"He's done it again!"
Aside: Speaking at CPAC doesn't make one a "RINO" no more than attending a Bar Mitzvah would make a Gentile a Jew.
Posted on 02/07/2011 7:21:00 AM PST by pissant
No great surprise here, really; Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I would call them Megan McCain Republicans, dim-wit Megan McCain is a real favorite on MSNBC Maddow’s show, treated real nice by her.(most wont even go on the show) You can guess why.
That interview could be done by God Himself, and the state-run media will Alinsky it up for its own ends. My point was that the media rejoices when people give up on Palin. Like you. They want to divide and conquer. And don't think there aren't leftists at CBN, either. Their little moles burrow everywhere.
Loonatarianism
Palin is little-L libertarian, as were the Founders, and I lean that way myself. I can't bring myself to agree with the legalization of addictive recreational drugs, because our citizenry have been infantilized for three generations by a big government who has reduced their ability to make reasonable choices in their own self-interest. I don't know what the solution is (drug war isn't working) but legalizing everything won't work either. Palin doesn't advocate that, by the way.
Only time will tell (time moves fast when it comes to exposing someone's core beliefs) if Palin is pro or even moderately in favor of buggery.
Queers shouldn't have special rights, and buggery is an affront against nature and against God, but do I want the Gestappo federal, state, and local police going house to house searching for faggotry? No I do not. I want every individual accorded the same 4th Amendment rights I have, regardless of their own sins and vices.
But the military is a different story. And we have historical precedent to look to. I AM AGAINST DADT, as should all conservatives be, and I hope Palin is, too. It was Clinton's mess. We should return to George Washington's methods of dealing with buggery in the barracks: court martial, and a Big Chicken Dinner (Bad Conduct Discharge).
Palin is a Christian, and has let her light shine more than many politicians we know. Never forget she CHOSE LIFE.
Yeah. It’s obvious.
She never said he was a Tea Party Patriot. Quote the article.
She campaigned for McCain to return the favor of him selecting her. It's as simple as that. Well, and she honors his war service. That's it. I heard from her own lips (I WAS THERE!) that she disagreed with McCain on many things, including energy.
disregarding most thinking Conservatives, she somehow, gets a free pass on what she says and does. Is there some disconnection for some here on this forum, who can’t see or think for themselves?
I am an independent thinker. I do think for myself. That is why Palin appeals to me. I don't knee-jerk react to someone supporting DADT (which we're STILL not sure Palin is) like this whole thread, and think that the gay agenda is on the march. I know the TRUTH, which is that DADT is a vile, subversive policy made up by statists like Clinton, and that George Washington turned sodomites out of the military.
We should go back to those days. Until Clinton they weren't allowed in the military. If they were discovered they were turned out.
First, I'm not sure who "they" are. This was an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network. And, it wasn't a "trick" question. It was a straight-forward question, to which, she gave a ridiculously rambling and remarkable incoherent answer. I've read it three times, and I still don't know what she's saying, and I'd wager neither does she.
That is why I don't think Palin is remotely qualified for the office she may (or may not) aspire to. It has nothing to with Alynsky et. al. It does, however, have everything to do with Palin, her own fumbling of the English language and her persistent inability to craft intelligent and interesting answers to the most elementary of questions. What happens when Palin has to sit down with hostile journalists? Do you actually believe she'll be able to manage combative journalists without sounding shrill and unprepared? I sure don't.
Take Palin's extemporaneous speaking ability and place in comparison to Paul Ryan. Frankly, there is no comparison. Ryan's harshest critics call him a lot of names, but stupid isn't one of them. Why? Because it wouldn't stick. No one watching or listening to Paul Ryan is going to walk away from that experience thinking he's unprepared and possibly speaks English as a second language, no matter how much they may disagree with his politics - the same would be true of Barbour, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Daniels, Thune and even Romney and Hucklebee. They are all smart guys. You may have policy disagreements or character questions with or about some of them, or all of them, but no one is going to be able to paint any of them as incompetent or bumbling.
Palin has already been painted as a buffoon, and with the broader electorate,it has stuck. Politics is about perception, and her perception is that she's intellectually empty. While I do think that her grass roots support gives her a puncher's chance to capture the nomination, she would get crushed in the general. That's why I can't support her presidential candidacy. 2012 is too important to entirely cede the election to Obama, letting him win in convincing fashion and possibly giving him some coattails to hold the Senate, and possibly gain ground in the House. America wouldn't survive that.
Exactly, I can’t approve of their identity politics any more than I’d approve of teaching Charlie Sheen’s or Hugh Hefners lifestyle to kids as normal and acceptable.
Palin has already been painted as a buffoon, and with the broader electorate,it has stuck. Politics is about perception, and her perception is that she's intellectually empty.
And... so you'll just concede to the state-run media? Thanks for nothing.
If this were October 2012, I might agree with your implied conclusion that the incorrect public perception of Palin can't be corrected.
But it isn't 10/2012.
We have TWENTY MONTHS until that point. Perspective. You need some, it seems.
Second, she never said she was endorsing as a return favor for anything, she admitted she was supporting him because she believes they both share the same ideas.......What ever they are.
And, you have conveniently omitted all those vomit inducing interviews Palin did on FOX that endorsed McCain.
You are a Libertarian. Which is nothing more than a Liberal who minds their own business and wants limited Government. Your way of thinking cannot possibly understand the Conservative mind. Which is why you cannot possibly understand what is so wrong with the repeal of DADT, and why you support Palin.
What are you talking about? She sounds presidential! /sarc
I am about deeds, not words, when it comes to this. A soldier/sailor/marine/airman can SAY whatever stupid stuff they want to say: "I can whistle with my bellybutton", "I am gay". etc. Fictional example: Corporal Klinger was wearing dresses, angling for a Section 8, but I doubt his character was "gay".
It's when they are caught in an actual or attempted homosexual ACT that they should be court martialed out of the military. Just like it happened in Washington's own unit.
Deeds matter.
I dissected the double negative here at #146 , sorry I didn't ping you:
Back to your observations. If we are supposed to claim now that CBN asked her a question to ‘trick’ her to defend her on this, then what would we be required to claim as reality if she really RAN for president and had to tolerate an unfriendly interviewer? How obvious must it be and still not be understood?
I thought Romney was the sole 'gay Republican''s candidate. She sure is making it easy for him.
And yet, you present a strong affinity for a candidate who is only capable of just that - soundbites.
"If teleprompter-perfect speeches are all you require, I suggest you vote for the Won; he's got that down. "
No sport, I don't want "teleprompter-perfect speeches", at all. I want a presidential candidate that is capable of speaking extemporaneously in a manner that isn't embarrassing. Is that too much to ask?
"And... so you'll just concede to the state-run media?"
No, I'm not "conceding" anything. I am, however, adult enough to recognize a political reality. Palin's political reality is that she's dimwit.
"We have TWENTY MONTHS until that point. Perspective. You need some, it seems."
No, I think I have plenty of perspective. I've been politically aware since Nixon's first successful national election. Nixon in the mid-1960s, is remarkably relevant to Palin's current situation. After the CA governor's loss, Nixon went away - entirely - for almost three full years. That absence allowed him to re-invent himself, and to a degree re-brand himself which allowed for a genuine reintroduction to the American public. Palin, on the other hand, hasn't gone away, not for a moment. It's all Palin, all the time. Every time she's on, she reinforces the fears of middle-America; That she's wholly unprepared for national elected office.
HAHAHA! Sorry, I can't respond to your other accusations, since you didn't give any article references, and because I'm laughing too hard about your last paragraph!
OK, I've caught my breath. Let's take this line by line:
You are a Libertarian.
No, I am not. I have never been a member of the Libertarian party. Until recently, I was a Republican, but I am sick to death of statists in that party. The only reason I'll register as a Republican in the primaries next year is to vote for Palin. Now, I have no party. I am for freedom, the Constitution and the rule of law. I haven't found a political party that commits to these enough to justify my support.
Your way of thinking cannot possibly understand the Conservative mind.
On the contrary. My way of thinking is the epitome of the conservative mind: to conserve the Founding. We should return to the examples, values, and documents of our Founders. DADT wasn't among them, pal.
Which is why you cannot possibly understand what is so wrong with the repeal of DADT
DADT should be repealed and burned on the ash heap of history, along with every other Clinton-era statist directive that tramples on the Constitution and subverts the rule of law for leftist goals. If you support keeping DADT in place, you stand in opposition to George Washington's way of thinking. In which case, you are no ally of mine, and no conservative.
The military should return to how Washington handled homosexual acts among his troops: courts martial and bad conduct discharges for the perpetrators. Anything less tears down the military.
..and why you support Palin.
So now we have the final accusation: those who support Palin are big-L Libertarians or liberals. I wonder how other FReepers feel about that inane and baseless charge?
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
It doesn't matter whether ODH "concedes" to the media or not -- we're not, after all, discussing his opinion, but rather the public's perception of Sarah Palin. He is correct on his point, which is that the broader voting public has perception of Sarah Palin as being intellectually empty.
It really doesn't matter at this point how that perception came about. What does matter, is that the perception really does exist. And from Palin's perspective, if she's serious about running for president she needs to act to change that perception.
If this were October 2012, I might agree with your implied conclusion that the incorrect public perception of Palin can't be corrected. But it isn't 10/2012. We have TWENTY MONTHS until that point. Perspective. You need some, it seems.
The time for Sarah Palin to start working on that (supposedly) "incorrect public perception" was two years ago. And she really hasn't done that. If she somehow scrapes out the nomination and hasn't corrected it by 10/2012, we're all screwed.
You say you don't go by sound bites, but the quote from her interview is, unfortunately, rather typical of her unscripted comments, and her prepared speeches aren't really all that impressive either.
And on that score, ODH's comparison of Palin to Paul Ryan or many other potential candidates is very telling. One expects Paul Ryan to give a cogent and detailed answer to a tough economic question; whereas with Palin, there's no telling what she's going to say in response to the same question; but the expectation (based on empirical evidence) is that her answer would not only lack detail, but ramble on in a manner similar to what we've seen here.
Even if Ms. Palin has a good answer in her head somewhere, her problem is it does not come out of her mouth in good order. And that makes her seem very un-serious. That's going to be a fatal flaw in the upcoming election, in which a perception of "seriousness" is going to be a very valuable asset.
"He's done it again!"
Aside: Speaking at CPAC doesn't make one a "RINO" no more than attending a Bar Mitzvah would make a Gentile a Jew.
I never said different. I said that Palin supporters have 20 months to fight this incorrect perception. To which he started gibbering about Nixon.
It really doesn't matter at this point how that perception came about. What does matter, is that the perception really does exist.
Okay, fine, accepted. Now the question is: do you and ODH and other FReepers care about doing anything about correcting this perception? I don't believe you do. Since you are against Palin anyway, for your own reasons, the "Palin is stupid" meme suits your purposes just fine. So therefore, the Alinskyite media becomes your ally. Comfortable?
The time for Sarah Palin to start working on that (supposedly) "incorrect public perception" was two years ago.
What that tells me is that you agree with the state-run media and the establishment ruling class that Palin really is stupid. So, again, this perception comports with your beliefs, so why should you want Palin or me or anybody to try to change it?
..And she really hasn't done that.
Objection, subjective.
If she somehow scrapes out the nomination and hasn't corrected it by 10/2012, we're all screwed.
We agree here. However, I sense you think she won't, because you believe the perception is reality.
You say you don't go by sound bites, but ... her prepared speeches aren't really all that impressive either.
Your bias is showing again. "Impressive" is a subjective measure, but Palin makes a dent everywhere she goes. Every time Gov Palin speaks, there is a media frenzy. Can you say that about DeMint or Hucky or Mitt or any other potential 2012 presidential candidate?
I think her speeches are very impressive, and so do millions of other Americans. Ask yourself why that bothers you so much.
And on that score, ODH's comparison of Palin to Paul Ryan or many other potential candidates is very telling. One expects Paul Ryan to give a cogent and detailed answer to a tough economic question; whereas with Palin... her answer would not only lack detail, but ramble on in a manner similar to what we've seen here.
Paul Ryan has never run a lemonade stand, much less a town, a business, or a state. He may have good ideas, but he is a non-starter for President. Here's some subjectivity for ya: I will not vote for any presidential candidates that lack executive experience. We have that now with the pseudo-Senator Won, who was in the chamber for 143 days before running for President.
Any comparison with Ryan is irrelevant on that basis alone.
Even if Ms. Palin has a good answer in her head somewhere, her problem is it does not come out of her mouth in good order. And that makes her seem very un-serious. That's going to be a fatal flaw in the upcoming election, in which a perception of "seriousness" is going to be a very valuable asset.
I'll ignore the snark about her intelligence, and answer: "We'll see."
I'm looking for the truth. If Palin sells out God by even recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate behavior, then the truth (God's Word) will be denied.
Palin is little-L libertarian, as were the Founders,
There is no "little l" when it comes to Libertarianism. I've done enough research on it to know better.
You're a fool if you think that the Founding Fathers, men who were PREDOMINATELY strong Christians and legislated our countries laws on the Word of God, were modern day Libertarians.
Queers shouldn't have special rights, and buggery is an affront against nature and against God, but do I want the Gestappo federal, state, and local police going house to house searching for faggotry? No I do not. I want every individual accorded the same 4th Amendment rights I have, regardless of their own sins and vices.
Evil has no boundaries. Faggots weren't content in staying within the boundaries of their own sodomy chambers, and never will be. Up until 40 years ago, when the fags INTIMIDATED the APA into removing homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, faggotry was seen as just that. Our laws have always seen it as an abominable behavior, in fact those "Libertarian" Founding Fathers looked at the behavior with great concern:
Link to FF on buggery
Palin is a Christian,
It's not possible to play the Libertarian "rights" card and follow the laws of God. Only time will tell which side Sarah Palin takes.
It was a softball, and she produced a hairball for an answer.
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.