Palin outlines doctrine for use of force, picks new foreign policy adviser

posted at 7:40 pm on May 3, 2011 by J.E. Dyer

Politics being a funny beast, we tend to readily accept the idea of a retired state governor, sometime pundit, and non-candidate for president having a “foreign policy adviser.”  Ben Smith of Politico reports that Palin this weekend unloaded what he calls the “neocon” advisers who have been with her since the 2008 campaign (when she was assigned them by the McCain organization), in favor of Hoover fellow and political author Peter Schweizer, who wrote two seminal volumes on Reagan’s handling of the Cold War (Victory and Reagan’s War), and writes at Breitbart’s Big Peace.  (H/t: Israpundit)

This is informative news – and on the whole, good news.  As Israpundit observes, Palin outlined a doctrine for the use of force in her speech to military families in Denver Monday evening (2 May).  He quotes the following passage:

A lesson here then for effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say, in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity.

See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision.

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we’ll provide them with support and help them win their own freedom. We’re not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We’re always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world.

But with strength, and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world. Because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re gonna prove that free and healthy countries, they don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries.

The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

Many volumes could be written on the distinctions between the prevailing ideas on the use of force overseas, but this passage of Palin’s speech, combined with her taking on Peter Schweizer as an adviser, argues for a more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view.   I don’t find the “neocon” label particularly useful; Reagan was advised by neocons from the original group dubbed with that label in the 1970s, and so were both Bushes, but this did not make for perfect consonance in their approach to using force overseas.  “Neocon” had a particular meaning when it was first coined to describe people of a generally liberal background, especially on social and domestic issues, who held hawkish positions on the Cold War.  That meaning has long since gone by the wayside.

To call something “neocon” now is not to put it in the context of any consistent thread in policy.  Bush 41, for example, used force for regime-change in Panama in 1989, but didn’t use it to regime-change Saddam in 1991.  He restricted himself to evicting Saddam’s forces from Kuwait.  He also dispatched military force to supervise the delivery of aid to Somalis, with no intention of resolving the chaotic political situation there – this last enterprise an open-ended use of force on the progressive-activist model.

Reagan used force to regime-change Grenada, ironically in the middle of dealing with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which was a consequence of improperly scoping the purpose and requirements of force in a particular situation.  Again, the latter (the Marine barracks debacle) is more characteristic of the progressive-activist model – which is what is currently developing in Libya.

Bush 43 used overwhelming force for regime-change in Iraq, and induced regime-change in Afghanistan with less than overwhelming force, but both were cases of politically justifying absolute regime-change and pursuing it without temporizing.  Unifying Afghanistan under new rule has proven to be the insoluble problem in the aftermath, although the regime-change of Iraq has been much more heavily criticized throughout.

Which of these episodes were the result of “neocon” policies?  There are plenty of people today who call the Libya intervention “neocon,” because it is expeditionary and related only indirectly to US security.  Samantha Power and Susan Rice wouldn’t thank those pundits for calling their humanitarian intervention a “neocon” operation.

Schweizer is a fan of Reagan’s approach, which had no compunction about trying to undermine oppressive governments, but did so by supporting freedom movements where they were indigenous, and arming the insurgents under Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.  The commitment of US force was a matter of coming to blows very rarely under Reagan: besides invading Grenada, Reagan conducted a reprisal against Libya in 1986 after the Berlin nightclub bombing, and another one against Iran in 1988 for mining the Persian Gulf and inflicting mine damage on USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58).  The US armed forces had a high and very active profile during the Reagan years, but the actual use of force was considered necessary very seldom.

I tend to share Israpundit’s view that Schweizer’s advice will involve the sparing and summary use of force – in a shooting role.  If you haven’t read his books on the Reagan approach – a comprehensive one that emphasized political and economic campaigns against the Soviet Union – I can highly recommend them.  Meanwhile, compare Palin’s five points to the “Weinberger Doctrine,” a rubric that played a major role in US decisions about the use of force in Desert Storm.

As is typical of her, Palin is talking in the terms on which we need to be carrying on the public discussion of national security, our national interests, and interventions overseas.  There has been a very long and extensive national dialogue on these topics over the last 100 years; we have never settled most questions as if there were a single answer.  Palin – alone among potential GOP candidates – is harking back to the philosophical discussions launched by presidents and candidates like Reagan, Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson (agree with him or not, he launched a substantive debate that colored Democratic positions for the next 40 years), Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.

I believe people intuit the need for this debate, as overseas interventions seem to be stalemated in Afghanistan and Libya, and the world begins to behave as if there is no US power.  Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.

J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative.  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 6 7 8

I’m sure if you hooked up George Will and the cabbage pounder to polygraphs, they’d believe they were telling the truth just as strongly as you believe they are. That doesn’t mean they are beholden first-and-foremost to the truth. They are pundits, not scientists, and their imprimatur does not mean that their opinions are necessarily founded on sound information.

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Cabbage pounder? Whatever.

You’re right that they are pundits and so I don’t blame anyone for being skeptical of what they say. I judge them on a long track record of truth-telling and insight. Sure there are times that I disagree with them, but I often learn to look at issues a little differently after hearing from them. In short, I find that they almost never fail to enrich the debate.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM

honestly cannot understand why people can hate her
Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Orwell’s 1984 described it well. the 2 minutes of hate

Does not this clip remind you of the hardcore plain haters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM

There are millions of people out there who can be persuaded, even by Sarah Palin.

Shocker!

She is one of us.

Ordinary, yet extraordinary.

I want to see her do her thing, and watch the world change for the better.

She would certainly do a much, much better job for America than Barry has, and I would bet she would be bolder, more courageous, and more persuasive with the public in office than any of these other GOPers would.

She could really change America for the better.

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 1:01 PM

In short, I find that they almost never fail to enrich the debate.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM

They sure enriched the debate in 1980 when neither one of them could support Ronald Reagan for President.

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I judge them on a long track record of truth-telling and insight. Sure there are times that I disagree with them, but I often learn to look at issues a little differently after hearing from them. In short, I find that they almost never fail to enrich the debate.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Like when the cabbage pounder endorsed George H.W. Bush in

1980.

I think you enrich the debate too, if by “enrich the debate” you mean “provide comic relief.”

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 1:02 PM
gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:03 PM

OK, so that’s what you’ve got. Thirty years ago they weren’t big on Reagan. Comic relief indeed.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM

OK, so that’s what you’ve got. Thirty years ago they weren’t big on Reagan. Comic relief indeed.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I’d say that’s a pretty significant way for a pundit to be wrong, but your mileage may vary.

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM

OK, so that’s what you’ve got. Thirty years ago they weren’t big on Reagan. Comic relief indeed.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Thirty years ago, when an opportunity to change the GOP, and America, and the world was right in front of them, they could not see it.

Because that happened then, it certainly can happen again.

I believe it is happening now.

Beltwayitis can be a debilitating condition.

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Beltwayitis can be a debilitating condition.

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM

And so can having your head stuck up your ass.

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Haha, cranial-rectal inversion is quite debilitating, I’m sure, and also rather painful. :)

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Let’s face facts. The reason the trolls are still around and distracting from Palin’s speech is because in the speech Gov Palin called for the total rejection of the neocons New World Order and a return to American exceptionalism as our guiding foreign policy. And the trolls and neocons know without a doubt that that policy is the majority of what Americans believe.

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Let’s face facts. The reason the trolls are still around and distracting from Palin’s speech is because in the speech Gov Palin called for the total rejection of the neocons New World Order and a return to American exceptionalism as our guiding foreign policy. And the trolls and neocons know without a doubt that that policy is the majority of what Americans believe.

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Seeing as there are no substantive objections to the Governor’s foreign policy principles as articulated in her recent speech, I officially declare this thread closed.

The point goes to Palin.

steebo77 on May 4, 2011 at 1:16 PM

In fact Palin’s defesnse doctrine went out of her way to specifically reject the internationalism of the new world order that Powell inserted into Reagan’s doctrine. This is why the MSM always refers to the Powell doctrine instead of the Reagan doctrine because Powell’s/bush’s doctrine incorparated the requirement of international support and coailations of the “willing”/UN approval etc.

So those trying to say it is the Powell doctrine are either lying or too stupid to understand the ramifications of Palin taking the “international support” requirement out of her doctrine.

The more people understand that Palin is calling for a bold American centered foreign policy with america leading from the front instead of being part of a group the mor ethe neocons and the liberals will attack her and her doctrine.

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 1:18 PM

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM

You have to cut poor Brutus some slack…

He has Sarah Palin living in his itty bitty head. He’s been posting for 16 hours straight, to afraid do to sleep because of the nightmares that wll surely come. He has one of the strongest cases of PDS I have ever seen.
Heavy medication will only be a short-term fix. Sooner or later his head will just explode….

idesign on May 4, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Threat? No, none at all. I’m glad to be civil with you in exchange for civility in return.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM

OK. But this is where I perceived a threat:

No mystery. Scrote has done his version of stalking me around H/A. He contributes nothing but stupid, little personal attacks, so I have no compunction about tell him where to stick it the moment he interjects in that way. The same goes for you.I respond to those who lead with civility with civility in kind and vice verse.
MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Of course I do not lead with attacks & only respond in kind, myself.
I am not above calling someone an a-hole etc.
My perception is that you keep it going much longer than necessary.
IMO your bull-dog attack, in defense or not, does not win anyone to your side.
You treat people with a lot of disdain here, for reasons that seem pretty petty.
Being haughty from the get go doesn’t make any friends.

She’s different. She’s not like them. That’s all that it takes.Why do you think there’s not more hatred towards Huck over the Maurice Clemmons scandal? Or why isn’t there more anger towards Romney over his advocacy of socialized medicine? Figure that out, and you’ll be closer than most of us to understanding the national mood.

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM

I agree. This is what I see.
All kinds of people spew vindectives at her. If I never listenend to anything she actually said or did, I would assume she is a ditz, moron, crazy b#$%^, etc.
But she isn’t like that at all.
Their characterization of her belies any known facts of her.
This vision they have painted of her couldn’t be further from the truth.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:27 PM

If you disagree with “The Palin Doctrine” tell us why and what you would substitute in its place or whether you are a neo-con.

technopeasant on May 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Yes. Please.
I don’t care what you are, just tell me what is so bad & wrong about what she has proposed. For anything.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Becoming the laughing stock of the rabid delusional Palinista’s is a badge of honor. lol Thanks!

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Isn’t that rich? You are the rabid one. I can practically see you foaming at the mouth as you furiously type your anti-Palin diatribes. You are obsessed with Palin. A reasonable person doesn’t need to spend so much time attacking someone or their supporters. You are deranged.

ReneePA on May 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Isn’t that rich? You are the rabid one. I can practically see you foaming at the mouth as you furiously type your anti-Palin diatribes. You are obsessed with Palin. A reasonable person doesn’t need to spend so much time attacking someone or their supporters. You are deranged.

ReneePA on May 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

csdeven has been posting here since at least June, 2007. He acted deranged then and he acts deranged now. Just goes to show that sometimes meds don’t work. :-)

NoNails on May 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM

rabid delusional Palinista’s
csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Bcs I like her this is how you characterize me?
I am a reasonable person, open to ideas & other potential candidates.
Who do you have that is better & on what grounds?
And what has Plain done that is so terrible that she, & all of us who like her, deserve such derision?

A reasonable person doesn’t need to spend so much time attacking someone or their supporters.
ReneePA on May 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

THIS.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

And what has Plain done that is so terrible that she, & all of us who like her, deserve such derision?

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

She quit.

That’s it.

That’s the one disqualifying factor that the rabid Palin haters can all agree on.

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:42 PM

If you disagree with “The Palin Doctrine” tell us why and what you would substitute in its place or whether you are a neo-con.

technopeasant on May 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Yes. Please.
I don’t care what you are, just tell me what is so bad & wrong about what she has proposed. For anything.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM

There is no problem with it and they know it. The “problem” is that it is good and enhances her brand thus further endangering the great establishment hope that is Daniels. Why are anti-socons pro squish and ABP? Because they incorrectly assume she is a hardcore socon and think if she gets in power she is going to pass fresh anti-sodomy legislation or make them go to church on Sunday or something.

Kataklysmic on May 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Because they incorrectly assume she is a hardcore socon and think if she gets in power she is going to pass fresh anti-sodomy legislation or make them go to church on Sunday or something.

Kataklysmic on May 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I’m beginning to wonder.
And of course she is nothing like that.
I just cannot figure out the animosity.
The only conclusion I can come to is what someone else already said here: she’s threatening to the old school GOP base.
Just like she was to the old boy’s club GOP in AK.
Well if this is where it’s coming from, then I’m more for her than I ever was before.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Because they incorrectly assume she is a hardcore socon and think if she gets in power she is going to pass fresh anti-sodomy legislation or make them go to church on Sunday or something.

Kataklysmic on May 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Indeed. What kind of woman has a Downs Syndrome baby, anyway?/

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM

You are correct. I was addressing what I assume to be the reason that anti-socons like MJBrutus oppose her. As for why the Establishment opposes her, it is for the reasons you stated.

Kataklysmic on May 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM

For an unelectable, stupid QUITTER!!!!11!!!!, there sure are a lot of trolls running up the comment count!

This crap has been going on ALL NIGHT and into the afternoon.

Uh, Palin hating trolls, you prove us Palinista’s point. NO ONE expends this amount of effort trying to take down a LOSER.

Palin will be our next President. Accept it, don’t except it, who cares. It is what it is.

She’ll be President, America will be in good hands, and we’ll all be happy, well except you trolls, of course. Your life is miserable now, it will be miserable then. Of course, your life has always been miserable, so nothing changes.

Maybe you should spend more time trying not to be miserable rather than worrying about Sarah Palin.

She’s doing just fine, will be President, and all of the caterwauling in the world with have no effect on this whatsoever.

gary4205 on May 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Their characterization of her belies any known facts of her.
This vision they have painted of her couldn’t be further from the truth.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:27 PM

You probably weren’t with us four years ago when Mitt Romney announced in 2006 or ’07. csdeven magically appeared and started trying to lay waste to any other candidate — especially Fred Thompson — who looked like they were an actual conservative. Now here we are again, within days or a week or so of Mitt Romney declaring his intention to run by committee formation, and voila! Here is csdeven, again trying to lay waste to anyone who looks more conservative than Mitt. (which, really, is almost everyone in the field.)

cs has a penchant for drivel and for repeating memes over and over and over again, and also for calling anyone who disagrees morons, dummies, *istas, hacks, you name it.

Don’t try to argue with her/him. (still not convinced of the gender.) It just gets you the neener-neener-neener with the repeat of the meme in all caps and bolded. Again and again and again and again.

MJBrutus, OTH, I’m guessing is an astroturfer. Seems to have a fairly good vocabulary, but still has to shout and bold his meme over and over and over and over and over and over again. Either we’re all too stupid to agree with him, or he’s a plant, watered in his own bile and vituperation.

So while it’s fun to whack them with the commonsense arguments and expect a change in behavior, it’s highly unlikely.

Hence, the only admonishment, Don’t feed the trolls — unless you have nothing better to do.

Tennman on May 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM

He has Sarah Palin living in his itty bitty head. He’s been posting for 16 hours straight ….

idesign on May 4, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Hopefully (for Brutus’ sake) whomever this clown is working for is paying for the quantity rather than the quality of his work.

bw222 on May 4, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:27 PM

It’s my version of the “Palin doctrine.” When a bully picks a fight, fight back forcefully enough to make them want to stop.

bw222 on May 4, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Boy, I wish I were getting paid.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM

It’s my version of the “Palin doctrine.” When a bully picks a fight, fight back forcefully enough to make them want to stop.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM

So people who support Palin are bullies?
People are responding to you acting like an elitist pr!ck.
You are actually the bully.
I find it amazing I have to point this out to you.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I find it amazing I have to point this out to you.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Trolls normally lack in the ability to reflect on themselves…

ladyingray on May 4, 2011 at 3:39 PM

There is no problem with it and they know it. The “problem” is that it is good and enhances her brand thus further endangering the great establishment hope that is Daniels. Why are anti-socons pro squish and ABP? Because they incorrectly assume she is a hardcore socon and think if she gets in power she is going to pass fresh anti-sodomy legislation or make them go to church on Sunday or something.

Kataklysmic on May 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I am actually a pro choice Libertarian but Palin is my choice because she has integrity and because America is more important than my uterus.

ReneePA on May 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

I can practically see you foaming at the mouth as you furiously type your anti-Palin diatribes.

ReneePA on May 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Hahahaha!!! You’re projecting! The only rabid people here are the delusional Palinista’s.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

No, bullies are bullies. And if you want me to be uncivil with you, keep up the provocation. I won’t be bullied by you. OTOH, if you want to talk civilly (my preference), then stop being a bully.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I am actually a pro choice Libertarian but Palin is my choice because she has integrity and because America is more important than my uterus.

ReneePA on May 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

I have enjoyed your comments many times. Glad to have you on our side.

Kataklysmic on May 4, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Bcs I like her this is how you characterize me?
I am a reasonable person, open to ideas & other potential candidates

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

I’m glad you bring this up because it is a huge problem on many topics. I do not believe everyone who likes Sarah is a Palinista. I like Sarah, and I am certainly not a Palinista as I define them.

I suppose the short answer is: If I’m not describing your beliefs, then I’m not criticizing them.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 4:13 PM

No, bullies are bullies. And if you want me to be uncivil with you, keep up the provocation. I won’t be bullied by you. OTOH, if you want to talk civilly (my preference), then stop being a bully.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I’m not bullying you at all.
I am stating that you are behaving badly. You are being a big nasty jerk to a lot of people here on HA.
You have extremely bad manners, IMO.
If you are going to call me nasty names & be ‘uncivil’ to me bcs I am pointing out your rotten behavior, then fling away.
I do not find your nastiness acceptable.
I think you are a bully in the way that you treat some people here.

Palinista as I define them.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 4:13 PM

What are you saying a Palinista is?
I don’t think she has done anything wrong. I do not think she is a quitter, etc.
What makes a person this Palinista in your eyes?

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 4:25 PM

And if you want me to be uncivil with you, keep up the provocation.
MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 4:03 PM

BTW-bullies threaten people when they point out their behavior.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I like Sarah,………

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 4:13 PM

I think you’re a liar. You show no empathy to her regarding why she resigned. If you truly liked her, your attitude would be different. If you liked her, you wouldn’t have hijacked this thread to pizz and moan about her being a quitter.

NoNails on May 4, 2011 at 4:36 PM

What are you saying a Palinista is?
I don’t think she has done anything wrong. I do not think she is a quitter, etc.
What makes a person this Palinista in your eyes?

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 4:25 PM

The Palin detractors say:

It’s not that I dislike Sarah. It’s that I dislike her supporters.

The Palin supporters say:

It’s not that I like Sarah. It’s that I dislike her detractors.

gryphon202 on May 4, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Palin came out today and demanded that Jeebus release the photographs of Osama’s Last Pizza Delivery.

Meantime, the Establishment’s Jesus’, Mitch Daniels, said he wasn’t ready to stand up to Obama in a debate today.

Facepalm City. Meanwhile, Palin is out there all alone, with her sword and shield, taking the fight to the Administration.

Daniels is the Shiny New Toy the Establishment is trying to foist on us as the Next Reagan.

And he admits, in public, that he’s not ready to take the fight to Obama.

Epic Fail.

victor82 on May 4, 2011 at 5:22 PM

If you liked her, you wouldn’t have hijacked this thread to pizz and moan about her being a quitter.

NoNails on May 4, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I tend to agree.
I, for instance, like Romney, but think he’s a bad choice for POTUS. But seems to be a hell of a nice guy.
I don’t slam the hell out of him. Just do not want him in the race.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 4:34 PM

For post after post, one after another, I have been pleading with you to not go down this road. I have been asking only that you not provoke me. You cannot do that, and yet you find the gall to lecture me. You are a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being.

Now please play the innocent victim for me. Do your little monkey dance.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

I have been pleading with you to not go down this road. I have been asking only that you not provoke me. You cannot do that, and yet you find the gall to lecture me. You are a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being.
Now please play the innocent victim for me. Do your little monkey dance.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

You didn’t plead at all.
You threatened me like I am some kind of dog.
Pray tell what is it you think you are going to do to me?
I am : a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being bcs I am pointing out your nasty behavior regarding the treatment of others here on HA?
You are extremely childish.
You elevate yourself to a queer pedestal:you find the gall to lecture me
Yes I find the gall to lecture you.
I have every right to.
If you don’t like it, go somewhere else you petulant child.
No one said you had to respond to me.
I am responding to your attacks on other people.
You are full of violent rhetoric.
You are a threatening bully.
You are threatening me bcs I am pointing out your nasty behavior.
You are certainly free to ignore me.
If you find my questions & analysis of your behavior provoking, that’s too darned bad.
Grow a thick skin & get over it.
And it surely would be nice if you stopped being such a nasty person.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 6:09 PM

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

You’re a pitiful individual.

kingsjester on May 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

you give people too much power over yourself…

ladyingray on May 4, 2011 at 6:28 PM

you give people too much power over yourself…

ladyingray on May 4, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Actually very well said.
You are so right.
People say things on here that have made me mad & by responding the way MJB has, it reduces the value of your argument.
A lot of times when someone has pointed out something I did, I inwardly respond with irritation. But I try & step back & see where they’re coming from.
I know I don’t always succeed in that, but we should all try & do that.
My criticism is warranted in this case.
And I just proved my point MJB is a nasty bully bcs this comment is so out of line it isn’t even funny:

You are a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being.

What a bizarre thing for someone to say.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 6:32 PM

This just in……

CNN poll reveals Palin negatives higher than Satan!

PappyD61 on May 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

You are a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being.

What a bizarre thing for someone to say.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 6:32 PM

It’s an extremely bizarre thing for someont to say to a person they don’t even know…

ladyingray on May 4, 2011 at 6:45 PM

For post after post, one after another, I have been pleading with you to not go down this road. I have been asking only that you not provoke me. You cannot do that, and yet you find the gall to lecture me. You are a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being.

Now please play the innocent victim for me. Do your little monkey dance.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Are you still at it? Good grief. LOL I hope you’re getting paid overtime.

pseudoforce on May 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

WOW! All this over the criticism of Palin abdicating her governorship. Abdication, resign, quit, gave up, yield, relinquish…..call it what you may, the explanations have too many counter arguments to each justification to make it an easy issue for Palin to overcome. Many people, especially indies, are tired of long drawn out convoluted explanations from politicians. She will appear weak and deceptive and that will be enough.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM

For post after post, one after another, I have been pleading with you to not go down this road.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

When the conversation moves from the defense of Sarah to ad hominem attacks, you know the thread discussion is over. This thread was done pages ago. This does set the stage for the GOP primaries. But the discussion of Sarah as a candidate will cease because she will not run. The Palinista’s will then become the “If only Sarah __________________” (insert comment) voices. Her role will be that of a guidepost for the rest of the field. The will be vying for her endorsement.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 7:11 PM

When the conversation moves from the defense of Sarah to ad hominem attacks, you know the thread discussion is over. This thread was done pages ago. This does set the stage for the GOP primaries. But the discussion of Sarah as a candidate will cease because she will not run. The Palinista’s will then become the “If only Sarah __________________” (insert comment) voices. Her role will be that of a guidepost for the rest of the field. The will be vying for her endorsement.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 7:11 PM

I was threatened bcs I was calling MJB’s behavior what it is: obnoxious & uncalled for.
Birds of a feather my friend.
You don’t make the best case for yourself regarding Sarah.
You like her, but bash her incessantly & all who support her.
It’s bizarre.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 7:20 PM

In all seriousness, the response to the “quitter” argument is to ask what you would have done in her place.

You are constrained by law from defending yourself using any but your own funds.

You have already built up more in legal bills than your entire term’s salary responding to frivolous complaints.

Your state government is having to constantly waste time and money on the silly things.
You can:
1. Engage in the type of political self-dealing you fought against since you first ran for Wasilla City Council
2. Hunker down, sit down, and shut up, hoping it will all go away.
3. Resign and continue your fight outside office.

Those are the only choices she had. What would YOU have done in Palin’s place?

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on May 4, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Abdication, resign, quit, gave up, yield, relinquish…..call it what you may, the explanations have too many counter arguments to each justification to make it an easy issue for Palin to overcome. Many people, especially indies, are tired of long drawn out convoluted explanations from politicians. She will appear weak and deceptive and that will be enough.

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I think she had a good reason for resigning.
Since she had to defend every suit at her own expense, it’s clear you feel she should have bankrupted herself, her family, & paralyzed the governorship for the sake of ‘not quitting’.
She made a decision.
I think it is justified.
You clearly do not.
I do not think the alternatives were rational.
You clearly do.
And you continue to vilify those of us who support her decision as ‘Palinistas’.
Alinsky is proud of you, I’m sure.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Those are the only choices she had. What would YOU have done in Palin’s place?

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on May 4, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I certainly would have quit. WTH else was there to do?
The whole thing was ridiculous what she had to put up with.
And they got away with it.
That’s the sad & scary part.
Meanwhile, you’ve got people like csdeven who excoriate her to hell & back for doing probably the only reasonable & sane thing anyone could have done.
Was she supposed to go down in flames & take everyone with her, never to fight another day?
It’s ridiculous to suggest so.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 7:27 PM

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 7:48 PM

God bless her.

kingsjester on May 4, 2011 at 7:50 PM

I came here to work hard,” Todd said. “There’s no point in being here if you’re not going to work hard.”

After getting a safety briefing and talking with volunteers, the Palins joined a crew assisting homeowner J.L. Price. The couple helped haul off brush and debris, and with the rest of the crew, prayed with Mr. Price.

“It feels great to be working out here,” Sarah said. “I hope more people sign up with Samaritan’s Purse so they can be blessed like I am today.”

http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Samaritans_Purse_Today/

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 8:11 PM

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Wouldn’t it feel wonderful to be able to go down & help those people?
I would love that.
Well helping out in disasters here at home, you still get that feeling.

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Palin again leads. WTF more do you skeptics need?

DaMav on May 4, 2011 at 9:14 PM

On and on it goes.

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 10:20 PM

On and on it goes.

Brian1972 on May 4, 2011 at 10:20 PM

LMAO!

Badger40 on May 4, 2011 at 10:30 PM

In all seriousness, the response to the “quitter” argument is to ask what you would have done in her place.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on May 4, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Well, really, the response to the “quitter” argument is to ignore it. Everyone knows why she quit.

pseudoforce on May 4, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Now please play the innocent victim for me. Do your little monkey dance.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Point proven…

Gohawgs on May 5, 2011 at 2:41 AM

csdeven on May 4, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Sheesh. Most, not all, personal attacks come from the the non-Palin supporters. If you have a prefered candidate, promote that candidate in a rational tone. That’s what VFT and Chris do when talking about Huck. Terrie does the same for Daniels…

Gohawgs on May 5, 2011 at 2:49 AM

The palinbots behave like a bunch of 13 year olds at a Hanna Montana show…

Bradky on May 5, 2011 at 6:17 AM

The palinbots behave like a bunch of 13 year olds at a Hanna Montana show…

Bradky on May 5, 2011 at 6:17 AM

….and you make sure you have your front row tickets every time, don’t ya?

Brian1972 on May 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Brian1972 on May 5, 2011 at 7:39 AM

Yep. He and Bruti take turns using the computer at the Nurses’ station.

kingsjester on May 5, 2011 at 7:57 AM

Let’s face facts. The reason the trolls are still around and distracting from Palin’s speech is because in the speech Gov Palin called for the total rejection of the neocons New World Order and a return to American exceptionalism as our guiding foreign policy. And the trolls and neocons know without a doubt that that policy is the majority of what Americans believe.

unseen on May 4, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Yes indeed. Back to basics. This country needs a review. It happens from time to time when people do not pay attention to history and actually learn from it.

ReneePA on May 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM

For post after post, one after another, I have been pleading with you to not go down this road. I have been asking only that you not provoke me. You cannot do that, and yet you find the gall to lecture me. You are a truly broken, damaged, irreparably flawed excuse for a human being.

Now please play the innocent victim for me. Do your little monkey dance.

MJBrutus on May 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Project much? You seem incapable of reasonable civil discourse. Perhaps your time would be better spent in therapy? Resorting to childish name calling results in the adults in the room not taking you or any point that you are trying to make seriously.

ReneePA on May 5, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Palin again leads. WTF more do you skeptics need?

DaMav on May 4, 2011 at 9:14 PM

They think that they need to be right but in reality adopting an attitude of humility would serve them a lot better. Probably a slim to none chance that will happen though… but you never know.

ReneePA on May 5, 2011 at 9:19 AM

The palinbots behave like a bunch of 13 year olds at a Hanna Montana show…

Bradky on May 5, 2011 at 6:17 AM

Really? I don’t see a lot of evidence of that. What I do see are people who genuinely care about this country defending a person of integrity who other people are attempting to slander and destroy.

ReneePA on May 5, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

unseen on May 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I am beginning to think, ESPECIALLY after seeing the Daniels thread, that the only reason Palin gets slammed is bcs she has a wag!na.

Badger40 on May 5, 2011 at 7:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8