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.
Is there a link to those ads where one could listen to them? If so could you post it? Thanks.
‘View’: Meghan McCain Blasts Tea Parties
Sen. John McCain’s daughter says the movement is filled with “innate racism.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/meghan-mccain-blasts-tea-parties-9777706
Does ANYONE think Meghan isn’t doing her father’s bidding???
I'm not alone in withholding funds from a conservative site that allows the pro Ron Paul posters to bash the most popular representative of conservative ideals on a constant basis.
You certainly have a right to your freedom of speech, but I have control over my pocketbook.
Palin's support of McCain was a shrewed political move that flies right over the head of so many. If she wants to have any chance of winning the presidential primaries and a general election she needs the support of those hated RINOs and independents. The mental breakdown over this fact on FR is amazing (no, disappointing...).
Her views will conform to whoever wins the nomination to be the GOP candidate for Senate in Arizona. Since she's not running for Senate in Arizona, she's under no obligation to tell you, me or Arizonan's who are expected to go to the polls later this year, her views on such issues as cap and trade, amnesty or illegal immigration.
You’ve got that right.
True conservatism best for America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2488434/posts
Written by a LEGAL immigrant.
[snip]America does have a problem with illegals, and Obama’s amnesty, or “path to citizenship,” would undermine the rule of law and make it harder for jobless Americans to compete with up to an estimated 20 million newly legalized illegal aliens.
It also is consistent for the GOP to oppose Mr. Obama’s amnesty as it was for many in the GOP to oppose former President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain’s “path to citizenship.”
*****************.the Republican national platform calls for “enforcing the rule of law at the border and throughout the nation” and says, “We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity.**************************
... true conservatives understand that amnesty corrupts our political system with an unspoken quid pro quo — politicians and their political parties pay for the votes of illegal aliens with amnesty. During the pro-amnesty rally in 2006, one sign said it all: “Today we march, tomorrow we vote,” If those illegal aliens vote for the same corrupt political system that they left behind, America can’t afford them.
Finally, conservatism must unite all four legs of this freedom chair — social, fiscal and national-security conservatives and the tea-party patriots — for the amnesty fight.
Social conservatives should worry that any undermining of the rule of law will destroy the moral foundation of this republic.
For fiscal conservatives, the rule of law guarantees our economic freedom. Without it, capitalism fails, which means big government’s further intrusions.
To national-security conservatives, enforcing the rule of law means border security, which is essential to our national security and sovereignty.
To tea-party patriots, undermining the rule of law destroys the Constitution’s underpinning.
Fred Malek’s one of Palin’s key supporters in DC, isn’t he? Since he was McCain’s finance chair I imagine he’s a pretty strong supporter, and he’s a strong supporter of Palin as well. He may have reinforced her impulse to support McCain, though I too am disappointed by it.
I'm curious how a show that hasn't even aired yet is not doing well. Production is not even complete on it yet.
If you are talking about her "Real America" series on Fox News, it in fact did very well, comfortably outdrawing all of its competition.
Your conclusion might be more meaningful if you had any of your facts straight.
I don’t blame Sarah for making much money as she can from the vast public interest in her. But there is one scenario that I hope is not playing out, and that is one where her financial and management consultant types have advised her that she can maximize her earnings by remaining a possible presidential candidate, but that she actually has no intention of running for president, but is just maximizing her earnings by being politically active and leaving that big question unanswered as long as possible.
There is a significant number who don’t think she intends to run.
Since the Discovery Channel show hasn’t even been filmed yet, what do you base your allegations that it’s not doing well? Her “Real Americans” show on FOX News had the highest ratings of any show last Thursday in it’s time slot. She had more viewers than Greta (whose show was pre-empted) gets in the same time slot. The only primetime show that got more viewers than her was BOR.
J.D. Hayworth, if he lived to be 140, couldn’t top the missteps and convoluted thinking of John McCain.
FLUSH THE JOHN!
It’s on youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJobkdeho88
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2483042/posts
No kidding. It's not about information, it's just school kids pushing their anti war hero....Ron Paul.
LOL!!!!......Your video of those four characters is one of the best I’ve seen.......Hilarious!!!!!....
Yes indeed. I agree 100%.
“You may feel victorious in your constant bashing of Sarah Palin but in reality you are really hurting FR.
I’m not alone in withholding funds from a conservative site that allows the pro Ron Paul posters to bash the most popular representative of conservative ideals on a constant basis.
You certainly have a right to your freedom of speech, but I have control over my pocketbook. “
Threats of withholding donations unless some people who don’t share your view are banned? Is that what you’re demanding? How does hurting FR, who mostly supports Palin, help her??
That argument no longer is valid. With the knucklehead in the current WH, any dumbass can be President.
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.