Sarah Palin rejoining FOXNEWS as contributor, DRUDGE has learned, announcement expected this aft.

Drudge Report ^ | Matt Drudge

[plewis1250]

Sarah Palin rejoining FOXNEWS as contributor, DRUDGE has learned, announcement expected this afternoon... Developing...

[Alaska Wolf]

ENFORCE THE BLOODY LAWS ON THE BOOKS!!

Great!Did Reagan? What administration since has?

[Alaska Wolf]

I’m a Christian and I don’t support amnesty.

Nor do I. As a Christian, how do you propose we deal with the illegal problem?

[Alaska Wolf]

you invariably pick out one person to disagree with

You've read every post I've made on every thread? You really need to get a life.

. I actually wondered if you might be one of Obama’s Cyber patrol

You are nasty, arrogant and insulting.

[Alaska Wolf]

What and who will finally enforce the law? Why hasn’t it been enforced since Ike? You seem to have all the answers, so lets see them.

[swpa_mom]

It is far more productive to claim that every conservative is simply not conservative enough. I clearly remember the praise directed towards Pat Toomey. Oh, nevermind.

This Sarah Palin, why, we have to attack her! She is just not good enough for our conservative views! Disregard the fact that she has more guts than the majority of the male conservatives combined, she is just not conservative enough!

Yes the country is lost. The liberals LOVE the circular firing squad here on FR. I cant wait until we hear that the 2016 nominee is just not conservative enough. Why, that conservative is the same as Hillary.

Have a nice day. It is flag day.

[Lakeshark]

you've had upwards of three years to study this issue, undestand the arguments, and come to grips with the truth of it.

I do understand the issue, she came out squarely FOR the new AZ law, squarely FOR actually enforcing current law, and she's NOT backed off. Had she not done so, you might have a case. She clearly does not agree with him on immigration, which is what this thread has been discussing now. You can claim she agrees with him, but her stance on the AZ law totally refutes that claim. You and I agree on the immigration issue, our position is entirely the same.

As mentioned, I didn't like her 2010 endorsement, but to claim it won the nomination for him, rather than Hayworth's own peddling of government largess in that devastating ad is simply wrong. She helped, but the ad and the war chest was what did it. I'm not certain who could have beat him, but it wasn't Hayworth.

Her positions are solidly conservative, including immigration. Energy, spending, pro-free enterprise (NOT crony capitalism), anti-illegal immigration, peace through strength (Reagan military approach and foreign policy approach), pro-life, strong social conservative, pro-2nd amendment, what's not to like with her stance on the issues?

I know, I know....we'll just disagree. You think her 2010 endorsement was a deal killer, I don't like it, but understand why she did it. You think that one thing makes her not conservative, I disagree and point to her entire stance on all the issues.

If she does come out for the new bill, I will rethink. If she doesn't then maybe you ought to let it go (2010 endorsement)and see her conservative stance on all the issues is far stronger than you're willing to admit.

[DoughtyOne]

I grow tired of your childishness. You can’t refute what is stated and provided, so you seek to move the subject off point.

You’re a waste of valuable time.

[DoughtyOne]

I’ve never intimated that Sarah is the same as Hillary, or anything even remotely like that.

When someone is willing to sell out this nation to foreign interests, and that’s what agreeing to see this nation over-run with foreign nationals is, then I recognize someone unfit to lead.

We can do better. Despite you being a Palin fan-girl, that is the reality.

You have a nice flag day too. Thank you.

[DoughtyOne]

You've had upwards of three years to study this issue, undestand the arguments, and come to grips with the truth of it.

I do understand the issue, she came out squarely FOR the new AZ law, squarely FOR actually enforcing current law, and she's NOT backed off. Had she not done so, you might have a case. She clearly does not agree with him on immigration, which is what this thread has been discussing now. You can claim she agrees with him, but her stance on the AZ law totally refutes that claim. You and I agree on the immigration issue, our position is entirely the same.
People can say anything they want.  Oh I support this and that.  When they come up with their own plan, and speak about it in public, that is their own real view.  The Arizona plan is not a comprehensive immigration reform plan, so trying to act as if it replaces the announced views of Palin regarding a comprehensive immigration reform plan, is not rational.  You should be able to understand that.

As mentioned, I didn't like her 2010 endorsement, but to claim it won the nomination for him, rather than Hayworth's own peddling of government largess in that devastating ad is simply wrong. She helped, but the ad and the war chest was what did it. I'm not certain who could have beat him, but it wasn't Hayworth.
Your mention of Hayworth's supposed infractions, doesn't come close to McCain's interceding on behalf of Hanoi and sell out the interest of our men Missing In Action,  ignoring families and veterans groups.  Those actions of Hayworth are not good, but people who raised them were pathetic when you consider over forty years of McCain's public actions, and close to 70 years of his private actions.  When in Congress, Hayworth stood up for Conservatism countless times.  I can't remember McCain standing up for it once.  Remember back to the Bush years when McCain tried to short-circuit his efforts, and was successful a number of times.  And for the record, I did not state that Palin won the nomination for McCain.  What I stated is that there are some folks on this forum who claim she was responsible for every Conservative that won, but when it comes to McCain her endorsement meant nothing at all.  That is dishonest as it can be, and I pointed it out.  The fact is, Palin did blunt any chance Hayworth had at making a run on McCain.  That was unforgivable.

Her positions are solidly conservative, including immigration. Energy, spending, pro-free enterprise (NOT crony capitalism), anti-illegal immigration, peace through strength (Reagan military approach and foreign policy approach), pro-life, strong social conservative, pro-2nd amendment, what's not to like with her stance on the issues?
As it relates to immigration, that is simply not factual.  No, if I can't trust her not to flood this nation with over 100 million people from third world countries, I can't trust her on the rest.  You can blow smoke for the rest of on life if you want, I'm not signing on to someone who will flip this nation to the Democrats in perpetuity.  If you can't grasp the significance of that, there's no point in discussing this.  What difference does it make what the rest of her views are, if she will never have a chance at being elected because she supported flooding this nation with new Democrats.  What part of that do you not grasp?

I know, I know....we'll just disagree. You think her 2010 endorsement was a deal killer, I don't like it, but understand why she did it. You think that one thing makes her not conservative, I disagree and point to her entire stance on all the issues.
I think of her 2010 endorsement as something that revealed Palin's true character.  I also think of it as something that revealed how truly clueless she is, when it comes to people like McCain.  Let's play double-jeopardy here.  Palin wins the White House.  She helped get John McCain re-elected.  What elder statesman do you think would be one of her closest advisors.  Here's a hint.  He picked her to be his Vice-Presidential nominee.  Remember your own comments, "She owes him!"

If she does come out for the new bill, I will rethink. If she doesn't then maybe you ought to let it go (2010 endorsement)and see her conservative stance on all the issues is far stronger than you're willing to admit.
You've kind of lost it as far as I am concerned.  I look very dimly on her endorsement of McCain, but compared to stating in public at least three times that I know of, that she wants to register illegals so they can stay here and work, it fades significantly in comparison.  You have all the evidence you need to rethink now.  Quit being a bad policy enabler.

[NFHale]

“...Yeah, I know we’ll disagree, and I’ll leave it at that. ..”

That, my friend, is the attitude of a true Gentleman, and people should learn from you.

I, for one, thank you for it.

What’s that old saying...”we can disagree without being disagreeable” or such?

[Lakeshark]

I'll stand on what I said, I don't think you've demonstrated she isn't conservative, nor that she isn't way closer to what you believe about immigration than McCain. Her only MAJOR foray into her stance on illegals came when she stood with the AZ law, those are her latest statements on illegals, and I have no problem with them, none whatsoever, and neither should you.

The Arizona plan is not a comprehensive immigration reform plan, so trying to act as if it replaces the announced views of Palin regarding a comprehensive immigration reform plan, is not rational.

So, does this mean we're not to endorse Cruz because he has no "comprehensive immigration reform plan"?

Like I said, we're not going to agree on this, if she comes out for the new law, if she goes the way of Ryan, I'll change my mind.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the mention NFHale. Take care.

[Lakeshark]

It's likely D1 and myself will continue to disagree on this matter, neither of us has persuaded the other yet, but I appreciate his willingness to discuss it without rancor and his ability to do so well.

I will likely wait for another round, another time to continue the discussion of Palin, we both agree far more than we disagree, likely 95%+.

[DoughtyOne]

I'll stand on what I said,...
Well evidently not...

I don't think you've demonstrated she isn't conservative, nor that she isn't way closer to what you believe about immigration than McCain.
No problem.  McCain is for Amnesty only he refused to call it that.  Palin is for registration and legalization, but she also refuses to call it Amnesty.  Yep huge difference.  /s

Her only MAJOR foray into her stance on illegals came when she stood with the AZ law, those are her latest statements on illegals, and I have no problem with them, none whatsoever, and neither should you.
I don't have a problem with supporting Arizona's measure to protect itself against the negative impact of illegal immigration.  It is good that Sarah supported that law.  However, as stated before, which you still refuse to acknowledge, when it comes to immigration reform, Palin supports registration and the illegal being able to remain in our nation doing exactly what they have been before.  Somehow you folks have gotten it into your head, that making illegals legal will solve all issues with illegal immigration.  It won't.  It merely makes them legal.  It serves their purposes, and very few of our purposes.

1. Will the children of illegal still cause overcrowding at our schools?
2. Will illegals still get free health-care?
3. Will our schools still have to provide on campus exams and innoculations?
4. Our government be able to give even more programs to these people once they are legal?
5. Those who work under the table will be able to continue to do that.  What income taxes?
6. These people will now be able to file for an income tax credit.  Not paying in taxes, they'll be able to get paid to be here out of your tax payments.
7. Will Democrats get the votes of these people as they are transitioned to Citizens in about six years?  Yes!  We know who gets the votes of these people.  It's already hard enough to get Conservatives elected today, and your fair haired favorite wants to make it worse.

Tell me how this makes it all go away..., I'm curious to know.

The Arizona plan is not a comprehensive immigration reform plan, so trying to act as if it replaces the announced views of Palin regarding a comprehensive immigration reform plan, is not rational.

So, does this mean we're not to endorse Cruz because he has no "comprehensive immigration reform plan"?
If Cruz makes public statements similar to what Sarah Palin has, it most certainly means we shouldn't support him.  Rubio is now supporting a plan very similar to Sarah's announced plan.  We rake him over the coals for it, but if I mention that this is what Palin has been advocating all along, you folks defend her.  That is wrong.  It's inconsistent.

Like I said, we're not going to agree on this, if she comes out for the new law, if she goes the way of Ryan, I'll change my mind.
Palin has never disowned her own public statements regarding what she wants to see done.  And those plans are roughly the same as the plan working it's way through Congress today.  We have dumped on Rubio for supporting it, and you folks give Palin a pass because she has only proposed her own plan that looks a lot like this one, but hasn't endorsed this plan that I now of.  You folks are merely granting a pass to someone because you like them.  The people you support should have to earn it, not be gifted it despite what they themselves say they support which is different than what you support.

[NFHale]

“...we both agree far more than we disagree, likely 95%+...”

Bingo, brother. I commented further up-thread at #119 about that very same thing.

Especially when rancor makes people think about leaving FR (WVNan post #167 something to that effect earlier). Any of us that we lose is a huge win for the other side.

We can never and should never let that happen if we can help it.

I’ve said it before, and it’s always in the back of my mind whiling watching the debates we go through out here - the other side hates us ALL equally - whether we agree or disagree with each other. Maybe our internal debates are better left to the back channel on a one-to-one basis rather than broadcasting for the leftards to amuse themselves with.

One Team, One Fight, muzzles out, and I’ll watch your six, always.

[Lakeshark]

Like I said, I'll do this another place, another time that is appropriate, I remain unconvinced as to your point of view.

If she supports this plan, I'll change my mind. In the mean time, we both agree: This plan sucks, it needs to be defeated by the house, clearly it's going to be passed in the senate.

[NFHale]

No problem my good brother!!!

[DoughtyOne]

If what a candidate says doesn’t matter, then why should I think what I said would matter?

Palin is on the record men. She has said it clearly three times that I know of. You can find the audio on the internet.

If we’re going to hold others to a standard be it Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else, we need to hold the people we support to a standard too.

Voicing support for a plan that will fundamentally change this nation in perpetuity, is something we should sit up and take notice of.

Whether I like you two or not, and it’s in my nature to do so, it’s your duty not mine for you to be honest here.

I can present truth to you, but it’s up to you to review it and accept it. If you can’t, or simply don’t want to, that’s your choice.

Palin is on record supporting registration and staying in place. And she states this is not a reward. Then what is it?

I’m sorry, but it is a reward. We all know it.

[Alaska Wolf]

You started with the name calling. Why can’t you disagree without being disagreeable?