Saint Sarah [Newsweek's Full Bore Palin Attack]

Saint Sarah To white evangelical women, Sarah Palin is a modern-day prophet, preaching God, flag, and family—while remaking the religious right in her own image.

Another memoirist might prefer to keep such matters private, but Sarah Palin is not another memoirist. In Going Rogue: An American Life, Palin describes, perhaps for the first time in the history of political autobiography, a furtive trip to an out-of-state drugstore to obtain a do-it-yourself pregnancy test. This was in the fall of 2007, when the 43-year-old mother of four was governor of Alaska and began to notice “some peculiar yet familiar physical symptoms, like the smell of cigarettes making me feel more nauseated than usual.” So, while on business in New Orleans—at a time and in a place where her anonymity was still possible—Palin procured the kit. In the privacy of her hotel room, she “followed the instructions on the...box. Slowly a pink image materialized on the stick.

Bill Pugliano Sarah Palin's pro-woman rallying cry is poised to transform the Christian right into a women's movement. View a photo gallery of how her following has become big business. Cult of Palin “Holy geez!”

He did not suck as a candidate..

81% of Ca GOP voters disagree with you.

Once again into the ethereal. Tom Campbell never came close to taking the lead.

Facts are hard to ignore but you seem able to do it at will.

(may 6 2010 the day of Palin's endorsement) : The TPM Poll Average gives Campbell a lead of 28.7%, followed by Fiorina at 20.2%, and the even more conservative state Rep. Chuck DeVore with 12.4%. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/palin-endorses-carly-fiorina-in-ca-sen-primary.php

Also in the GOP race is former Rep. Tom Campbell, who has maintained a steady lead over his opponents in recent polls. The Republican nominee will take on Sen. Barbara Boxer in the general election. http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/93070059.html

Fiorina -- an adviser on the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008 -- is essentially in a two-person race with former congressman Tom Campbell, who is leading in most polls. DeVore is trailing far behind. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/08/palin-stands-fiorina-endorsement-amid-backlash-supporters/

LOL, look Sparky, if DeVore had taken the lead on his own, why would he need Plain's support? You're being nonsensical.

who said anything about taking the lead? Getting out of last place, having a surge getting into second place, having a 5 or 10 pt bounce any of those things would have shown him connecting. Instead DeVore stayed in last place throughout the campaign. that is not connecting. Sparky

Campbell had the draw of an incumbent, and Fiorina had her own funds. He did not have the funding either of them had. He got 19% of the vote, and that's not too shaby considering he didn't have adequate funding. Without funding you can't execute get out the vote efforts.

First off 19% sucks. that means 81% of the people do not like you/did not vote for you. If you get 19% in a primary or a general you suck and you lose. Second you explain why he sucked as a candidate. He had no money, no way to raise money, no way to get his message out. He had no backing. In short he could not win even with a Palin endorsement Carly would have buried him in ads and get out the vote. Anyone with a lick of smarts could see that. Why back a 100% loser when there is a possible winner that agrees with you 80% of the time?

Leaders take a stand on principle

ROFL.....Obama has taken a stand on principles. I don't rate him a leader. Leader's lead, they make the hard decisions needed to advance their core principles given the facts on the ground. They do not stick blindly to ideology and purity tests. Leaders get the job done with the tools and options they are given. they create opportunity where none exists to further their goals and beliefs. they compromise when needed, they bend when called for but they do not break and they complete the mission.

Ideologues stand firm on principles even when that stand will destroy their principles in the end. Obama and you are ideologues, Palin is a leader.

As far as Palin's timing. It was perfect and defeated the liberal and won the Ca primary for the most conservative candidate that could win.

He did not suck as a candidate...

81% of Ca GOP voters disagree with you.

No, it means that 81% thought another candidate was better, or they trusted Plain to make their choice for them. Their vote was not a referendum on his campaign. It was a referendum on who the voters thought was best for the position.

As I told you, I have associates who voted for Fiorina even though they thought DeVore was the better man, solely based on Plain's endorsement.

Once again into the ethereal. Tom Campbell never came close to taking the lead.

Facts are hard to ignore but you seem able to do it at will.

(may 6 2010 the day of Palin's endorsement) : The TPM Poll Average gives Campbell a lead of 28.7%, followed by Fiorina at 20.2%, and the even more conservative state Rep. Chuck DeVore with 12.4%. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/palin-endorses-carly-fiorina-in-ca-sen-primary.php

Also in the GOP race is former Rep. Tom Campbell, who has maintained a steady lead over his opponents in recent polls. The Republican nominee will take on Sen. Barbara Boxer in the general election. http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/93070059.html

Fiorina -- an adviser on the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008 -- is essentially in a two-person race with former congressman Tom Campbell, who is leading in most polls. DeVore is trailing far behind. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/08/palin-stands-fiorina-endorsement-amid-backlash-supporters/

Okay, great. You proved me wrong on a minor point, and proved yourself wrong on the main point at the same time. LOL Nice work. Here's the final vote.

0,398,742 21.6% Tom Campbell
0,354,854 19.2% Chuck DeVore
1,044,637 56.6% Carly Fiorina
0,016,107 00.8% Tim Kalemkarian
0,034,461 01.8% Al Ramirez

Plain was able to help move Fiorina 36.6%. If she had put a little effort into it, DeVore could easily have won. Thank you very much for that research.

As for DeVore trailing by a large margin, he was only trailing Fiorina by eight percent at that point. Look where Campbell wound up. You're a laugh a minute.

LOL, look Sparky, if DeVore had taken the lead on his own, why would he need Plain's support? You're being nonsensical.

who said anything about taking the lead? Getting out of last place, having a surge getting into second place, having a 5 or 10 pt bounce any of those things would have shown him connecting. Instead DeVore stayed in last place throughout the campaign. that is not connecting. Sparky

He was able to raise his percentage by seven percent without help. That would have been only three percent behind Fiorina, and nine behind Campbell without any help. And that's only if that seven percent were not deducted from either of them. Five points from Campbell and two points from Fiorina would have just about made it a dead heat. And with Plain's support, he could easily have gotten the nomination to represent the party. Can't tell you how much I appreciate the research.

Campbell had the draw of an incumbent, and Fiorina had her own funds. He did not have the funding either of them had. He got 19% of the vote, and that's not too shaby considering he didn't have adequate funding. Without funding you can't execute get out the vote efforts.

First off 19% sucks. that means 81% of the people do not like you/did not vote for you. If you get 19% in a primary or a general you suck and you lose. Second you explain why he sucked as a candidate. He had no money, no way to raise money, no way to get his message out. He had no backing. In short he could not win even with a Palin endorsement Carly would have buried him in ads and get out the vote. Anyone with a lick of smarts could see that. Why back a 100% loser when there is a possible winner that agrees with you 80% of the time?

First of all, 81% voting for others mean nothing more than that folks knew more about the others. Geez, you really don't know jack do you. And if you are the rep in November, your whole party votes for you, because you are the go to guy. The Democrat isn't. You obviously don't realize that it's less likey for the Leftist Fiorina to get Conservative votes, than for DeVore to get all Republican votes.

Leaders take a stand on principle

ROFL.....Obama has taken a stand on principles. I don't rate him a leader. Leader's lead, they make the hard decisions needed to advance their core principles given the facts on the ground. They do not stick blindly to ideology and purity tests. Leaders get the job done with the tools and options they are given. they create opportunity where none exists to further their goals and beliefs. they compromise when needed, they bend when called for but they do not break and they complete the mission.

Okay, cheap shot with regard to Obama since neither of us is voting for the man. And cheap shot two because you simply cannot fathom that putting another Olympia Snowe in the Senate of the United States does not advance our agenda. It advances the Democrats agenda. And response after response, you continue to herald the brilliance of putting another RINO into the U.S. Senate. It's quite clear which side you're on, and it isn't the side of Conservatism.

To affect our agenda favorably, you have to put someone in who will actually vote for it. Fiorina won't. You're still cheering because another Ted Kennedy Conservative may enter the Senate. If you wil, another Boxer Conservative...

Ideologues stand firm on principles even when that stand will destroy their principles in the end. Obama and you are ideologues, Palin is a leader.

And turn coats will blow any which way in the wind. They will put their finger up, decide which way the wind is blowing, and vote in Liberals(R) or Republicans(D) because they haven't the tools to realize it kills us every time it has been done. Plain, is no leader. She is a great talker, as long as that shrill voice is under control.

As far as Palin's timing. It was perfect and defeated the liberal and won the Ca primary for the most conservative candidate that could win. Plain's timing was as ill timed as it could be. At a time when she had two choices to back, she backed the most Liberal person on our side. She helped raise the percentage of Fiorina by 36%. If Plain had backed DeVore, she could have put him in the winner's circle. But Plain didn't see any advantage to that. Fiorina has nothing in her past that qualifies her as a Conservative on any point. And Plain couldn't figure that out for herself.

hell I thought he was most likely the better choice. no way I would have voted for him. He was losing and at that point a vote for Devora was a vote for Campbell. And 81% thought his campaign sucked enough not to vote for him. It is two sides of the same coin. If you think someones campaign is better or you think theirs sucks. The fact is 81% of the Ca GOP thought his campaign was worse then the the others. As a voter for deVore you are a small minority of a minority. Yet you bitterly cling to the idea that if only more true believers were around devore could have been a contender. very sad.

minor point?

that was the entire reason for and timing of Palin's endorsement, the entire reason for the fact that many went with Carly over Devore to ensure that Campbell lost. Minor point? you would think its a minor point because to fully understand how major of a point it is. your entire argument would fall flat on its face. Unbelievable now you are just being willfully ignorant to the facts. Palin did not move the needle 36.6 pts. Palin plus 2million in ad buys plus the fact that DeVore remained stuck in last place moved the needle 36.6pts. Was Devore hiding $2 million in petty cash somewhere? Did Carly raise $2million off of Palin's endorsement? (not by a long shot)

the rest of your post is nonsense. the last 14 months. Who has been better for the conservative agenda Snowe or Boxer? that's right Snowe has closed ranks and voted with the conservative leadership 95% of the time against Obama while boxer has voter 100% for Obama. Now under the liberal bush Snowe voted liberal. shocker right there. Go figure. I wonder what made her change her voting record. Could it be a leadership that understands the way back to power is stopping Obama. you can not fathom that the footsoldiers views are meaningless in congress. It is the leadership that determines how the footsoldiers vote. the last 14 months show this on the dem and GOp side. the snowes are voting 100% conservative and the blue dogs are voting 100% liberal. Because the leadership tells them too. DeVore would vote the way the leadership told him too. If he wanted the nice committee appointment, the nice office, the nice staff, the perks etc. Devore would like Carly be a loyal footsoldier to the GOP leadership. It is the way DC works. Sure he would have shifted in small ways things in a slightly more conservative direction but when the chips are down he would have voted the way the leadership told him too. Just like Carly is going to do. that is reality.

turn coats? So Reagan was a turn coat? You ideologues make me puke. Following your logic would get us 19% of the vote every time. The goal is to advance the conservative agenda not to burn Rinos at the stake. You wouldn't know a leader if you saw one. Next you will be telling me Hunter will come out of no where and lead us to the promise land.

No, it means that 81% thought another candidate was better, or they trusted Plain to make their choice for them. Their vote was not a referendum on his campaign. It was a referendum on who the voters thought was best for the position. As I told you, I have associates who voted for Fiorina even though they thought DeVore was the better man, solely based on Plain's endorsement.

hell I thought he was most likely the better choice. no way I would have voted for him. He was losing and at that point a vote for Devora was a vote for Campbell. And 81% thought his campaign sucked enough not to vote for him. It is two sides of the same coin. If you think someones campaign is better or you think theirs sucks. The fact is 81% of the Ca GOP thought his campaign was worse then the the others. As a voter for deVore you are a small minority of a minority. Yet you bitterly cling to the idea that if only more true believers were around devore could have been a contender. very sad.

Candidates can run a very good campaign, get their message out, and still lose an election. They touched all the bases. They still lost. They ran a great campaign, it's just that people disagreed with them.

Candidates can run short of funds and not be able to get their message out. They can loose. That isn't necessarily running a bad campaign. They may have run an excellent campaign on the funds they had.

DeVore was able to get 19% of the vote. He didn't have much funds. That doesn't mean that 81% of voting Republicans thought he ran a terrible campaign. If you can't see this, I can't help you.

minor point?

that was the entire reason for and timing of Palin's endorsement, the entire reason for the fact that many went with Carly over Devore to ensure that Campbell lost. Minor point? you would think its a minor point because to fully understand how major of a point it is. your entire argument would fall flat on its face. Unbelievable now you are just being willfully ignorant to the facts. Palin did not move the needle 36.6 pts. Palin plus 2million in ad buys plus the fact that DeVore remained stuck in last place moved the needle 36.6pts. Was Devore hiding $2 million in petty cash somewhere? Did Carly raise $2million off of Palin's endorsement? (not by a long shot)

Look brain trust, the minor point was that Campbell was ahead at the point you stated. You do remember that part of the conversation right? Just go back up thread and you'll note your were rubbing my incorrect perception in. Now you can't even remember what the discussion was.

The major point was that Plain could have helped DeVore. Yes, Plain did help Fiorina raise her percentage by 36.6%. And no, I don't think she would have been able to raise DeVore's that high due to his lack of funds, but the fact still remains that between three people, she didn't have to raise DeVore's by 36.6% to get him to win. She could have raised his standing by 25% or more and still gained him the win. And if he raised it 9% on his own, there's no reason to believe she couldn't have made the difference. And then we would have had the best person.

the rest of your post is nonsense. This from the guy who has refused to admit Fiorina is a Leftist for days on end. This from the guy who has refused to admit it's bad to back Leftists. This from the guy who has refused to admit it's a bad thing to back John McCain for reelection, even though this is what he has done with his life, and in particular with the influence he held in Wasington, D.C.

Nonsense? You have been the king of nonsense here. Far be it from me to knock you off your throne.

the last 14 months. Who has been better for the conservative agenda Snowe or Boxer? that's right Snowe has closed ranks and voted with the conservative leadership 95% of the time against Obama while boxer has voter 100% for Obama.

Ah well, look you dunderhead you, if you look at Snowe's record over the years, she votes against us regularly. Now you tout her votes with us. And that's rather amusing to me, because now that we're in the minority, it doesn't matter if she does or not. We still lose.

When we had the marjority, dear Ms. Snowe was helping the Left block our agenda. And then her vote WAS critical.

And despite this, you want to put more Snowe's in office. Why all this talk of gaining the majorty again, as you do down post, if we're going to install people who can block our agenda? And that's exactly what you are fighting to do. Why?

Now under the liberal bush Snowe voted liberal. shocker right there. Go figure. See, you know this stuff, you just don't have the metal faculties to gain meaning from it. And BTW, that would be RINO Bush. You know like RINO Fiorina, RINO McCain, the RINO people who support them, and on it goes...

As for the snide comment about Bush, the only hole in your logic is that Snowe didn't always vote with Bush when he was trying to do the right thing. And when he did push the wrong thing, there was Snowe, supporting his position.

I wonder what made her change her voting record. Well, to you it obviously couldn't make sense that getting the same pressure she always had, and her vote not being needed to pass leftist policy anyway, she didn't see any reason to vote as she generally had in the past. To me it seems rather obvious.

Could it be a leadership that understands the way back to power is stopping Obama. Would that be the same leadership that said, "We have nothing to fear from an Obama administration?" Or would that be the same leadership at the RNC, that complimented Democrats? Or would it be the same leadership that called Republicans racists because they objected to some of Steele's idiocy? Would that be the same leadership that supported TARP? Would that be the same leadership that supported Medicare Part D? Why yes..., it would. You're delusional.

you can not fathom that the footsoldiers views are meaningless in congress. Oh, hey, I have no problem fathoming what the hell is going on in Congress. That's why I don't want to send Carly Fiorina or John McCain to Washington to do what RINOs do. You're the one that sees no problem with it. You're the one who supports other people who don't have a problem with it.

It is the leadership that determines how the footsoldiers vote. Oh, so it was the leaders that told John McCain to vote for TARP. It wasn't his fault. And I suppose it wasn't his fault when he introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill with Ted Kennedy. And I suppose it wasn't his fault when he introduced Campaing Finance Reform with Russel Feingold. And I guess it wasn't his fault when he introduced a bill with John Kerry. And it wasn't his fault when he introduced Global Warming bills three times with Joe Lieberman. It wasn't his fault when he joined George Soros to set up a political entity, that Teressa Heinz Kerry and the Tides Foundation was helping to finance. And it wasn't his fault when many of his campaign staff went to work for that entity making six figures. And it wasn't his fault that Jose Hernandez (a former aide to the President of Mexico) was one of them. And I suppose it wasn't John's fault when he pushed through MFN for Vietnam, retiring MIA efforts in the process over the objections of their families and numerous veterans groups. And on an on it goes...

the last 14 months show this on the dem and GOp side. the snowes are voting 100% conservative and the blue dogs are voting 100% liberal. Because the leadership tells them too. DeVore would vote the way the leadership told him too. If he wanted the nice committee appointment, the nice office, the nice staff, the perks etc. Devore would like Carly be a loyal footsoldier to the GOP leadership. It is the way DC works. Sure he would have shifted in small ways things in a slightly more conservative direction but when the chips are down he would have voted the way the leadership told him too. Just like Carly is going to do. that is reality. Okay, so what you are saying is that it makes no difference who we vote for as a Republican. We can vote for the worst people possible, and it all works out in Congress. Nice argument. I'm sure you think that rips to shreds the arguments of anyone who thinks electing RINOs destroys our ability to prevail. Here's a hint. It really doesn't. It destroys your credibility better than I ever could. Who is it you support? Oh yes, you support Fioina, McCain, and the person who supports all this, Sarah Plain. Just wanted to make sure folks were aware of that.

turn coats? Yes it is reasoned to state that a person, who thinks we should vote in Leftists and people who back Lefitsts who disagree with Conservatism, is a turncoat. I can see why that would bother you though. It should have you wincing. It's exactly what you have been doing here. It's exactly what some of the people you support have been doing.

So Reagan was a turn coat? Reagan was not a turncoat. And frankly, I do not approve of people who have so little decency that they would be willing to try to tarnish his reputation, in an effort to bolster someone elses, when that person cannot be defended on the point I have been making. It is wrong to vote for RINOs. It is wrong to spend months on end supporting Ted Kennedy Conservatives for re-election. It is wrong to try to help defeat people who are Reagan Conservatives.

You ideologues make me puke. Oh but you Leftists, Leftist supporters, and Leftist enablers shouldn't make us puke. Supporting John McCain and Carly Fiorina is what model Conservatives should be doing. Whew. If you can buy this lock stock and barrel like you obviously have, you've got a real identity crisis on your hands. You are centainly no Conservative.

Following your logic would get us 19% of the vote every time. If Plain could help raise Fiorina's vote total by 36.6%, there's no reason whatsoever to think she couldn't have helped raise DeVore's by 25 or more. Just explaining that Campbell and Fiorina were unacceptable, would have cut their support considerably. Sarah wouldn't do it. Now we know.

The goal is to advance the conservative agenda not to burn Rinos at the stake. It's one or the other you fool. If someone is not a Republican (Conservative) at the core, they are a Democrat at the core. Why are you so damned focused on getting Democrats elected to our ranks?

You wouldn't know a leader if you saw one. To be a leader on our side, you need to not only talk the talk, you need to be able to walk the walk. You can go around claiming to be a Conservative all you want, but if you're supporting Leftists for public office as a Conservative, you don't really believe what you're saying you do.

Next you will be telling me Hunter will come out of no where and lead us to the promise land. Hunter is a good man. You seem to relish talking down the good men in our party.

I will continue to talk down the Leftists and those who support them from within our ranks.

I can't support this. Other well known people can.

http://www.hotr.us/data/mccainagain.html

Curious about how long you and I have been exchanging posts here, I decided to look up thread. For the record, you and I have been discussing the matter of Palin endorsing Fiorina, McCain and one other known leftist back East, for at least five days now.

Although you continue to claim you don't support McCain, he is at the heart of our disagreement on Fiorina, the candidate back east, and Sarah Palin. And this subject matter was important enough for you to hang in here over five days trying to beat me down so I'd leave you alone to prevail on the topic.

The fact of the matter is, you like John McCain. You think he's the better choice between him and J. D. Hayworth, to serve for the next six years in the Senate of the United States. You have stated so a number of times. You also describe John in terms that displays an inability to see John for who he is, who he has linked up with, and what they have pushed for together. So while you profess not to support John, you still come to his defense regularly, claim J. W. Hayworth is the same sort of individual as John, and refuse to acknowedge that John McCain is a far leftist individual.

I was all set to drop this discussion, until as a part of my researching how long we have been communicating on this thread, I came across your post to the owner of this fourm. Comments you made in that post to Jim, were off base, nonfactual, and had gone unresponded to. It seemed to me those comments warranted a response on point. And so, I was compelled to present this to you.

I have no problem with the statement that McCain lost the election by his flaky support of TARP and the bailouts.

Okay, I could take this two ways. I could take it that you genuinely disagreed with John for voting for TARP and the flakey bailouts, and are perpared to be entirely honest about John, or I could see it as an attempt to make it look like you are prepared to be honest about John, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. I'll refrain from saying which I find more reasoned, and I'll let the rest of your post cause folks to make their own determination.

However McCain's actions did not happen in a vacuum. a majority of people voted FOR Obama not against McCain. Is this a neutral statement? Could it be seen as a defense of McCain?

I agree McCain by his actions could not close the deal with the voters. You say his failure is a betrayal. I choose to see it as simply a failure. Could this been seen as a defense of McCain?

As far as a RAT? McCain is more center left than center right... Is this a defense of John McCain?

In the early 1990s, John co-authored legislation to give MFN to Communist Vietnam with John Kerry. McCain and Kerry proposed that the MIA issue be laid to rest, so Communist Vietnam could get MFN. They did so over the objections of veterans groups and the very families of our men still MIA. In the early 2000s, John McCain co-authored Campaign Finance reform, with Russel Feingold. He did it over the objections of his own party members who termed it un-Constitutional. And the SCOTUS came along later, and struck much of it down. John co-authored the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill in 2007 with Edward Kennedy. He did so over the objections of his entire party. Three times John co-authored global warming legislation with Joseph Lieberman. John joined George Soros, John Kerry's wife Teressa, and the Tides Foundation to set up a political entity. He hired a former Mexican Presidential Cabinet member to help him develop our border policy, a man that was adamantly anti-U.S. and demonstrated this on a number of occassions.

So let's see, John sided with John Kerry and Communist Vietnam against our MIAs, our veterans groups, the MIAs family members, and most decent U. S. Citizens. Sound middle-Left to you?
John sided with Russel Feingold to pass un-Constitutional campaign finance reform that dried up Republican avenues of funding, while leaving Unions (a large source of Leftist funding) untouched. Sound middle-Left to you?
John sided with Joe Lieberman to introduce global warming legislation that would have been very detrimental to the United States. Does that sound middle-Left to you?
John sided with Edward Kennedy to introduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, that would have legalized the illegals on our soil, made it legal for them to continue to sap our nation dry, and would have legalized the entry of millions of additional Mexicans to our nation each year. Sound middle-Left to you?

Kennedy, the Kerrys, Feingold, Lieberman, Soros, Juan Hernandez, Communist Vietnam, one anti-gun activist, one anti-abortion activist, other Leftist Republicans, the Democrat Party, the Democrat agenda, Barack Obama...

Your take on John supporting the agenda of each of these people and entitites causes you to think he's a middle-Left individual? The things he has done in his personal and professional life cause you to think he is a middle-Left individual?

I know you don't support John McCain, but don't you think your statements about McCain, despite what he has been documented to have done, could be seen as a defense of him?

...but then when it comes to spending and increasing government budgets so is JD. I have asked you several times to provide a list of things J. D. has done, that validates this charge on your part. In five days you have failed to do so once. You have made general blanket statements that slandered him, but no specifics. Does that look neutral on John McCain, when John is running against J. D.?

Like I said I do not support McCain Yes, you have certainly said that before. You've said it a number of times on this thread, several times to me alone. And that is easy for you to say, because John remains out front of J. D. Hayworth, and you can afford to deny supporting John while you continue to belittle J. D., which you have been doing regularly here. All the while, you have expressed support for the most highly visible Republican who has come out in support of John S. McCain.

I support Palin and by attacking Palin over her endorsement people do more to harm the Conservative cause than McCain could ever do. Okay, you support Palin. I believe that, although the case could certainly be made that you are harming her more than you know by your actions here. And that means, I may be a dupe to take you at your word on the topic. As for people who disagree with Sarah for backing McCain, it would be impossible for them to do more damage to our cause than John McCain has done.

1. If it comes to corruption, John has made it look like Republicans are as guilty of it as Democrats are
2. If it comes to supporting our troops, the MIA, our veterans, and MIA and veteran families, John has made it look like Republicans are as shakey on it as Democrats are.
3. If it comes to anti-Contitutional legislation, John has made it look like Republicans are as capable of introducing it as the Democrats are.
4. If it comes to supporting Communist (Vietnam) benefiting causes and legislation, John has proven the Republicans are as capable of introducing it as the Democrats are.
5. If it comes to defending our borders and sovereignty, John has proven the Republicans are as capable of getting it wrong as the Democrats are.
6. If it comes to military/defense matters, John has proven Republicans can get it wrong on Gitmo, the F-22, misssle defense systems, and other matters as the Democrats are.
7. If it comes to global warming, John has proven Republicans are as willing to introduce global warming legislation as the Democrats are.
8. If it comes to globalist efforts like NAFTA, LOST, the ICC and other causes, John has proven Republican are a willing to sign on as the Democrats are.
9. If it comes to reaching across the isle on a host of matters, John has proven that the Republicans are hardly ever unified in opposition to the worst legislation our nation has seen.
10. I don't have time to list it all. The list goes on and on and on and on and on... but of course you don't support John S. McCain's activity listed here.

Don't come here and claim anyone other than John S. McCain has caused more irreperable long lasting harm to Conservatism than John McCain has. Someone might think you were actually defending the man. And we all know, you don't support John S. McCain.

And they are in my book the useful idiots. Yes, of course, people objecting to McCain and the things he has done, are useful idiots. Thank heaven that couldn't be seen as defending John McCain. But then you do suppport the person who has endorsed him, has made a number of personal appearances with him and on television, and has run a months long campaign on Arizona's Conservative radio talk show stations, saying McCain is worthy of being returned to the U. S. Senate based on his long history of service to our nation. But that isn't really supporting John McCain. Nah.

How would Mitt, or Huck or Ron Paul advance the conservative agenda in the Whitehouse. Nothing like changing the subject main stream... one would almost think someone else ran out of steam. Did you run out of steam NOT defending John McCain? Not defending him is hard work isn't it. I can see how hard you are not defending him, and I think you deserve credit. You are one of the best when it comes to tirelessly not defending John S. McCain. Simply amazing. It's almost, not quite but almost, a super-human effort not to support him.

Like it or not the chances of a dark horse conservative coming out of the shadows at this time is less and less. ...as non-supporting McCain people continue not supporting him, but spending days at a time defending those who do in order to show how completely impartial they are. And Unseen1, you are as impartial as they come. I've never seen a more impartial person when it comes to crusty old Leftists and Reagan Conservatives. Very impressive. Can't tell you how glad I am that you have been so willing to be open and honest about McCain's record here.

We have few very few national conservatives fighting for our agenda. One could be forgiven for thinking, there are even fewer than you seem to think, since you are convinced McCain and J. D. Hayworth are just the same sort of individual, even though you don't actually support McCain.

Belittling one because of your hatred for McCain makes no sense. It's going to just floor you that I don't think it is an expression of hatred to present what John S. McCain has been up to for more than thirty years, nor is it an expression of hatred to think it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone who is a Conservative to endorse him. It is merely an expression of reality. Conservatives I know and have known for decades, are not able to endorse a man like McCain based on his own actions.

And right here, I want to take the time to thank you once again for being so honest and above board with respect to McCain, and for your impartiality conserning J. D. Hayworth's attempt to replace him. You're impatiality is perhaps the most impressive display of impartiality I have ever seen. I'm going to bookmark this thread so that over upcoming years, I can come back to it and watch how a Palin supporter can show such exemplary impartiality over a U. S. Senate primary.

And just fuels the left’s desires. Fuels the Left's desires? Forgive me, but I think John S. McCain's personal actions have fueled the Left's movement more than any other Republican I have come to know about in my life. And once again, I am going to say how much I appreciate your even handed and non-partisan stance on him. I'm sure others do too. None of what you have said to this point, has in any way been supportive of John McCain being re-elected. That much is crystal clear.

Like I have said now numerous times now I could care less about McCain or JD both are part of the problem. I really hate feeling compelled to say this over and over, flattering you inceasantly, but it is so impressive how hard you are trying to not support John S. McCain for re-election here. Making the case that J. D. Hayworth was poured out of the same mold as John S. McCain despite the long list of things John S. McCain chose to do in his life, absent any list whatsoever of anything negative J. D. Hayworth has done, makes it damed clear how dedicated you are to not supporting John. I've never seen anything like it in my forty years of political activity. Just brilliant. You're the man!

you can make a case that McCain is a bigger part of the problem and others can make the case that JD is a bigger part of the problem. Exactly, that's so true. Wow, yet again I am just dumbfounded by your insightful political analysis, not in support of John S. McCain.

Both men have votes and a history that tells anyone who is not blinded by hate for one or the other than neither is a shining knight for conservatives. Every new sentence, I am even further convinced of your absolute non-support for John S. McCain. This is a post for the ages. Poli Sci courses, journalism courses, and even propaganda courses will be studying this thread for hundreds of years, explaining to new kids coming up, just how to go about not supporting a candidate. Unseen1, you're an idol for all of us. If I could just grow up to be the slightest bit like you, not supporting folks with the finess of a person like you.

fighting over McCain vs JD is like fighting over death by hanging or gunshot. By itself, this is futher evidence of brilliance. I'm just speechless.

Your still screwed no matter which one wins out. Exactly! Oh..., it just doesn't get more non-supportive of McCain than this. My list of McCain activity here, and your list of J. D. Hayworth's activity... well..., you haven't provided one in the interest of not-supporting McCain (of course)..., but if you did, I'm sure it would be even more non-supportive of McCain than you have already been.

It really doesn't matter. Oh Unseen1, cut it out. I can take only so much incredible evidence of non-support. At some point it just overwhelms. I agree, it just doesn't matter who we support. One guy has a disgusting list of things he has done over six or seven decades and the other doesn't. You are so right. It really doesn't matter. Any voter would say the same thing. One guy has failed to represent my views for decades, and the other one has consistantly. I never saw it so clearly. It doesn't matter. And all it took was for one person to open my yes, by not supporting John S. McCain, and supporting the person who does when it really doesn't make any difference. Absolutely brilliant.

I just want you to know, that from now on out, I'm going to try to not support J. D. Hayworth as hard as your are not supporting John S. McCain. I can only hope to be 1/10th as effective at it as you have been not supporting John.

What matters is to keep the ultimate goal in sight and that is to elect the most conservative candidates to positions of power in the GOP and in the government. But then it doesn't really matter right Unseen1? We really must not support people based on what they have done. We really shouldn't think anything of people who actually do support folks stating it is because of their actions over the decades, even though it doesn't matter.

The mastery you have displayed on this thread has caused me to rethink everything.

And anyone still reading this response, I hope you don't let me go down that road alone. Not mattering, is a movement whose time has come.

So what do you think folks? I could take it that you genuinely disagreed with John for voting for TARP and the flakey bailouts, and are perpared to be entirely honest about him, or I could see it as an attempt to make it look like you are prepared to be honest about John, when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Is not mattering a movement whose time has come?

I know of a political figure who doesn't agree with this at all. And this character is shilling for her here.

Oh where to begin? By apolgizing perhaps? By coming clean perhaps? By admitting you're running a disinformation process here, to muddy the waters? By admitting you've been lying your ass off? This would be the best place to begin.

first off I DO NOT CARE about the JD and McCain match up. Lie 01

they are two peas in the pod. Lie 02

When all is said and done. Ah, yes?

I think JD will vote how the GOP leadership tells him to vote on most issues. J. D. has been sound on the issues over the years. He may made a mistake once in a while, we all do, but J. D. isn't anybody's puppet and he can think for himself on matters of imporance. You have absolutely nothing to present that indicates otherwise. So while I can't categorically state this as another bald faced lie, any idiot could mistakenly hold this opinion, that's what I still believe it to be. You are here on a mission, and that mission is to solidify the following ideas.

1. Hayworth is no better than McCain.
2. If Hayworth is the same as McCain, we might just as well put the old fraud back in the Senate for another six years.
3. All Conservative canidates are no better than Leftist candidates, because they'll all vote as the leadership tells them to.
4. And since they'll all vote as the leadership tells them to, it doesn't make any difference who we vote in.

Please, by all means tell us what Democrats J. D. Hayworth has teamed up with to submit extreme Leftist legislation on the floor of the House, like McCain has in the Senate.

You're a disrupter. You're a propagandist. You are a subverter of the truth.

If we were to accept your message on face value, it would make no difference who we voted for. As long as they had an (R) behind their name, everything would be peachy.

Well I don't buy that sack of s--t! No true Conservative would. It does make a very important difference who we elect for office. And if Sarah holds your views, she is no more worthy of holding elected office than John S. McCain is.

JD will be stronger on immigration and if that is your issue then vote for him. He'll be stronger on issue after issue across the board. And you damn well know it.

However on most things he like the other foot soldiers will vote how the GOP leadership tells them too be it JD, Carly, Devore, etc. J. D., Carley, and DeVore are three separate people. They each hold different views. Two of them have been solid for Conservatism, and one of them hasn't been. Fiorina has never espoused Conservative ideals until this election season. She is a fraud.

Carly Fiorina has only donated to Leftist candidates. Carly Fiorina sat on a U. N. affiliated commission. We don't need any more Leftist/globalists in Washinton, D. C.

Second our disagreement is not about McCain. Lie 03

You have been providing cover for McCain constantly on this thread. You have been besmirching Hayworth's record the whole time. You're a bald faced liar.

If you think that no wonder it has taken you 5 days to say the same thing over and over. Yes, I've been calling you on the fact that you have been desiminating misinformation on behalf of McCain for going on six days now. I've been calling you on being a liar for six days now. Why? Because you have been lying for going on six days, and have been trying to muddy the waters to McCain's gain for six days now. Duh. You're really not very good at this are you. If you were good at it, you wouldn't be getting your ass kicked on point constantly.

Your defenses are pathetic. The amount to, "Oh, I'm not doing that.", when folks can read your posts and tell it's exactly what you're doing. REFERENCE

Our disagreement is what is better for the conservative cause. Yes, that's what you would have people believe. But it all boils down here to John S. McCain has not been the traitor to our cause that he has been. And even though you state you don't care about his election, you still go out of your way to state that J. D. Hayworth is poured out of the same mold as John, and would be no better for our cause than John. If you truly believe that, you are an idiot. If you don't, you're a plant. If you don't, you're simply gaming the system here and by rights, should be give the boot for it.

Electing footsoldiers or leaders. Good solid foot-soldiers turn into leaders. Leftists, RINOs, turn into something else, namely allies of our political enemies. And these days, that means the enemies of our nation, in every sense of the word. One can look at what one of those so-called foot-soldiers can do, if he has been turned to the dark side. Here's a case study on the subject. John S. McCan's personal and political record. I included his personal actions, because they help reveal what a depraived reprobate the man is and always has been at his core. His record goes back over sixty years, and at every step of the way John was a vile person.

You seem to think footsoldiers will move the GOP more to the right. Foot-soldiers don't just vote. They also step in front of a camera, appear on talking head shows, and are capable of hurting Conservatism immeasurably do to this ability. So when you get John S. McCain on the weekend talking head shows, ripping apart Conservative ideals, and heralding the Leftist dogma, it does incalculable damage to Conservatism's image, and the ability to establish and strengthen a foothold on the minds of our citizenry. One comment can turn an election. One!

When asked, John stated, "You have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency." That one comment may have cost John the election. If the main opposition to a candidate can't see any real problem with his political adversary winning, it becomes a pseudo endorsement of sorts in the minds of anyone sitting on the fence. "Well, even John said it was okay to vote for Obama. Nothing to fear by doing it then..."

And you can't see this. Remind me again how J. D. Hayworth is no better than McCain. I don't remember him saying, "Nothing to fear...", "I have a great deal of respect for the Democrats and their fine goals." John did.

Foot-soldiers my ass, you're a damed liar.

I have seen footsoldiers in Congress vote pretty much straight GOP leadership wishes for the past 30 odd years I doubt if anything will change that. So you are not aware of Snowe, Graham, McCain, Collins, Spector and other RINO votes that killed us on legislative matters before the U. S. Senate then. So what credibility can you possibly claim if you are this ignorant of U. S. Senate vote dynamics?

No matter how many conservative footsoldiers we elect without proper conservative LEADERSHIP it doesn't matter. It does matter. Our members vote against the leadership's wishes on important issues. The ones that don't, are the very people you think it's okay to place in Congress. And in your mind it's no problem at all when our Senate members split off and vote with the Democrats on issues like the people I just mentioned are prone to do. And yet, you think we should listen to your sage advise here.

Got that. Carly will at the end of the day vote for the leaderships wishes. Just like Snowe, Graham, McCain, Collins, Spector and other RINOs do? Lie 03

Let me repeat since you seem to be dense. Lie 04 I have verbally kicked your ass repeatedly here. In light of that, what does that make you? In my last response prior to this one, I ripped you to shreds. You opened the door with a number of comments that make you look borderline skitzoid. "I don't back John S. McCain." vs "J. D. is no different than John." vs "John McCain should be returned to the Senate." You were all over the map. You claim not to support him, then do that very thing. I've called you on that for days, and you still can't help yourself.

You are embarrassing yourself and Plain, and you haven't the tools to grasp it on any level.

McCain is not my favorite candidate. Lie 05

There is lot of things I do not like about him. Lie 06 We have been going at this for going on six days now, and not once have you stated you agreed with any portion of the list I created to document John S. McCain's sordid past. You have at best mentioned one or two things you didn't like about him, and then immediate added, "...but J. D. Hayworth is no better."

the same goes for JD. Lie 07 I have asked you to provide a list of what J. D. has done that is in any way shape or form like John. You have refused to provide that list for six days. Here's the list I developed for John once again. John's sordid history...

Where's the beef?

Two peas in the same pod. Lie 08 Where's the beef?

vote for who ever you like I DO NOT CARE about the McCain vs JD match-up. Lie 09

It's like watching two cats fight over who will get to eat the mouse and we are the mouse. Lie 10 Once again an inference that J. D. is no better than John S. McCain. FAIL Where's the beef?

doughtyOne, I am going to say this with all the kindness I can. Lie 11 Setting yourself up to lie about me with this type of nonsense, is in itself another untruth.

Your hate for McCain has pushed you over the edge. Lie 12 Telling folks what John S. McCain has done, and providing documented news reports that verify what I am saying, is not evidence of hatred. It's evidence of historical significance that reveals John S. McCain has been integrally connected to the worst Democrats of all time, and verified enemies of our nation too. So parse away, it's not going to change reality one bit.

You see things that are not there. Lie 13 And evidently hundres of news editors and reporters around the nation do too. They have published reports and I have linked both those report and video of John himself. And once again, you're lying your ass off to protect a man that you say you do not support. You are a liar. You are a fraud. You are a Leftist. By even participating here, you are committing a fraud.

I have stated over and over and over and over again I could care less about McCain. Yes you have. You have lied about that matter countless times on this thread, and I documented it a number of times in my last post to you prior to this one.

I do not belittle JD I state the facts. Lie 14

JD voted for medicare part D a $8 trillion dollar boondoggle that makes tarp seem small. While I agree that this vote was inappropriate, the initial funding was about $600 million, hardly the $8 trillion dollars you state here. That does not mean that Medicare Part D will not cost us trillions over time, and I was dead set against it when it passed. Earlier on this thread, I agred with you on this topic.

I also took the time to remind you I have documented over 175 things McCain did over the years, that make it irrefutable that he is the worst Republican in our party's history. So one item being bad, that leaves you over 174 to go, to make Hayworth look anything near as bad as you have tried to smear him as being.

Where's the beef?

JD voted lock step with the Bush liberal spending. Lie 15 Until you get off your ass and document what your spewing, your comments will be considered lies.

Where's the beef?

that vote alone makes him part of the problem not the solution in my book. anyone that would vote for such an expansion of governmental power and spending can never be called a conservative out for small government. If you're talking about the Medicare Part D again, God knows why since we agree it was bad, I find it rather pathetic. What it reveals, is that you have nothing else to mention. You make these blanket statements as if they are justified on faith in you, after all the lies, and I just shake my head realizing how pathetic or devious you are.

You're firing blanks.

You tell me that it means nothing that I have documented over 175 things McCain has done wrong, but that one thing you found out about J. D. destroys him. You're a fruit-cake.

JD also voted for most if not all of Bush's budgets as far as I know. Lie 16 As far as you know? I hope you have toilet paper handy for that stuff eminating from your oral cavity.

that is not BELITTLING someone that is stating facts . Lie 17 As far as you know, is now evidence of a fact in your mind?

JD was a member of the ways and means committee, which over sees taxes and helps draft those budgets. JD's committee were the ones responsible to a large degree for sun setting the Bush tax cuts instead of making them permanent. Lie 18 Slandering someone based on myriads of legislation that passed through their committee without specifics is a smear. What specific bill did J. D. vote for? Why was it bad? Were there competing issues in the same bill, that caused him to vote for the bill anyway, because part of it was necessary? Were there enough votes to get a bill passed that made tax cuts permanent? Did he do the best he could at the time? You are a real ass.

McCain is NO BETTER. Lie 19 The problem is, he is the worst Repbulican in our party's history. No better? Then why are you defending him repeatedly? You're lying.

so by all means continue to support whoever you want (I will repeat it one last time I DO NOT CARE ABOUT JD nor McCain) Lie 20

but please stop with the effort to paint JD as the second coming. Lie 21 I have never said J. D. was perfect, or Christ like. What I have said repeatedly, is that John S. McCain has dealt with the worst players our nation has ever seen. He played patsey with Communist Vietnam. He plays patsey with the U. N. He played patsey with the worst Democrats in our nation's history. He played patsey with some of the worst private sector communists/socialists/marxists in our nation's history. He played patsey with foreign nationals to game our nations border and security issues. This is what Palin and you have signed on to support.

Any time you two want, you can quit defending McCain and tearing down J. D. Hayworth.

Finally, the rest of your post is an attempt to rationalize your delusion Lie 22 of my McCain support by using my recorded words of non-support for hidden support. Lie 23 If you truly believe this, it reveals a level of ignorance I'd be ashamed to have folks be aware of. You try to tear down J. D. You say he is no better than John. If you don't care about this race, why do you continually make negative comments about J. D., and continually try to point out that John is not so bad. Why do you make comments to the effect that it doesn't matter if we send Conservatives or Leftists to represent us in Washington, D. C.? The answer is, because you know damned well John S. McCain is one of the most prominent leftists in either party. And by being there in our party again for another six years, he can do terrible harm to our cause, and prevent us from turning things around in Washington, for six more years.

You are acting the part of a Leftist shill, posting lie after lie, and trying desparately to get perhaps the worst elected official other than Obama (as far as Conservatism goes), returned to office.

(I mean for crying out loud seriously?) Lie by inference 24 And this from the guy who has constantly lied his ass off on this thread. Seriously? Where's the beef putzo?

Next you will be telling me black helicopters are flying around your house and you need a tin foil hat to keep the martians at bay. Lie 25 John S. McCain is the enemy of every Conservative in this nation. Attacking me won't change that. The newspaper articals and other documentation won't go away because you tried to belittle me.

You've got a traitor to our cause on your hands. NO SALE!

And since you support Palin, I can only assume she feels the same way you do about McCain. She's spent months doing spots for him on Arizona Conservative radio stations. She's made appearance with him in person and on television. She's backing other Leftists too.

Birds of a feather...

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.