Palinism: Calling the RINO bluff
posted at 4:20 pm on May 20, 2009 by CK MacLeod
In prior posts on Sarah Palin and the work in progress I call “Palinism,” I’ve tried to reserve judgment as to whether its place in our political world, its effective meaning, will have to be defined and developed by someone else and under another name. No matter how explicitly stated, however, this reservation doesn’t prevent commenters from immediately returning to tiresome, trivially personalized discussion, a game of political Mystery Date in which the media construction “Palin” is compared unfavorably to some dream bachelorette or perhaps to the steady date currently in the White House.
Yet even if assorted provocateurs, obsessives, and open political enemies just want to re-cycle Campaign ’08 video and data files, their reaction is justified in one respect: As willing as we may remain to accept some other political author if he or she comes along and gives a better presentation, Governor Palin obviously retains a political right of first refusal on Palinism. The project is hers if she wants it.
There’s new evidence that she may, indeed, be exercising her option. Her latest release at SarahPAC indicate that, at a minimum, she is working up a treatment, possibly a full-fledged script, and that she intends to be directly involved in any negotiations on the property.
The relatively short statement is worth looking at closely. I think it gives us a working outline – or good piece of it – for our rough draft.
1) Confront Obama Directly and Define Him as an Establishment Politician
The transition from Candidate Obama to President Obama has been as predictable as Alaska’s winter snow.
While aligning herself with those who never trusted Obama the nominee’s posturing as a centrist, in her opening sentence Palin also speaks to the broader suspicion of all politicians who campaign one way, and govern another. “Alaska’s winter snow” can perhaps join death, taxes, and lying politicians among the great certainties of life. Obviously, the invocation of Alaska also reminds us of who the speaker is – this woman of the open frontier, as far removed from the Obamas of the world as you can be and still remain on the same political continent.
2) Define The Issues Broadly
We are now witnessing actions that will lead to a monumental shift away from free market capitalism and the strong work ethic that built this great country.
Conservative Republicans, the so-called “base,” do not hold with the likes of Colin Powell, David Frum, David Brooks, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Huntsman, and others, that there’s a future or even much of a purpose for a Republican Party that merely offers somewhat “less of same” against the Democratic Party. While the moderates obsessively pore over demographic studies and try to imagine tactics that would rent out “more young people, more people of color, more people who are urban-dwellers, more who are the intelligentsia in America” for whatever election day, the Palinists insist on addressing core issues which in some respects haven’t changed since the Founding, always producing two “natural parties,” if under changing names and particular justifications, around the contradiction between centralization of power and fundamental civil liberties.
It’s hard to imagine how “less of same” can rise to “monumental” challenges. In the current epoch, under actual and proposed radical expansion of the public sector and radically increased public intervention by the state, Palinists see themselves as the defenders of democratic capitalism and the American way of life, not the party of more effective midnight basketball, new PCs for the GAO, or a more intellectually elegant division of spoils.
3) Emphasize and Broaden the Fiscal Conservative Message
“Change” in this administration has meant rapid movement toward massive government growth, huge tax burdens on future generations, and an unprecedented reliance upon foreign countries.
Further to #2, but focusing on Obamanomics, on which the political fortunes of the Obama Administration and the Democratic congressional majority will tend to rest. The “unprecedented reliance upon foreign countries” may loom larger in critiques of Obamanomics as we move forward, especially as debt obligations and the potential end of the dollar as international reserve currency come into focus – and the ringing of the global financial alarm clock becomes too loud for us to ignore.
4) Concretely Explain Why Expanding Federal Government Is The Wrong Answer To Our Problems
Today, we learned that Obama’s decisions continue to impact Alaskans; while we as taxpayers now own General Motors, Obama closes another dealership – this time in Soldotna as more of Alaskans’ hard-earned money and jobs are lost to big government. Government should not be in the auto industry business. In Alaska, we have also seen a shift in federal priorities that threaten the loss of subsidized village health care services under the same candidate who led you to believe he’d insure all Americans. The inconsistent messages and actions are unsettling.
While continually returning to general principles, Palin’s statement lines up simple, comprehensible examples of why the inequity, uncertainty, and economic dislocations caused when distant DC overlords run the lives of all its far flungs slaves.
5) Fight For The Soul Of The Party
But we have another voice in Washington, DC – a man who understands what Alaskans believe: less centralized government control, restrained budgets, more opportunity for development, and fewer taxes. Today, we have a friend in RNC Chairman Michael Steele and his bold and courageous speech defines his leadership goals that will guide us all through this most difficult time for our nation.
In order to grain strategic control of the party, Palinists will need allies. Embracing Michael Steele, at a moment when the usual suspects are busily trying to undermine him, when his own early stumbles have weakened his position, but when his own feisty statements and his own well-received, Reaganite speech show he’s still got some fight in him, may turn out to be a deft political move.
Party “kingmakers,” “insiders,” and reformo “consultants” (very partial link-roll) seem hardly to have missed a chance in recent weeks to minimize Palin, pushing her down the list of important players and possible nominees, when not completely deleting her from it. A different but partly overlapping group, including some of Palin’s strongest supporters but also many of her critics and potential competitors, has been turning on Steele, scant months after his selection.
By backing Steele, Palin is calling the moderates’ and insiders’ bluff. If her party adversaries really think that they can do without her and her supporters, all they have to do now is get rid of Steele and put some faceless Crist-Huntsman-Powell “insider” in his place.
Odds favor Palin’s play on this one, I think. Consistency and honor are not strong points among the moderates, but even they would have a hard time continuing to pretend that they’re the ones in favor of a “big tent” while busily purging the Republican Party of Sarah Palin and Michael Steele, and de-funding the whole operation.
Strange things happen in politics, and best-laid schemes go far agley in a minute, but why shouldn’t it be more likely – and a stronger move, incidentally – for the party’s most charismatic and base-beloved politician to end up working shoulder to shoulder, or tag by tag, with a strengthened party chairman now finding his feet?
On the other hand, if Palin’s play somehow fails, what does she have to lose? There doesn’t seem to be much role for her anyway in a party run by and for the current crop of Republican “insiders.” If the Palinists are going to have to fight a nuclear war toe to toe for the soul of the party, then why not get it over with earlier rather than later?
As for the wanna-be realists, maybe they’ll finally get real, and either start working with the team, or change uniforms and be done with it.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I’m skeptical of the “Obama will screw up” strategy. If the economy is doing poorly though and people get fed up with government overreach isn’t Mitt perceived as more experienced with economic matters?
dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 6:43 PM
I guess this is her answer to this post.
“What happened to Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol and all the other GOP bigwigs whom she charmed before she was named VP? No help for Sarah from Alaska now when she needs it?”
My comment to that post.
Uh well there isn’t another Presidential election till 2012. Do you want her to start campaigning for President now? Okay who else on the Republican side has hit the campaign trail her rivals? This is typical she has to be held to a different standard…identity politics indeed.
Dr Evil on May 19, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Thanks for the heads up Governor
Dr Evil on May 20, 2009 at 6:43 PM
dpierson:
It’s almost like the RC favor the reimposition of the Inquisition while giving Obama and his hordes their blessing to convert ‘conservative heretics’ by thuggish threats, intimidation and deprivation of liberty.
technopeasant on May 20, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Nice piece CK.
the_nile on May 20, 2009 at 6:44 PM
What happened to the link stating that Mitt Romney was the best choice for 2012 by someone from Massachusetts? I would call this a response. Sarah Palin is a sitting Governor- Mitt Romney just sitting :)
Dr Evil on May 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM
The problem with Romney is he has to attract the base. His problems in that area don’t all have to do with his Mormon faith, either.
As for Obama screwing up, a the rate he’s going, it will take superhuman effort in spite of Obama to get a robust recovery going. I think it’s that bad.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Yes it is. I just noticed that it’s the work of one of the “Green Roomers”. :P Nicely done.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 6:49 PM
I dunno. I think it’s hard to judge after the “financial meltdown” in September. That’s what changed the game.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Go Sarah Palin, go Michael Steele… Bring it on..
reshas1 on May 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM
It doesn’t need to be a V-shaped recovery–avoiding financial collapse and 2% GDP growth will be considered victory.
dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 6:58 PM
From what I’ve been able to observe,
Palinism=21st century Reaganism.
Man, that sounds good!
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 6:59 PM
The McCain machine-MSM crafted Palin did not resonate with various groups. Palin currently has little image she can claim responsibility for.
McCain camp let her have one big a capella interview and it was a taped interview with the opposition, edited by the opposition. I call that sabatoge or stupidity. With the McCain camp, it could be a combination
The fact that the McCain camp pulled her in after they let her toast is a sign they wanted to step on her image
What is left of McCain camp is currently sending out spitballs towards Palin
Palin is just beginning. She is a cipher, although her track record in Alaska makes her much more appealing than Schwarzenegger in California. Schwarzenegger gets a lot more press for his moves, much of it positive because he supports the MSM agenda
I agree people jump on bandwagons a lot.
I don’t see Palin as a crafty pol hooking up with Steele because he needs a buddy, but who knows. Maybe she agrees with Steele on his poisitions, which is also a possibility.
Maybe she is a dope. This move says nothing.
When Palin starts giving her own speeches addressed to the public and not the GOP we can better understand her.
She is the only viable, besides Romney, in the current motley cast being shoved in our faces, and both she, and Romney, are the two least desired by the party elites
Until the MSM is forced by scandal or intrigue they will keep a lid on both contenders
entagor on May 20, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Yup on that.
dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 6:59 PM
He did not get nominated because of his faith. Distrust of his faith caused the flip-flop label to stick.
“Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.
PrezHussein on May 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM
This palin stuff is huge news across the nation!
benny shakar on May 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 6:53 PM
I read somewhere that somebody did a study of Reagan conservatives and that they vote values in good times and with their pocketbook in terrible times. The financial meltdown would definitely qualify as the latter.
Here’s the bottom line. Obama won by 7.2%. If Sarah could switch just 5% of the overall vote-7.5m (150m votes in 2008)she could orchestrate a turnaround.
That is the fact that Obama wants few people to know and that conservatives should be shouting from their rooftops over the next 3 and 1/2 years.
technopeasant on May 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM
I’m a grrl.
Hopefully you’re still in middle school and not an adult.
bw222 on May 20, 2009 at 7:08 PM
This is interesting:
That is basically my view.
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I thought it was Cornyn with the NRSC that was supporting Crist, and Steele hadn’t come out either way?
Guess I’ll have to look around and see.
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Obama can’t just do the hope and change shtick again. For one thing, there won’t be a convenient Bush administration that can be demonized, for another, he’s has to actually run on his record not just words and we all know he rapidly become vapid once he has to say something of substance.
promachus on May 20, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I will continue to say, “We’ll see.”
Sarah has a huge challenge in front of her to regain credibility.
It’s up to her to overcome that.
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Yup, Steele’s letting Florida decide who they want.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/35004-1.html
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:14 PM
You have a credibility problem too.
promachus on May 20, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Palin didn’t resonate with the suburban professionals. If the hockey mom had appealed more to soccer moms things might have gone better.
dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 6:31 PM
McCain stated, the reason he got most the votes he did was because of Sarah Palin. There were Conservatives that stayed home, and wouldn’t vote for McCain period. They may have a point, conservatives are willing to lose an election to get a message to the party they won’t budge on principles. It isn’t like the Democrat Party win at any cost the Machiavellian model.
Dr Evil on May 20, 2009 at 7:15 PM
To the media it will be. It remains to be seen if the public would buy it. Like Ace said somewhere (I think), it’s easier to pass off a good economy as bad than a bad one (or even a so-so one) as good.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Such As?
upinak on May 20, 2009 at 7:18 PM
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM
What would you call the Evansville speech, Sarah’s support for Carrie Prejean, her opposition to Obama speaking at Notre Dame, and now her support for Steele and to boot the rumored huge amounts that SarahPAC is raking in.
Sarah is already well on her way to regaining credibility as you call it, but really is only asserting what she believes with clarity as she did during the campaign.
It may have appeared that Sarah had gone away but really she never left the national political scene completely. She has always been on the periphery observing the events as they have unfolded over the last 5 months.
technopeasant on May 20, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I will continue to say, “We’ll see.”
Sarah has a huge challenge in front of her to regain credibility.
It’s up to her to overcome that.
AnninCA on May 20, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Sarah dosen’t have to regain anything….just because you have labele her doesn’t mean jack $hit…you fear her and well you should…she is going to do an end run around the Rep insiders and talk to the real people and real people will listen because she is real…hard for you handle I know
norryrr on May 20, 2009 at 7:20 PM
PrezHussein on May 20, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Yep and the treatment of Huntsman… A man everyone admits they know nothing about… Crystal clear.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:25 PM
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:25 PM
What’s your opinion of Specter? Was he chased out of the GOP by a wild pack of RINO-hunters, or did he turn on the GOP to try to save his seat?
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Total opportunist. Left the party to save himself. What does that have to do with anything?
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Sarah is doing her Rocky in training act. In time, she will come forth and we all can see what she has become. Like a flower, no bloom before it’s time.
Admittedly she was unprepared last go …
tarpon on May 20, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Are you really comparing Spector to Huntsman? I am breathless.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:29 PM
We’ll all wait with baited breath to see what your next utterance is…..
HornetSting on May 20, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Just curious. You seem to have a sore spot about “RINOS,” and thought I would ask. Not comparing Specter to Huntsman, but it’s at least as relevant as your earlier question as to whether I want all Mormons to go to China.
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Well isn’t the way Romney was treated why Huntsman had to go to China?
He knew he will never be accepted in the Republican Party and he wants to serve his country. So he had to go to China to do it.
Maybe we all need to go serve our country somewhere as far away from the Republican Party as we can get. There is no room for Mormons in the Republican party.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Huntsman has an adviser named Weaver that thinks RINO is the way to go. Former McCain adviser, even. If Huntsman is such a great conservative, why is his adviser publicly cheering RINO tactics as the salvation of the party, as opposed to Palin and Limbaugh, whom he specifically named?
I smell RINO dung in that story. It does not smell good.
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 7:39 PM
P.S.
I don’t give half a crap that Huntsman, or Romney for that matter, are Mormons. This is about political philosophy to me, not the name of your church, so dispense with that straw man, please.
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM
What is the Republican Party platform? I think it is pretty much McCain’s platform. Although he is a RINO. All of these people support the Party platform, accept maybe Guiliani. Yet they, not you, are a RINO.
That goes for Allah too. Where do these people you call RINOs differ from the Party Platform which is by definition the Party.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM
As for Huntsman as RINO, since the topic has taken a lot of attention, I’d recommend that those interested click on the link provided under point 2 – here again, it’s at http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=bf9098d4-6b65-480f-b5dc-0ffb56844eb1&p=4 You have to read through the NEW REPUBLIC writer’s slant, but it’s fairly clear or at least strongly arguable that Huntsman
1) is open about feeling alienated from the Republican base
2) saw himself as another McCain or another GHW Bush
3) understands that taking the ambassadorship ties him to Obama
The quoted statement about appealing to demographic groups in a way that the base won’t stand for, but might later on, strongly echoes the public statements of John Weaver, the consultant who was advising Huntsman as earlier he had advised McCain, a topic discussed at length on HotAir in recent days.
I don’t use the term “RINO” very often, but I think it applies in this context very well. “Republican in Name Only” doesn’t mean, or doesn’t just mean, “hypocrite” or “centrist.” To me, it means someone who is against letting the Republican Party stand for too much of anything, or, as possibly in the case of Colin Powell or Arlen Specter, very much of anything at all beyond a dispensable voting habit or affinity based on no longer existent or indefinite factors.
Huntsman may not really have deserved the title in the past, and, regardless of what he would say about it if asked, I think he himself recognizes deep down that RINO is just about exactly what he will be at least for the duration of his ambassadorship.
CK MacLeod on May 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM
That is a terrible thing to say. There are many conservative mormons who serve in political office. There are also liberal mormons who serve (Harry Reid-Idiot). I blame Huckabee for kneecapping Romney in ’08. If Romney can rebuild his standings in the party, he might be competitive in ’12.
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I don’t recall you in the former attacks… that was not directed at you.
I am only questioning your definition of RINO. A term that I find more and more limiting. RINO is beginning to be code for anyone who I don’t like regardless of actual positions on issues.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Yes, but they need not try to run for President. That is the ceiling and Huntsman knew it. That is why he had to go to China.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Well, there you go. Q.E.D.
If you were any more rhetorically persuasive, strangelet, I think everyone here would just butter his butt and call himself a biscuit. The scales must be falling from people’s eyes right and left. The DNC had better send out ACORN with a stack of sign-up sheets, because after you and your hortatory genius get through with this HA crowd, the party registrations are going to be rollng in!
We’ll wait while you look up “hortatory.”
J.E. Dyer on May 20, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Kennedy got elected in ’60 after everybody predicted that a Catholic would never win. Huntsman didn’t have to go to China. He chose a means to an end. Now he will have International experience under his belt. He is an opprotunist if anything. Aren’t most politicians?
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
When the party has become so narrow that Mormons are not conservative enough… then what exactly does that party stand for? Intolerance? As a whole Mormons live very very conservative lives. But each and every Mormon is not conservative enough to escape the label RINO.
I don’t think that Republican is an honorable name anymore. It seems to mean only intolerant of everyone else. Keep making the circle smaller and soon you won’t have anyone left.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
anninca
- Of all the people that were running (or ran) for prez in the past election, no other conservative/republican candidate suffered as much at the hands of the liberal MSM as Palin.
Anybody with a brain understands why; They are SCARED TO DEATH of her! (ergo, your answer to the “credibility problem” -the opposite holds true)
She has more Charisma than OB…the Liberal/MSM have to do everything they can to discredit her or they will surely LOSE.
She is the force to be reckoned with, and making nice with Steele is sending a large message to the other prez candidates; that she has the political stature to take the heat from the base for such overtures…..and she is a Republican unifier, not a party splitting hack ….
Her handlers (as opposed to McLame’s)won’t make the same stupid mistakes that allowed her to be portrayed as an imbecile….
The other candidates are already running (the recent, much dumped on speech tour with McClame) so she should as well. Game on……….
colonelkurtz on May 20, 2009 at 7:53 PM
That is what people use to say about Catholics.
Interesting how times have changed.
upinak on May 20, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Than hand in your card, turn around and walk away. Quit bitching about it and leave! What keeps you around, a hope that a mormon can break the glass ceiling that you’ve placed above them? You are tiring Petunia.
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
No, he chose to go to China because Obama (correctly) saw his ties to China, and realized this was his dream job.
There’s a reason McCain was long recognized as “The NYT’s favorite Republican” and styled himself as a “Maverick.”
Hint- It wasn’t his longterm close alignment with the GOP platform.
Yet he still ended up as our nominee.
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Have you read his reasoning? He may not have given up hope in the future he is young right now… he knew no matter how conservative he was how good a job at keeping his state afloat…he didn’t stand a chance because of the what the party allowed to happen to Romney. That is intolerance.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Than hand in your card, turn around and walk away. Quit bitching about it and leave! What keeps you around, a hope that a mormon can break the glass ceiling that you’ve placed above them? You are tiring Petunia. The Eeyore stuff is getting old.
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM
No, that’s a candidate running for an office and failing to win it.
Happens every cycle, many times. Often to very good candidates, of which Romney is one.
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM
McCain is my senator. I may not vote for him next time, my husband didn’t last time. But he is still a Republican.
I can’t imagine because is approach is different than I would like calling him Republican in Name Only. His whole life has been given to this party and now bloggers have the right to declare heretics? That just needs to stop.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Actually, if you’re a Democrat: if you can’t promote by obfuscating them as much as possible with Republican-ish rhetoric, you will never be elected. Hence, “tax cuts for 95%…”
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Do you know about the fake Christmas cards in the south? The ones suposedly from Romney paid for by a “temple” spouting anti-Mormon crap? What did the party have to say about that?
Who in the party stood up when Huckabee started his anti-Mormon code talking? Who stood up to any of the hate on Huckabee’s website? Not the Republican Party.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Where did I refer to Huntsman’s religion? You’re beginning to make me think that you’re obsessed with the perceived rejection of Mormonism or Mormon politicians.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike or to remain unpersuaded by Huntsman – or for that matter Romney or Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch – or, as I just got through explaining at some length, to group Huntsman with the RINOs for now. Those reasons have zilch to do with their religious beliefs or differences.
I don’t like being called a bigot by anyone. You seem to be determined to call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot. Not a great way to get your point across, presuming you actually have one.
CK MacLeod on May 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Generally, yes. However, this is an extreme case. Right now the S&P is flat for the year though many investors feel like it is up because of the roller coaster ride. Obama will get some credit for walking us back from the brink of financial apocalypse–assuming there is no apocalypse.
dedalus on May 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Ok. Problem #1 for me lately is Republicans saying “lets move on from Reagan”. That stinks. Reagan = conservative, let’s not move away from Reagan, let’s build on Reagan’s shoulders.
Problem #2 is all this talk about a “big tent”. That’s code language for Problem #1. You get people to come into your tent, you don’t stretch the tent over them where they stand, because it will fall down.
Problem #3 is bashing Palin. Republicans will see soon enough what she will do, and how well she will do it. It really gets me angry and suspicious of Republicans sniping at Sarah, ala Tim “Milquetoast of Minnesota” Pawlenty. Crist doesn’t excite me much either. I take problem #3 as another pointer to problem #1.
To quote many, “we cannot spare this woman. She fights.”
I don’t like trashing Republicans, ala Reagan’s 11th commandment. However, I’ve had all I can stand, and I can’t stands no more. Any Republicans who are pandering to liberals, trashing good conservatives, or so much as a passive compliment to Meghan McCain’s media tour, that’s it. No more will I put up with that crap. Let’s have the battle for the soul of the Party. They fired the first salvos on Nov 5 08. Now these guys had better duck, the big guns are on the field.
RS “The Other” McCain:
Right on, brother.
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM
You hit the nail right on the head.
koz on May 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Than turn in your membership card and leave. What is keeping you here? Are you waiting for the Mormon glass ceiling to be broken? If you are a 1 issue supporter than you are going to be very disappointed. Your Eeyore impersonation is growing tiresome.
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Just let it go. She is a RINO and she knows it. Calling her out on other items is just going to stress her out and upset her more even if she doesn’t want to admit it.
You did good CK. You got people thinking!
upinak on May 20, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Count my wife and myself among those. We had determined to sit the ’08 election out. I knew about Sarah, but I was convinced the “moderates” would never allow her near anything important. When she was picked, I was in Heaven! Worked the phones for the party and my local guy, which I hadn’t done in decades. She was the only reason we voted. McCain was/is/continues to be, RINO=MAN!
oldleprechaun on May 20, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Strangelet -
A look into the future
AnninCA is you 50 years from now.
bw222 on May 20, 2009 at 8:13 PM
I started this thing pointing out the inconsistency of calling Huntsman’s stand on civil unions RINO. But giving Palin a pass for the same exact position.
I don’t have a problem with Romney losing on his merits.
But the fact that the Party allowed the bigotry without calling Huckabee out does bother me. And it bothers a lot of us. Claiming that Huntsman would be welcome in the Party as it stands right now. He’s not. In fact none of us are welcome in this Party, as conservative as we are.
And when Steele mentioned it–the very mention of it–is what offended all the “real” Republicans.
Not being able to examine openly what really happened is maddening. And I see it happening again with Huntsman.
This party is becoming suffocatingly small.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny is still #1 on the NYT best seller list, and they won’t even mention it in the paper. No one on CNN, or BSDNC will take on the premise of the book. Have you noticed that? The libs don’t want none of the Great One. Real Conservatism scares the crap out of these statists. Sadly, it’s scary to the Beltway Dumbos too. They need a Patton style slap across the face, they are a disgrace to the movement that got them where they are.
I’ve had it with these guys.
Up the Irons!
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 8:21 PM
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I’m sick of the term RINO and it has no meaning other than someone who disagrees with the accuser.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Yet we hate that you keep insinuating that everyone who doesnt like Romney is a bigo due to his faith.
I don’t care if he is a mormon. He could have been the Pope… I don’t like his style of politics. So get over it!
upinak on May 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Why don’t you leave and start that miraculous pristine party you and yours always dream about? You turn in your card. I’m sick of being called a troll if I don’t worship Sarah Palin. It is her supporters who will be her down fall.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Whoa.. you have gone OFF the deep end.
Take a breath, have a drink and then go kiss McCain. You are better off…. to that aspect of life.
upinak on May 20, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I didn’t call anyone a “bigot”. And I don’t honestly remember which of you liked Romney and who didn’t. I didn’t say anything about Romney he’s old news.
I do think his treatment is what made Huntsman have to leave the country to serve the country. And that is a heck of a place for the Party to be. Somehow I don’t think Sarah would think it good to drive the Mormons to China. You on the other hand have no problem with it.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:32 PM
To me, a RINO is someone who is far more passionate about attacking the ideas of conservatives than in attacking leftish ideas. Fits McCain, for example, to a tee. He always had far rougher words for Limbaugh than he ever did for Obama.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM
That’s worth repeating.
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 8:34 PM
You know what petunia… you are being a Moby.
Clear as day and cloudy as all get out.
You are the first I have ever said that too. And as of right now you will forever be ignored. As you can’t chill out and reread what you wrote and notice how many people you have “put out”. I think you need a time out.
upinak on May 20, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Before posting it would be nice if he/she would give their backround like suppoting Romney or any other person
KBird on May 20, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Huntsman was “driven out” about as much as Specter and Powell were. Which is to say, they weren’t.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I have no idea what the latest name calling means. But his fight did start with you. Why did it anger you for me to point out that Palin and Huntsman have the same position of civil unions? That doesn’t seem a reason to get angry to me.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:37 PM
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Soon there will be three people left in the Republican Party.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:37 PM
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:36 PM
Have you noticed how many invite me to leave? And I am basically a Palin supporters who didn’t fawn over her today… what do you call being told to turn in my Republican card? Or maybe the person who called me a troll earlier…. driving people out is what they do here.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:40 PM
No one is “driving Mormons to China”. I don’t like the Huckster either, in case you care, petunia. It’s about the philosophy of the party, what direction are we heading? I like some things about Romney, but there are troubling things as well.
Does Hunstman think the Reagan platform is obsolete?
Does he agree with his own adviser Weaver that Sarah Palin will destroy the GOP by sticking with what we’ve always stood for, rather than coming up with some new Dem-lite “rebranding” neo-statist non-conservative image?
These are the questions that I’m asking, and you notice that Joseph Smith isn’t in there.
The Reagan philosophy of government is what these “RINOs” are trying to undo and I will not stand for it any longer. It’s up to Gov. Huntsman to show me he’s not in that camp. So far, not so good. I’m with Sarah.
Brian1972 on May 20, 2009 at 8:41 PM
petunia, in case you didn’t notice, this was a thread about Sarah Palin, not Huntsman. You intruded onto the thread with posts about Huntsman; you changed the subject, so live with the consequences.
If you had genuine criticisms about the topic of the post, then all of this would be for naught. But you hijacked this thread to make it about Huntsman, Romney and Mormons.
yogi41 on May 20, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Why did you go off the deep end when we suggested that, just maybe, Huntsman’s acceptance of a job with the Obama administration could demonstrate a problem for his GOP prospects?
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Oh, and for comparison: When Coale asked Palin about donating money to a member of the other party (Clinton), Palin said “No.”
cs89 on May 20, 2009 at 8:44 PM
I haven’t asked you to leave. Some peiople have a haior-trigger as far as Palin’s concerned, given the treatment she has received. I suspect you might feel the same about Romney; you probably think he was unfairly denied a chance at the general election becuase of his faith. You might be right, but I would have much rather have had Romney on the ballot last November than McCain. Romn ey’s Mormonism isn’t as big a deal to as many people as you might think. Nor is Huntsman’s.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:45 PM
* good grief…overlook the errors in the above. That’s what I get for using IE8 at the moment. LOL
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Were it so kind.
I do admit I lost it a bit on this thread. Actually one of my posts got sent when I got a call I had to take and it didn’t say exactly what I meant–but then it started the whole Mormon thing. Which I was definitely thinking as soon as you all started calling Huntsman (who is nothing to me) the same names you called Romney.
I happen to think it a positive that Huntsman is the one in China during our melt down.
I actually wanted to discuss Palin’s actual positions and not her imagined ones. But then I felt I had to defend my own.
And if you have read lately I HATE the term RINO!
It has become so stupid to see it in every headline. And it is beginning to mean INTOLERANT.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:49 PM
How does that compare with anything? It doesn’t. You are looking for the bad and it isn’t there. Obama doesn’t get any cover and Huntsman may well have ended his prospects if he ever had any anyway. So why does it make you so angry?
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Wait untill Palin’s book appears.
AnninCA– your cat is out of the bag. Go play with your catnip some place else.
Clyde5445 on May 20, 2009 at 8:58 PM
WOW
4 1/2 hours == 4 pages.
AP would be proud. (or is it jealous?)
Indeed.
I’m reminded of the Reagan Revolucion.
PALINISTAS!!!
Blacksmith8 on May 20, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Uh, one thing Sugar..may I call you that.
She ain’t got the Old man holding her back any longer!
will sass u on May 20, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Your both wrong…It shows how LOYAL she is! She’s not political…she’s loyal and principled….Reagenesque Folks!
will sass u on May 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I don’t know what you did, I’m sure it was quite unforgiveable, but we can stick together.
And yeah all those posts? You can thank me now.
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Your both wrong…It shows how LOYAL she is! She’s not political…she’s loyal and principled….Reagenesque Folks!
will sass u on May 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Loyal to party? or Country?
petunia on May 20, 2009 at 9:10 PM
To the people who donated to her PAC… her statement stated she knows many of those who donate money to her are struggling financially, yet they still donate. She knew they would not be happy if their hard-earned money went to Hillary’s debt. That’s called character.
yogi41 on May 20, 2009 at 9:17 PM
To principle, which ultimately trumps both.
ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Thanks for the reminder. I remember Michael’s comments after the convention speech. Cool, he sees his dad in her.
Blacksmith8 on May 20, 2009 at 9:26 PM
+10
The question is sitting on what? ; )
sarahpalinfan99 on May 20, 2009 at 9:48 PM
I like your style.
Blacksmith8 on May 20, 2009 at 9:53 PM
She had poor trainers and incompetent handling thanks to Team McCain. Even a star athlete needs good coaching to reach their potential. Next time will be very different trust me – Sarah has learned her lesson.
sarahpalinfan99 on May 20, 2009 at 9:58 PM
I like your style.
And yours.
Blacksmith8 on May 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »