« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why she’s resigning: A warrior must be mobile

Sarah Palin aims her guns at the leftist media

By: Josh Painter (Diary)  |  July 5th, 2009 at 12:37 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

From Gov. Palin via Twitter:

See letter from my attorney on baseless allegations of past 24hrs @ http://tinyurl.com/l4ct5n(excerpt)

The Palin-hating left has been salivating this weekend over lies that began at an Alaska ankle biter website, percolated up to the national nutroots and got mentioned on several major liberal media outlets.

At Conservatives 4 Palin, Mel traces the genesis of the rumors through the land of the loonies. Start at the bottom of the post and read up.

In a telephone interview with Josh Meyer of the LA Times, an FBI spokesman in Alaska dismissed the leftist lies that an FBI investigation of Sarah Palin on public corruption charges was the reason she will resign:

“There is absolutely no truth to those rumors, that we’re investigating her or getting ready to indict her,” Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. “It’s just not true.”

Gonzalez added that there was “no wiggle room” in his comments that could exclude any kind of probe.

The letter (full text here) from Gov. Palin’s lawyer calls out the Palin-hating bloggers and major media outlets by name:

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

Although the letter is being mocked by hateful leftists such as the Kos Kidz as mere saber rattling, it serves a purpose. Sarah Plain is putting the nutroots and the liberal media on notice. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who suffered such attacks in silence and allowed the left to define him, she will stand up for herself and her family, and in so doing she is defining herself as a fighter who stands up for what matters to her.

This is one of the reasons Gov. Palin is resigning her state office. With the burden of office put in Sean Parnell’s hands to carry out the Palin agenda in Alaska, she will soon have the time to devote to such a battle. And, with the income from her book deal and possible speaking fees she will be able to earn once free of the demands of the governor’s office, she will be guaranteed to have the resources fighting such a battle requires. But above all, modern warfare demands that the warrior must be mobile. Unencumbered by local demand that Alaska’s governor must be tethered to the state, Sarah Palin, as a former governor, will be free to maneuver.

- JP

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    Sarah has a knack for timing. And the fact that nothing was leaked about her resignation says a lot. The MSM will be running in retreat mode itself. Watch for many wackos and loonies to come out of the woodwork.

  • mbecker908

    Please take some time and respond to smagar’s diary.

    You’ve been posting in support of Gov Palin for some time now, including pushing her fund raising activities to pay her “legal bills”. Please explain why she needs to personally retain outside counsel and why she needs to raise upwards of $500,000 to pay legal bills that the State of AK should be paying.

    The details are all layed out for you, please comment.

    • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

      I just came from contributing to Sarah Palin?s Legal Defense Fund at http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com after doing a little investigation and I?ll make this a mini-FAQ to set forth and answer some of the many posts and comments I have seen here.

      First, to answer the question if there is a legal defense fund for Palin the answer is yes, and the official one appears to be at http://www.thealaskafundtrust.com

      Sarah?s official (SarahPAC), semi-official, and fan sites all seem to link to this site. It does declare that it is the official site.

      By googling ?Palin Legal Defense Fund? I discovered not only the fund web site itself but also news reports stating that the fund has already raised over $100,000 in one week.

      Note that anybody can set up a trust anywhere and declare that the purpose of the trust is to pay Palin?s (or anybody else?s) legal fees. Or for any other legal purpose. But the purpose we are discussing is a legal defense fund for Palin and an official one does exist. The Alaska Fund Trust was organized and filed as a legal entity in the state of Alaska, curiously enough. Sarah Palin (not ?the Governor of Alaska?) is explicitly named as a ?Covered Individual? who can benefit from the trust. Other ?Covered Individuals? may benefit from the trust, too, at the trustee?s discretion. No others are named in the original document however. Note that Sarah could throw a screaming fit against this idea, but it would not prevent such a trust from being organized. Trust organizers, after all, have civil rights, too.

      The sole trustee and settlor in the trust document is declared to be Kristan Cole who is a real estate broker in Wasilla. She appears to be a business and community leader in the area if you google her name. She appears to have done all the legal organization of the trust on her own (besides the attys and witnesses, notaries, etc. needed to make the trust instrument fully legal). I would have found a couple of extra trustees to serve with me, but I have no argument against a single trustee.

      As I note above, anybody can set up a trust for any legal purpose and even if Palin wanted to, she could not prevent friends or even strangers from setting up a trust to raise funds for her benefit. It is currently, ?somewhat? of a free country, although we see that rapidly diminishing!

      Examining the trust document available on the web site, I did not delve too deeply into it, but simply satisfied myself that Palin herself is not one of the trustees. She is not. There is only one trustee and that is Cole.

      I?d also note at this point that unless Palin was foresighted enough to include such a provision in her agreement to retain legal the services that the State of Alaska cannot provide for her, her counsel probably has the option to accept payments on her behalf against her legal bills at their own option. I know I would be pleased to do so if I were representing her. They would then render her a credit on her next bill and her legal fee balance owing would be reduced accordingly. I would not be at all surprised if this turns out to be the eventual case for most of the firms representing her (there may be more than one, as there are so many ethics complaints).

      One very nice feature of the AFT web site is that the visitor is given the opportunity to compare the Alaska Fund Trust with the trusts creating the legal defense funds of Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Stevens, DeLay and Gephardt. According to the web site?s claim, no other legal defense fund compared has more restrictions on who can contribute, or how much, than AFT does, and the presented comparison does indeed seem to be accurate.

      I highly recommend reading the list of restrictions on contributing to AFT. It is obviously intended to be a grassroots effort and is so structured.

      The contribution limit is $150.00 and contributions are accepted ONLY from individuals, not companies, PACs, unions or other entities.

      Why should we expect her to have to rely on a legal defense fund?
      Because if she establishes a record of paying the lion?s share of the legal fees herself, then the liberal exploding heads will shout with glee and file even more trivial ethics complaints and eventually bankrupt her. Everybody else uses legal defense funds, and so should she.

      Why isn?t the State of Alaska paying her legal bills?
      Because that would produce even more ethics complaints against her. No sense in inviting more trouble. Politicians must defend themselves from most ethics complaints, and you can bet that the complaints actually filed are designed to be ones that the State of Alaska is legally prevented from defending her from.

      After all, if you were Soros or one of his clever minions, would you not prefer to file ethics complaints where Alaska law says defendants cannot be defended with public funds? If you were the attorney filing such a complaint would you expect to get such work again if you chose a complaint that could be defended with public funds? Would you be considered worthy of your fee if you did not advise your liberal exploding head client that the proposed complaint could be defended with public monies before the complaint was actually filed?

      C?mon folks, think! The other guys obviously are. I think those atty types call this due diligence.

      Why does she need outside counsel?
      Because defending against ethics charges is a process of law, and you need your own attorneys to investigate the facts, gather testimony, investigate the opposition, discover documents that relate to the defense, and refute documents that incline towards the opposition. You can?t use phone bank volunteers to do this, you must have attorneys to file answers in court for you. In most states, only ‘officers of the court’ are allowed to make official filings with any measure of credibility.

      As stated above, trying to get the State of Alaska to defend her would result in even more ethics complaints and would be a good example of a self-licking ice cream cone.

      In a final google search to determine if there were any counterfeit sites claiming falsely to be the official Palin defense fund site, I did not discover any apparent imposters, but I did discover a report on the Huffington Post that an ethics complaint had been filed in Alaska against Gov. Sarah Palin that her legal defense fund is in itself an ethics violation (it is not ? if Clinton, Clinton, Rangel, Dodd, Kerry and all the others can have legal defense funds accepting $10,000 – $15,000 a pop from anyone including corporations, unions and so forth, then Sarah can have one accepting $150 from individuals only. Besides, Sarah could not have prevented organization of this trust even if she had wanted to!!) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/palin-legal-fund-challeng_n_192044.html).

      This complaint shows just how far the opposition will go to try to paralyze the Palin administration. I think she was wise to resign, whatever her ambitions for service or privacy may be in the future.

      Alaska can back to the enjoyable task of being Alaska now.

      I think we would be very wise to contribute to her defense fund if we would like to see her in public life in the future.

      Ron Robinson

      • mbecker908

        Oh yeah, they were. But nothing compared to this cult.

        You people – and I use that term very loosely – are simply pathetic.

      • mbecker908

        You make up in word count what you lack in factual content. RonPaulbots did the same thing. Your posts studiously avoid factual information for the sake of the facts, you concentrate on taking a point and expanding it until you can just feel it’s right. Either that or you flat out lie.

        Your whole treatise on the Palin Defense fund is an absolute lie. The mechanism for having the State defend ethics charges is built into the law. All the Governor had to do was ask the AG to certify that she was acting within the purview of her official duties as Governor and the State indemnifies the Governor – or any other state official.

        The very idea that you would try and pass off the notion that she’s done the State a favor by not requesting certification from the AG is simply stupid and the idea that private citizens should pay for her legal defense, diverting money that could better go to Republicans trying to win House and Senate seats is absolutely insulting.

        Indemnification for official actions is not some unique concept to Alaska. You fools act like nobody’s ever heard of indemnification. It’s common at every state, the federal level, cities and towns indemnify their police officers and every corporation of any size indemnifies their directors and officers. Typically, the only reason any jurisdiction or corporation will not indemnify their officers is if the officer is guilty of a crime or of acting in bad faith.

  • Josh Painter

    It’s for the Alaska Governor’s Office, i.e., whoever holds the office and members of the governor’s staff. Under AK’s inconsistent ethics laws, the state’s governor and aides do not have the additional protections that state legislators do.

    For example, if you file an ethics complaint against a legislator in Alaska, you cannot publicize it like Biegel, McLeod and their cronies do. But if you file against the governor or one or more of the governor’s staff, you can pimp it to the nutroots hoping that MSDNC, HuffPo and such pick it up. It’s a very effective tool for getting negative publicity out against a political opponent.

    I’m not a legal eagle, but AFIK, after Sarah Palin resigns, she will no longer have access to AFT funds. Until the legislature changes the ethics laws in AK making the filing of an ethics complaint a “loser pays”.proposition, there will be a need for AFT.

    - JP

    • mbecker908

      You’re better than this.

      1. See here for the mechanism to refer legal defense to the AKAG. It’s really very simple.

      2. “Publicity” has nothing to do with this. She’s a public figure and can get virtually unlimited publicity via her own press room, not to mention the conservative blogs. It’s also hardball politics. If you want to play, you’ve got to be willing to go to war.

      3. As far as her resignation is concerned, that has only had something to do with this, at most for one day. And, in point of fact, if the AKAG or the state ethics office found that her actions were consistent with her duties as Governor they would be legally bound to defend her whether she was in office or not. Additionally, with that finding, if there were fines levied the State would be on the hook for them not her.

      Try again. This wasn’t even close to coherent.

      • Vegas_Rick
        • mbecker908

          The AK legislature put the system in place and funded it to protect office holders and employees from frivolous legal charges. It’s nothing more than my receiving as standard policy, legal protection from a corporation Director or an officer for a decision or policy I make on behalf of the corporation.

          It’s standard practice.

          • Vegas_Rick

            said today on Fox News that the state had already spent over $2 million to defend the 15 ethics complaints that were already dismissed. Because there is no penalty for submitting baseless complaints, and since all of the complaints must be investigated and potentially defended, there is no end in sight. This could cost the state millions more over the next year and a half.

            Is saving the state this money not a worthy motivation?

          • mbecker908

            and defend those complaints. That money will be spent anyway. If you (Kings “you”, not you, VR) don’t want the money spent by the State that’s a matter for the legislature to address.

            I don’t know for sure, but I’d place a pretty big bet on the fact that the law in AK is not appreciably different that it is in any other state.

          • Vegas_Rick

            nt

          • mbecker908

            The “fund” is several months old.

            Plus the fact that, assuming her actions were consistent with her position, the State should pay the legal bill. That’s current law. If they don’t like it, they should make it more difficult or more expensive to file ethics charges. I like “loser pays” for this crap. In the Governor’s place, most of the charges would never have been filed with LP.

            Oh, and while I have nothing but supposition to go on, don’t bet on the investigations going away.

  • Josh Painter

    I agree with Palin that it would not be right to “sacrifice public monies” to defend against something as politically motivated as bogus ethics complaints.

    - JP

    • mbecker908

      the most misdirected comment ever at RS. It’s worse than your first try.

      • Josh Painter

        You asked for a response and I gave you one. It’s perfectly valid, but since it doesn’t help to sustain your obsession with dissing Palin, you come back with a load of manure about it “not being worthy” of me.

        Sorry, but I won’t let you troll me into a food fight over the defense fund. It’s of little consequence now. Talk about “misdirection,” LOL.
        I’ve watched you, Art and your small minority of RS members pull that stunt too may times.

        You have your answer from me, and if you don’t like, that’s your problem, not mine.

        End of discussion on this particular attempted threadjack.

        - JP

        • mbecker908

          But your response completely evaded the question. It was crap.

          We’ll see what happens. Don’t be surprised if your Madonna has feet of clay.

          Oh, and you are a ‘bot.

          • Josh Painter

            Wy do the Palin-obsessed always resort to name-calling? perhaps the answer can be found in a quotation:

            “If you can’t answer a man’s argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” –Elbert Hubbard

            - JP

          • mbecker908

            Let me know when – or if – you ever figure out her legal situation.

          • Maggie_in_Indiana

            that is useful to children,”stciks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt you.” by my Mom….. lol

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            When you call Josh a bot, that calls into question the integrity of the whole site, and especially of our decision makers who decide who gets to be on the front page.

            So please don’t.

        • Tbone

          :-)

  • 6eorge Jetson

    is to root out the Vichy Republicans and the liberal bias in the MSM.

    That might be sorta worthwhile.

    • mbecker908

      First of all, the only way the “Vichy” Rs leave is that we get involved in the Party and take it from the bottom up. No one person can do that. She can certainly be a motivator, but we’ll just have to wait and see what her agenda is.

      Second, with respect to the MSM, they’ve been outed for years. There’s nothing she can do about them. Wanna change the MSM? Buy some news outlets.

      • Maggie_in_Indiana

        to protest too much may leave egg on some faces. We’ll see.

      • penguin2

        buy them out. They continue to inflect heavy damage while they are gasping for their last breath.

        My wishful thinking of them having a hasty/nasty demise doesn’t seem to be working. Even though we all know how biased and dishonest they are.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        Maybe elbow out would be a better term.

        And as to the Vichy Rs, the fundraising star can have considerable influence over where the funding goes.

  • Josh Painter

    The same Palin critcs on the right who have criticized her for not being enough of a fiscal conservative are now criticizing her for not wanting to waste state money on frivolous ethics complaints.

    - JP

    • aesthete

      First, FisCons do believe that there are legitimate uses for public funds and government intervention, and defending our politicians from fraudulent or libelous lawsuits is one of them. I’m with beck on loser pays, but if there’s another mechanism in place, I don’t see the problem. Your argument is akin to the one made by liberals that goes something like, “If you hate government/spending/public education so much, why don’t you just not run for office/not work for the government/stop going to college?”, as if that’s a fair representation of our argument.

      And in case I missed it, I don’t see that Frmr. Gov. Palin had that much trouble spending money on public works. Therefore, the question is still valid: why does she prefer to raise money through a fund that could go towards other uses, rather than using Alaskan funds? After all, if she is such a boon for the state, would it not be a worthwhile investment on the part of its citizens to protect her from frivolous lawsuits, or at least more worth it than government funded local projects? BTW, I don’t know the answer to those questions, good or bad, but none of the answers I’ve seen given by Palin supporters who have ventured to give it a shot so far have made much sense (except for the intellectually honest IDK answers), so it’s rather absurd for such to preemptively declare victory in the argument.

    • ocleverone
  • Tbone

    Cut free from being shackled to the Governor?s desk of a remote state, she can travel the country, drawing huge crowds of donors for a whole slew of Republican candidates, at all levels, racking up favors, while developing her vision and communicating her messages.

    She can be a regular on the talking heads shows and develop working relationships with the political horses she needs for a run in ?12.

    She is the only Republican that the Obama Administration HAS to respond to whatever she says and she can put them on the defensive for a major policy with a single TV appearance.

    She can raise tons of money for her own run as well.

    Anyone who thinks she is not already a major political force in the US and will gain in strength now that she can step back onto the national stage is a fool.

    The Democrats will lose at least the House in 2010 making the already faltering Obama an irrelevant lame duck increasingly likened to the monumentally failed Carter administration that became the contrast for the rise of Ronald Reagan.

    And yes I will mock you Palin doubters without mercy as this becomes evident to even those whose political density is only exceed by their ability to generate text without substance.

  • mbecker908

    Guess we’ll see just how well it works this time. I would encourage you to hold your breath.

    • Vegas_Rick
      • mbecker908

        was that he was a “one term wonder” there is some comparison. Over the next couple of years there may be some policy issues pop up as well.

        We’ll see.

        • Vegas_Rick
    • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

      in both word and deed as governor?

      sorry, I couldn’t resist…

    • janis

      enthusiasm that Sarah Palin does on his best day, so there’s not much use in comparing the two politicians. I have no idea what Gov. Palin will do now or why exactly she is doing this. But one fact is without dispute and that is that Sarah Palin has the ability to speak to people in a way that resonates deeply.

      Depending on how that gift is used, it is either a blessing or a curse. Along with a lot of other folks, I’m just interested to see what comes next for her and her family. For myself, it’s just not necessary to answer all the questions RIGHT NOW!!!!! Frankly, it’s pretty silly on both sides to get so adamant about what she’s going to do now, why she did this, whether or not she has a chance in the future for national office, and to also pass judgment on how this one choice dooms her chance for all time.

      It’s only been a little over 48 hours since she made the announcement. Do you think we could wait a few weeks or so to see how things are shaking out?

    • Swamp_Yankee

      Many people around here harbor much hostility towards Romney, but if you look at the facts objectively Romney ran a pretty good campaign.

      He got out there early, was well organized and raised a lot of money. His name recognition was near zero. He polled in the single digits. But he steadily outpaced all others to become a Charlie Crist endorsement away form winnning Florida and probabably the race. Then it was the McCain-Huckabee nexus that threw him in WV.

      What people forget is that Rudy was a national houehold name, America’s mayor. John McCain ran in 2004, was a household name and a media darling. Fred Thompson was a U.S. Senator and an actor who face was on Law & Order almost every day. Huckabee had a bulit-in evangelical base.

      This is not a Romney apology. He was too stiff on the campaign trail. I recognize hisweaknesses. But he gave it a heck of a run for an unknown Morman from Massachusetts.

      • Vegas_Rick

        And he may have been the best potential President of the lot. But he was stiff and seemed to be trying too hard to be liked. He had trouble with the base and never really beat down the flip/flop issue. But, Mitt will be a force in ’12. And, I for one, am glad that he will be one of our choices.

        He would sure beat the hell out of the current occupant of the WH.

        • http://www.redstate.com/britcom/ Britcom

          That he is seen by some as a “social conservative” that Northerners and Westerners can like. But social conservatives actually saw him not as a fellow social conservative, but as a rich country club conservative who just plays a social conservative on TV and who’s track record, CFR membership, and endorsement of Homosexual groups made real social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives vomit.

          Romney can never win the Southern GOP base and probably can’t win the west either.

          • StandardCandle

            Romney is not a member of the CFR, however a paper he wrote was published by them.

            I’m not aware of any homosexual groups he “endorsed”. I’d like to see your information on that.

            finally…

            There isn’t a “Southern GOP base” so much as there is a base of southerners that consider themselves social conservatives that object to Romney on his “recent” conversion to abortion rights…

            all other objections such as the one you’re asserting come from the fringe of southern christians that seem to object to Romney for being a Mormon…

            I feel your comments like this are divisive… imagine you stating that Michael Steele could never carry the “Southern GOP base” because of race… race or religion its bigotry… get a head check man…

          • http://www.redstate.com/britcom/ Britcom

            Read this:
            http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
            and this:
            http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071230/pro-gay-romney-upsets-family-values-leader/index.html

            You say there isn’t a Southern GOP base? … which part of this map don’t you get?
            United States Presidential Election Results Map

            Regarding: CFR.
            Romney’s CFR membership is an open secret. He denies it but surrounds himself with CFR members, appears on their site, and speaks at their functions and tracks with them on issues. He is a very, very close associate of the CFR.

            Regarding “divisive” commentary. Imagine if you had said to libertarians in the GOP; “get over it? the system is beyond your theoretical world, work with what you have to reduce as much government as you can, and if you don?t like it? try another country”. Oh yeah. you did say that didn’t you:
            http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2009/05/22/conservatisms-essential-element/#comment-3768

            And pinning my name on a racist straw man so you can knock him down is not a legitimate response to my pointing out that Romney has no GOP base from which to draw. Republicans just don’t seem to like the man. Now Democrats and the mushy middle in the north on the other hand… Yeah, they love him.

          • StandardCandle

            However, context is an odd thing… it tends to signify and validate intent and meaning… Thank you for the Map… but its “non-sequitur” as is pretty much your entire response.

            as previously stated and for your benefit, and reiterated in context of both analogous and narrative forms:

            You wrote:

            The problem with Romney is… That he is seen by some as a ?social conservative? that Northerners and Westerners can like. But social conservatives actually saw him not as a fellow social conservative…[Romney] madereal social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives vomit

            my emphasis added

            Let’s be clear… the conservative factions within the GOP are generally categorized as Economic conservatives, Defense conservatives and Social conservatives.

            Based on your comments, I deduced that its clear you see the Southern GOP base as a) “THE social conservative movement” and b)that the souther GOP base is ONLY rooted in social conservatism.

            only to be proven correct as you further clarified in your response:

            “Republicans just don?t seem to like the man. Now Democrats and the mushy middle in the north on the other hand? Yeah, they love him.”

            I feel that your premise is false on both counts.

            There are many Westerners and Northners that are social conservatives, and secondarily there are many in the Southern GOP base that are equally if not more so concerned about economic and defense policy than they are about social conservatism.

            I for one do not believe that it is the wisest thing for someone so clearly defined as yourself to pretend to speak for “Republicans” let alone your view of what constitutes “The Southern GOP Base”.

            But so you may rest at ease let me explain for you plainly the context of my message below:

            There isn?t a ?Southern GOP base? so much as there is a base of southerners that consider themselves social conservatives that object to Romney on his ?recent? conversion to abortion rights?

            It was in response to your final statement:

            “Romney can never win the Southern GOP base and probably can?t win the west either.”

            Given the context of your entire comment in which I was replying to was that Romney apparently made “Real Christian Social Conservatives in the South” vomit and therefore they could never vote for him because “Real Christian Social Conservatives in the South” aren’t like “westerners or notherners” that may like Romney… one may come to the conclusion that you view yourself as a “Real Christian Social Conservative in the South” that vomits at the mention of Romney…

            You obviously nailed the CFR claim:

            Regarding: CFR.
            Romney?s CFR membership is an open secret. He denies it but surrounds himself with CFR members, appears on their site, and speaks at their functions and tracks with them on issues. He is a very, very close associate of the CFR.

            Aside from the obvious lack of evidence beyond your arbitrary and anecdotal attempt to paint Romney as some sort of CFR member in cloak and dagger…

            a) Romney has also spoken at many gatherings of social conservatives and if we use your “guilt by association” logic, that would mean that the FRC is only one hop away from the CFR by letting alleged CFR members speak at their conventions. Sound silly doesn’t it?

            The links you provided are to Christian Conservative sites that claim Romney is tied to the homosexual agenda with a host of unchallenged assumptions about his statements using suggestive language to paint Romney as a Gay pride activist… this is plain and simple bias.

            I have many questions in my mind as to why you didn’t just come out and say… “i’m a southern christian that considers himself a real social conservative not like westerners and notherners that claim to be social conservatives… and frankly I vomit at the mention of Romney because I have been led to believe that a) many people suspect he’s a member of the CFR… but I’m not quite sure if he is, only that he talks to “official members” so I’ve heard, but I can’t produce any information specifically on this when I’m asked to, b) he’s politically involved with homosexual groups that have endorsed him such as “Log Cabin Republicans” in his previous political campaigns and this bothers me a great deal to the point that I need to vomit.”…

            Now that I’ve parsed the context of our disagreements in narrative, let’s speak plainly concerning your delusional egotist vision of granduer for yourself…

            Your “racist straw man” argument has nothing to do with the simple analogy of the context of my statement…

            I drew an analogy of bigotry to the real and perceived bias against Romney for his Mormonism in the south using a hypothetical thought experiment… This analogy is appropriate, not in the context of the GOP in the South, but in the context of what YOU are calling the “Southern GOP Base”… note the quotations?

            The “victim card” as you say is not being pulled… and yet, I can’t quite determine if you mean “victim card” in the context of Romney’s mormonism and the bigotry he faces, or the plain bigotry of racism?

            I’m curious if you would hypothetically support a Mormon in a presidential race that you deemed “socially conservative” enough, or is this impossible to conceive for a “Christian Conservative” such as yourself?

            Don’t look at me… It wasn’t me that labored to point out “real social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives”…

            Why… what ever did you mean when you said [Romney] made … especially Christian Conservatives vomit”?

            I’d really like to know that… because

            a) I’m from the West
            b) I’m a social conservative
            c) I’m a Christian
            and
            d) I think Romney is sincere in his conversion to social conservatism

            Although I think 2012 is too far to determine who to endorse… I think if Romney wins the GOP nomination… I can tell you I won’t go kicking and screaming to the polls to vote “not obama”.

            you see… the null hypotheses of your statement…”Romney can never win the Southern GOP base and probably can?t win the west either.”… where the context of your comments would lead one to believe that you view the “Southern GOP Base” as “real social conservatives and especially Christian Conservatives” seems like it doesn’t pass the reality test does it?

            I’ll let you answer for yourself…

            ….

            on a personal note… you claim that I have been divisive based on a comment I made regarding libertarians in the GOP… This is in actuality a straw-man argument…

            the premise of my comments in a previous post were not of division, but inclusion of libertarians with exceptions…to the debate of freedom being the core of the GOP’s re-prioritization.

            you see… many libertarians seem to think that they represent the conservative base to the GOP, however, conservatives know that there are some fundamental differences between conservatives and libertarians… my suggestion to libertarians in the context was if they didn’t like the “two party” system in the U.S. they may attempt to build their social agenda in another country… there’s nothing divisive about that… its reality, and I was suggesting that taking an extremist’s view of individualism won’t win and can’t reverse our glide towards socialism.

            The GOP’s agenda isn’t exactly “divisive” in the context I used it… such as racism or religious bigotry… you see these are divisions in the human condition… not the social contract… this equates to a fundamental difference…

            I think its a little odd that you clearly spent the time reading and combing through my comments looking for a straw-man argument while accusing me of utilizing strawman arguments… weird…

            well… have at this one… I won’t be bothering with another response… such as this… points made and all… if you wish to ask honest questions… you’ll get honest answers… I give you of course the last word if you wish

            One would hope that you don’t view me as the enemy to your ideology.. but one who challenges you to shape and define it more clearly…

            happy blogging… ;)

          • http://www.redstate.com/britcom/ Britcom

            Some Republicans don’t like Romney because he is a Mormon, maybe even most of them. In fact I believe some Republicans don’t like Romney because he professes to be a Christian. I am not one of either of them.

            I don’t like Romney because he is a two-face and because his decisions and his associations peg him as a liberal, a panderer, and a stooge for banksters and globalists. And since I think he is a two-face, I don’t care what he has to “say” about his claimed johnny come lately conversion to social conservatism because I have no reason to believe he is not lying, just to garner some votes from the gullible.

            Now if he wants to spend the next seven years working hard to promote and protect social conservative issues and donate some of his wealth to real social conservative causes, And distance himself from the CFR, the CFR’s policy positions, and purge his campaign staff of CFR agents of influence, then I will accept his conversion as authentic.

            By his fruit I will judge him. But somehow I doubt he will change his stripes.

            Being from the west, I can understand how you fail to recognize the importance of traditional family values as taught in the churches of the South and their standing as a bulwark of traditionalist Southern conservative ideology. And when I say “the Churches” I am referring to the Baptist Churches and closely related churches which are the dominant churches of the south. Unlike the Catholic north and west, the south is dominated by Baptist Theology which affects people’s politics more profoundly than does the Catholic Theology in most of the rest of the country. The issues of life, marriage, suicide, the death penalty, and religious freedom dominate here, not just in the pulpit, but in the congregation and Southern society at large.

            Whereas the Republicans of the north are dominated by the finance and country club crowd often with their illegal nannies and little use for moral issues like abortion.

            And the Republicans of the west are dominated by the let it all hang out, do whatever feels good and leave me alone crowd.

            And those in the middle states are dominated by those who mainly care about lowering their taxes and raising their farm subsidy.

            Of all of these groups the largest who have been consistently in the GOP camp are those in the Traditionalist Southern States.

            Have a look at this map of dominant religious groups:

            Unlike the north and the west whose practice of religion is mainly ceremonial and lukewarm at best. The beliefs of the people of the south go to their core and for most of them it is central to their life style, their politics, their families, and the education of their children. Here it is not just a Sunday ritual forgotten by lunch time, it is a life long, life changing commitment.

            So for Southern Christians to see a man who claims to be a Christian but bears little or no christian fruit with his life or his money and instead panders to groups that support vice and global governance in furtherance of (he hopes) his political career, this has a tendency to make some people vomit.

            And let me had here that political battles are not won on logical or legal arguments as you have attempted do in your defense of Romney, they are won through effective marketing of a valuable product and it doesn’t matter how pretty you dress up your product or how sweet its music is to your ears, if it stinks of the sewer, it doesn’t sell.

            BTW when I say Christian Conservative, I don’t mean a conservative who happens to be Christan maybe one day a week, I mean a Christian who is conservative in his/her theology every day of the week and in everything he or she does.

        • mom2oneson

          if Romney is on the ticket? I don’t really understand how these things work but I can’t imagine red states in the south or midwest turning blue because he is a mormon. I think he could have won a lot of the swing states I think they are called like FL and PA and OH. Him and Guliani would have been a good ticket for winning or him and a woman.

      • mbecker908
    • 6eorge Jetson

      both for and against, and so while it may be true that a candidate of Romney level magnetism didn’t quite succeed after a one-term governorship, I’m not so sure that bar can’t be overcome by a candidate of Palin level magnetism.

  • Scope

    Romney changed his positions as fast as my husband chages lanes on the roadway. I don’t believe Palin has ever done that. She sticks to the principles she believes in. Romney sticks to the “finger in wind” position of the day.
    Romney, on Fox news a few days ago told everyone that they have to fight against the Obama Administration, and the Libs. I laughed when he told Obama that the population doesn’t need government run healthcare. I guess government run Romney Care in Mass. is yet another position change, especially since it has bombed. I don’t see any comparison between Romney and Palin, other than they were both Governors.

  • Scope

    Romney changed his positions as fast as my husband chages lanes on the roadway. I don’t believe Palin has ever done that. She sticks to the principles she believes in. Romney sticks to the “finger in wind” position of the day.
    Romney, on Fox news a few days ago told everyone that they have to fight against the Obama Administration, and the Libs. I laughed when he told Obama that the population doesn’t need government run healthcare. I guess government run Romney Care in Mass. is yet another position change, especially since it has bombed. I don’t see any comparison between Romney and Palin, other than they were both Governors.

  • StandardCandle

    I couldn’t agree more that this is the right move for Sarah Palin and for her family. She will be free to be a strong advocate for conservative principles for a long time to come, and I don’t see her shying away from the ravenous media, but challenging them head on without all these ridiculous ethics lawsuits being thrown at her.

    I will support Palin in any decision she makes, this to me shows what a statesman/woman should be. Her stepping down was a matter of integrity not expedience… and i’m with you Josh on the calling out of fools…