hoping that you would see the irrelevancy of your post, that was during the second half of PRESIDENT Washington’s second term, and they were EVENTS.
Those riots are events whose date and place we know about, they are not the worst, most sustained, most dishonest, non stop, national media campaign, like we have seen directed against Sarah Palin since August 29, 2008.
We always want more, but we never get it, let's be happy that we have one this last 17 months that lifted the conservative movement from the doldrums and helped stir a national realignment, and has inspired and emboldened Republicans and conservatives around the nation.
I was thinking more of political leaders but your point is valid, although I’m not totally on board with it.
I tend to think of them as a team, Rush is the permanent, conservative, media institution and Palin is the electoral talent.
I thought so. Ah, well, the more you use English, the more fluent you will become.
“I asked you the date hoping that you would see the irrelevancy of your post, that was during the second half of PRESIDENT Washington’s second term, and they were EVENTS.”
Boy, did you miss my point.
“Those riots are events whose date and place we know about, they are not the worst, most sustained, most dishonest, non stop, national media campaign, like we have seen directed against Sarah Palin since August 29, 2008.”
Childlike nonsense. History didn’t begin yesterday.
You still didn’t make any sense, if someone riots during President Palin’s second term, then get back to me about the last 20 months.
Thank you for responding.
“You still didn’t make any sense, if someone riots during President Palin’s second term, then get back to me about the last 20 months.”
My point - which should’ve been clear to anyone - was that even genuine heroes have been viscously attacked over politics. To say that Palin’s experience here is so much worse than the past is silly and shows a seriously shortsighted view of things.
My native language is English. But since English is your second language, you are still learning. You'll catch on.
I am well aware that politicians have suffered great attacks, for instance Reagan and George W., I merely pointed out that the media has never been so rabid, so unrelenting, so dishonest, and thorough as they have been towards Governor Palin.
“As the leading conservative in America, and the most relentlessly attacked and smeared politician that we have ever seen in the United States,”
The duration in Palin’s case is 20 months to date, but we have never seen the equal of those 20 months, especially for someone that is only a POTENTIAL candidate for President.
“I merely pointed out that the media has never been so rabid, so unrelenting, so dishonest, and thorough as they have been towards Governor Palin.”
That’s your perception.
“The duration in Palin’s case is 20 months to date, but we have never seen the equal of those 20 months, especially for someone that is only a POTENTIAL candidate for President.”
Nonsense.
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.